My blog has moved! http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/
|
 |
Twitter Feed for My Recent Blog Posts and Other Tweets |
My blog has moved! http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/
|
All Parts of the Body in Ministry
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Part 7 of series: The Church as the Body of Christ
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In my last post I explained how the Apostle Paul uses the image of the body to describe the unity and diversity of the church. Moreover, according to Paul, God has formed the body of Christ so that the less obviously honorable parts get greater honor. “This makes for harmony among the members,” Paul notes, “so that all the members care for each other equally” (1 Cor 12:25). All the members care for each other equally! This sounds so idyllic, so democratic, so oddly unlike the extraordinarily hierarchical Roman empire . . . and so different from the church that many of us are so familiar with. Therefore, as we begin to think about the implications of mutual care, we may start wondering, “Paul, are you sure? All the members have the same care for each other? Is this really true? Aren’t some people uniquely gifted and set apart as caregivers? People like pastors or deacons?”
In order to grasp Paul’s point here, we must know something about the church in the first-century. The word “church” conjures up a clear picture in our minds: an amply-sized building with obvious religious symbolism, members sitting in rows facing an altar or stage, and identified leaders who do most of the ministry for the members who receive it. None of these features could have been found in the Corinthian church! Gatherings were held primarily in homes, with the maximum size determined by the house (probably fifty people or less). Members sat or stood so as to face each other, not in rows facing a stage, since there would be no stage in home. Leadership was shared by all the church members, with each expected to minister as empowered by the Spirit. There were no clergy in the earliest churches, none who did most of the minister while others received it. Every believer in Jesus was a minister in his body.
Consequently, when Paul calls all the members to care for each other equally, he does not envision an American megachurch with thousands of members and dozens of professional staff, or even the typical congregation with a couple hundred members and one pastor. Paul is picturing something much more like our contemporary small groups: intimate circles of people who worship, pray, and learn together.
Though our contemporary forms of church differ considerably from Paul’s, we ought not to dismiss his call for mutual care, even if this upsets our expectations for church. Many people go to church quite intentionally to receive professional care from professional clergy. They want excellent teaching, inspirational leadership, and tender pastoral care. As a pastor, I would say that these expectations are not unfair. But I would add that those who receive such benefits ought also to share them to others.
For sixteen years, my job as pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church was to provide pastoral care that equipped each member of the church to care for one another and to reach out to the world (Eph 4:12). We should evaluate my tenure as pastor not by how much people liked my sermons or liked me as a pastor, but by how much they were encouraged and instructed through me to be ministers of Jesus Christ. Now that I’ve been away from Irvine for just about a year, one of the things that gives me the most joy is hearing how people in the church are continuing to serve the Lord, and even moreso now than before.
When I was new to Irvine Presbyterian Church, I preached a sermon on the ministry of all of God’s people. Some who heard this sermon were excited, eager to get going in Christ’s service. But others weren’t so happy with me. One man objected after the service: “Hey, it sounds like you’re just trying to get out of doing your job! You want us to do it for you! But you’re the minister and were the people you’re supposed to minister to. That’s why we pay you.” (Photo: The fellowship hall of Irvine Presbyterian Church, where we worshiped when I first arrived at Irvine Presbyterian Church, before we built our sanctuary.)
As a part of the caring community of Irvine Presbyterian Church, I was not trying to get out of my job, but rather, to share it. I was seeking to draw others into the work of ministry, in faithfulness to the biblical truth that all members are to care for each other. Theologically speaking, that’s what I should have been doing as pastor. Practically speaking, I could never in a millennium have met all of the pastoral needs in my own congregation. How could I care personally for 750 members and their children?
As pastor of a church, I was not like the team on the field, working hard while being cheered on by my congregational crowd. Rather, I was like the player-coach of the team. I did get in the game, but my primary job was to help the team, that is, the congregation, play excellently, with each member contributing effectively.
Sometimes folks respond negatively to an obvious implication of Paul’s teaching on mutual care within the body. As I was lecturing on this subject in a seminary class, one of my students almost exploded with concern:
“Wait a just a minute!” she demanded emphatically. “Did I hear you right? Are you saying that we are dependent on each other spiritually? I don’t like that at all. What you’re telling me is that my spiritual well-being is dependent on other people. That means if they check out and aren’t involved, then I am hurt. I don’t like that one bit. I don’t want to be dependent on others that way.”
“I appreciate your honesty,” I responded, trying to keep my cool. “But, you know, your quarrel really isn’t with me. This isn’t my idea of church. As near as I can tell, this is God’s idea. This is the way God made the body of Christ. So if you’ve got a problem, you really need to take it up with God!”
I must confess, however, that a part of me agrees completely with my troubled student. I don’t like depending on others either, to be frank. I like to be tough and independent and self-sufficient. I prefer to control my own destiny. Like many of my gender, I don’t ask for directions when driving or seek help at Home Depot. The idea of needing others within the church makes me exceedingly uncomfortable.
But for those of us who want to be self-contained Christians, the truth gets even worse. I’ll explain tomorrow.
Topics: Church as Body of Christ | No Comments »
We Are a Body Standing on Its Head
By Mark D. Roberts | Monday, October 20, 2008
Part 6 of series: The Church as the Body of Christ
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
So far in this series I’ve begun to explore what it means for the church to be the body of Christ. We’ve seen how Paul, in trying to instruct the Corinthians, used the image of the body. But he was not the first in his time to utilize body imagery in reference to human community.
The Roman historian Livy wrote a few decades before Paul. He told the story of a time when angry masses in Rome protested against their upper class rulers. One of these patrician leaders, Menius Agrippa, prevented a riot by using the analogy of the body to put the masses in their place. There was a time, Agrippa said, when the more notable parts of the body – like the head – tired of providing for the stomach. But when these apparently important parts stopped providing food for the stomach, the whole body suffered. So, according to Agrippa, the body only works best when the parts play their own role. Those who are on top must remain so; those who have less privilege must remain so as well. With this analogy the protest was quelled, the plebeians submitted to their patrician masters, and the hierarchical Roman order was upheld. (See Livy, History of Rome, 2.32.9-12.)
Paul also uses the metaphor of the body to defend the contribution of each part to the health of the whole. But then he adds an insight almost completely opposed to the reasoning of Menius Agrippa:
In fact, some of the parts that seem weakest and least important are really the most necessary. And the parts we regard as less honorable are those we clothe with the greatest care. So we carefully protect from the eyes of others those parts that should not be seen, while other parts do not require this special care. So God has put the body together in such a way that extra honor and care are given to those parts that have less dignity.(1 Cor 12:22-24).
For Paul, as for Agrippa, the stomach is necessary. But the writers part company with Paul’s observation that the weakest parts – the stomach, for example – deserve extra honor. If the Roman state is like a body, then the lower class stomach gives honor to the upper class head, the stronger, more presentable part. In the body of Christ, the opposite is true. That’s the way God designed it.
To those Corinthians who boasted in their spiritual accomplishments, therefore, Paul brings a word of rebuke. The ones they would consider less honorable are, in fact, worthy of greater honor. The weak and unworthy stomach gets the limelight while the apparently glorious head gets the shadows. Or, for those who picture the body with the head on top, the body of Christ is doing a headstand. From a worldly point of view, everything is upside down.
If you spend time in a healthy church, you’ll see this inversion again and again. When I was an associate pastor at Hollywood Presbyterian Church, I had responsibility for the educational ministries. Every now and then I’d wander around on Sunday mornings, checking on classes for all ages. I remember once peeking in a classroom for three-year olds. Sitting on the floor was an immaculately dressed woman who was reading a story to a group of children. In her professional life this woman was a vice-president of one of the country’s most prestigious corporations. But as she got down on a three-year old level, literally, only her clothing gave away her worldly success. Within the body of Christ this powerful, honorable woman was a humble servant of powerless, undistinguished children.
We will always feel the pressure to adopt the values of the culture around us, to get the body of Christ back into a more socially acceptable position. But the church of Jesus Christ must find a way to stand on its head, rejecting cultural norms in favor of the unique priorities of God.
Topics: Church as Body of Christ | 1 Comment »
Sunday Inspiration from The High Calling
By Mark D. Roberts | Sunday, October 19, 2008
Learning from God’s Vengeance, Part 2
For it is the day of the LORD’s revenge,
the year when Edom will be paid back for all it did to Israel.
I want to spend another day reflecting upon Isaiah 34. This chapter can be troubling because it seems to celebrate God’s vengeance. God seems to relish the thought of judging the nations. How is this picture of God consistent with the God revealed to us in Jesus, a God of love, mercy, and forgiveness? What in the world are we to take away from Isaiah 34?
For one thing, the vision of God’s judgment of the nation reminds us of God’s justice. He doesn’t just wink at sin as if it were no big deal. He doesn’t ignore our sin or excuse us because of familial and social influences. Sin matters profoundly to God. He hates it. He judges it. He condemns it. We might remember that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).
But that’s not the whole story. Romans 6:23 reads more completely: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.” Yet this gift, free for us, was extremely costly to God. It cost the sacrifice of Jesus. God himself, through the Son, took God’s own vengeance and judgment. He suffered the wages of sin—death—so that we might not have to. Thus, the picture of God’s vengeance not only reminds us how much God hates sin, but also how much God loves us.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: Are you ever inclined to minimize your sin? When? Why? Do you ever minimize God’s love for you? When? Why? How can you hold together God’s justice and his love, his vengeance and his mercy?
PRAYER: Dear Lord, the more I consider just how much you hate sin, including my sin, the more I am amazed by the lavishness of your love and grace. It cost you greatly to do that which was necessary to forgive me. You did this out of love. What a wonder!
May I live each day remembering how much you care about right and wrong. May I never forget that you are a God of justice, a God who condemns sin. Yet may I also live each day remembering how much you love me. May I live in the joyful freedom of your forgiveness, not so that I might sin more, but so that I might give myself to you in a life of consistent worship and gratitude. Amen.
Topics: Sunday Inspiration | 1 Comment »
Texas Wildflowers
By Mark D. Roberts | Saturday, October 18, 2008
Before I moved to Texas, I never associated this state with wildflowers. But now, after a year living in Texas, wildflowers are right at the top of my list when it comes to what I associate with my new state.
The photo above shows some yellow flowers along Interstate 10 on my drive to work. I’m pretty sure they’re Maximillian Sunflowers. They’re everwhere this time of year. In the photo below, you can see a few of these flowers along the right side of the road. The bike rider is my son, as we were on a recent ride not too far from home.
Here’s a close up of the flowers as the blow in the autumn Texas wind.
Topics: Only in Texas | 1 Comment »
Diverse Yet United
By Mark D. Roberts | Friday, October 17, 2008
Part 5 of series: The Church as the Body of Christ
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In order to help the Corinthian Christians understand who they were as God’s people, the Apostle Paul used the image of the body. In my last post, I explained that he mixed metaphors a bit in revealing that every single Christian is immersed into the body of Christ. Generally we don’t think of a solid being immersed in another solid. By this odd image, Paul emphasizes the extent to which we are necessarily and deeply connected as Christians, whether we realize it or not. We are all members of the same body.
Paul continues his discussion of the church as a body by noting that “the human body has many parts, but the many parts make up only one body. So it is with the body of Christ” (1 Cor 12:12). As his argument develops, he shows how silly it would be to expect all Christians to be the same. “Suppose the whole body were an eye,” Paul suggests, “then how would you hear? Or if your whole body were just one big ear, how could you smell anything? . . . What a strange thing a body would be if it had only one part! (1 Cor 12:17, 19). What a hilarious image! Just picture the human body as one giant eye or ear – hardly a body at all! The human body, if it is to be a real body and not a monstrosity, must be composed of different parts. So it is with the church. Those Corinthians who devalue the contribution of others because it is not like their own stand corrected by the humorous picture of a monstrous eye.
Yet if the parts of the body are different, that does not make them separate from each other, because “the many parts make up only one body” (1 Cor 12:12). Each individual part of the body is necessarily connected to the whole body. Thus there is a fundamental unity among the diverse body parts. In the body of Christ, the distinct parts, so variable and different from each other, are unified as one body. Thus Paul wraps up his analogy by saying, “Now all of you together are Christ’s body, and each one of you is a separate and necessary part of it” (1 Cor 12:27). It’s that simple: one body, many parts; one unified body made up of diverse parts.
That’s simple to say, I might add, but not to do. Most Christian communities have a very difficult time living with diversity. Uniformity is so much more comfortable. If we all look about the same, dress about the same, talk about the same, and vote about the same, church is so much simpler. If we all agree on music styles and sermons lengths, worship wars are fought on somebody else’s turf, not our own. But, unfortunately for our comfort, that’s not what it means to be the church of Jesus Christ. God has intentionally composed the body of Christ to be diverse. In our efforts to make it uniform, we end up like Victor Frankenstein, creating a monster rather than that which God designed. Uniformity of basic belief is essential for Christian unity, of course, but most of us yearn for uniformity that touches far more than theological fundamentals.
If we are going to live in unity as the diverse body of Christ, we need divine help. We need to love as God has loved us in Christ, which is exactly why Paul follows his discussion of the body in 1 Corinthians 12 with his famous “Love Chapter” in 1 Corinthians 13.
As I mentioned earlier in this series, Paul was not the first to apply the image of a body to human community. But his use of the body imagery in 1 Corinthians 12 was quite different from what the Corinthians might have expected. I’ll explain what I mean in my next post in this series.
Topics: Church as Body of Christ | 1 Comment »
Christian Fondue?
By Mark D. Roberts | Thursday, October 16, 2008
Part 4 of series: The Church as the Body of Christ
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In my last post in this series, I explained that the kind of individualism we see among American Christians was prefigured in first-century Corinth. Like us, the Corinthians lived in a culture of individualistic self-promotion. Thus they found it natural to fit their Christianity to their cultural mold.
Yet the Apostle Paul, who had founded the church in Corinth, recognized that individualism was antithetical to the Christian life. He wrote the letter we know as 1 Corinthians to help the young disciples in Corinth live in genuine community together. (Photo: Excavations of Ancient Corinth. Note the Temple of Apollo to the right. Photo from Holy Land Photos, used with permission.)
Paul could have tried to correct the Corinthian problem by giving a quick series of commands: “Don’t sleep with your stepmother. Don’t sue each other. Don’t eat in pagan temples. Don’t enjoy your own elegant supper while others go hungry. Don’t boast about your spiritual endowments.” But Paul wanted to do more than rebuke the Corinthians and redirect their behavior. (Besides, given what we know about this particular group of Christians, they would not have received Paul’s naked admonishments too happily.)
In his letter, Paul seeks to instruct his church so that their behavior might flow from a right understanding of Christian theology. Rather than simply shouting, “Don’t be individualistic,” Paul helps the Corinthians to comprehend who they are as a community formed by God. He does this by using the image of the human body. This would have been a familiar analogy to the recipients of Paul’s letter, since many in the Roman world besides Paul used the image of the body as a way to talk about human relationships and institutions. But, as we’ll see, some of Paul’s emphases would have come as quite a surprise.
He begins his instruction by writing:
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Cor 12:12-13).
According to Paul, we have all been baptized into Christ’s body by one Spirit (1 Cor 12:12). The Greek verb translated as “to baptize” literally means “to dip” or “to immerse” something in a liquid. It’s a little hard to envision something being immersed in a solid physical body. In fact, the “dipped into a body” image is what we call a mixed metaphor. It wouldn’t get a high grade in a high school writing assignment, but it does draw attention to the fact that individual believers are joined in some profound way to a body.
If Paul had been writing his letter in the 1960s rather than the 50s, he might have been tempted to speak of the beginning of discipleship as Christian fondue. If you’re as old as I am, you may remember the fondue craze that his the U.S. in the 60s. Throughout America people were imitated the Swiss by dipping bread into hot pots of cheese, and topping it off with fruit dipped into steaming chocolate. Paul might have said that when we put our faith in Christ, we are dipped into the Spirit much like a piece of bread into a Fondue pot of cheese. But this metaphor wouldn’t have been quite right, because Christians remain immersed in the Spirit, unlike the pieces of bread that, once saturated, are eaten by eager Fonduers.
Paul, of course, didn’t have available to him an image from our day that makes the point a little more elegantly. If he were writing in 2008 AD rather than 50 AD, Paul might say, “by the surgery of the Spirit, we have all been transplanted into Christ’s body as vital organs.” In since he was writing two millennia earlier, Paul uses the language of immersion to make sure that we don’t consider our connection to the body as something extrinsic and temporary. We belong permanently and essentially.
Our immersion within the body happens by the work of the Holy Spirit in the moment of our conversion. The theological fact of our connection to the body depends upon God’s action, not upon our own. Whether we choose to live in light of what God has done is up to us, however. Yet if you are a vital organ that has been transplanted into Christ’s body, you can see how counterproductive it would be for you to live apart from that body. Positively, both the body of Christ and your own life would be strengthened through your connection to the body, but weakened by your disconnection from it.
Finally, notice that Paul clearly states that “we have all been baptized into Christ’s body.” Nobody escapes this immersion by the Spirit. No one can rightly claim to be a Christian who has somehow avoided this work of the Holy Spirit. Those who always plays hooky from church to commune alone with God have simply chosen to live as amputated body parts, no matter how much this might impair their own spiritual health, not to mention the health of the church that is deprived of their participation.
Topics: Church as Body of Christ | 2 Comments »
Corinthian Individualism and Paul’s Response
By Mark D. Roberts | Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Part 3 of series: The Church as the Body of Christ
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
So far in this series on the church as the body of Christ, I’ve examined the behavior of the very first Christians in Acts 2. As soon as they put their faith in Christ as the Messiah and Savior, they gathered with others who shared their faith. The Christian life was, for the first believers, something to be experienced in community.
Americans, on the contrary, often visualize and experience the Christian life as a private, individual matter. We are free to get together with other believers if we wish, but this should never be required of Christians. Not surprisingly, we’re very good at projecting our American individualism into our understanding and practice of following Jesus.
Yet we Americans are not the first Christians to try to blend Christianity with cultural individualism. In fact, we are very much like some other Christians we read about in the New Testament: the Corinthians.
The apostle Paul planted a church in Corinth, a major city in southern Greece. After spending a year and a half in this location, his travels took him elsewhere. But Paul continued to receive reports about his Corinthian church, reports that distressed him greatly. Those new Christians were doing what comes naturally, adapting their Christian life to the values of their own culture. In the process they were losing touch with the intimate fellowship that ought to characterize Christian living.
Because Paul could not travel to Corinth right away to set things aright, he wrote a letter we know as 1 Corinthians. His introduction highlights themes to be developed throughout the letter, especially the importance of fellowship: “We are writing to the church of God in Corinth, you who have been called by God to be his own holy people” (1 Cor 1:2). Paul describes this calling in another way a few verses later: “God is faithful, through whom you were called into the intimate fellowship [koinonia] of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor 1:9, my translation).
This fellowship, both with Christ and with his people, was threatened by the individualistic attitudes of the Corinthians. “As long as I get my religious jolt every now and then, that’s all that really matters,” they were saying. One man believed his Christian freedom gave him the right to live in a sexual relationship with his stepmother (1 Cor 5:1), no matter what the social consequences. Others sought to enhance or defend their honor by suing their fellow Christians in secular court, bringing shame to the church (1 Cor 6:1-8). (Sound familiar???) Others thought it was just fine for them to eat meat served in pagan temples, even if their behavior was hurting other church members (1 Cor 8). When the church gathered for a common meal, during which they would celebrate the Lord’s Supper, wealthier church members ate elaborate meals while poorer members went hungry (1 Cor 11:17-34). Some of the Corinthians took pride in their spiritual prowess, their supposed mystical experiences, putting down others who were lacking such spiritual demonstrations (1 Cor 12-14). All in all, the Corinthian Christians exemplified the kind of “me first” Christianity that runs rampant in America today.
Before we condemn the Corinthians for their self-centeredness, however, we should remember two things. First, they were simply buying into the individualism and pride of their own culture. Corinth was unique among Roman cities for the opportunities it afforded to individuals for economic, and therefore social, advancement. Whereas in most of the Roman Empire, where one’s socio-economic position at death was predetermined by one’s birth, in Corinth a person could get ahead with plenty of business acumen and public boasting. Even as we tend to shape our Christianity according to the mold of our culture, so did the Corinthian believers. The Christian life was another context for individual freedom and popular success.
This observation points to the second factor we should remember before blaming the Corinthians. We Americans are in so many ways just like them! Not only do we let our culture warp our Christianity, but also we tend to echo the “It’s all fine as long as I get mine” individualism of Roman Corinth. The man who communes with God so well on the golf course doesn’t even think that his absence from church has a negative effect on others. And, frankly, he really doesn’t care as long as he is tight with God. The same is true with the woman who listens to praise music on her iPod and podcasts sermons from her favorite preachers, but never bothers to go to church in person. The New York Times story hits the nail on the head: “Missed Church? Download It to Your IPod,” except that it’s becoming increasingly common for Christians to choose downloading over church. (Photo: Check out this promotional campaign by a church in New Zealand.)
Certainly not everyone in the Corinthian church demonstrated the self-centeredness we have been noticing. Some were hurt by the behavior of their spiritual brothers and sisters. Some even considered themselves unimportant to the church, since they could claim no spiritual distinction. Whereas some bragged about how much they did for the community, others accepted their own worthlessness.
None of this was acceptable to Paul. So he had to come up with a way of helping the Corinthian Christians understand what the Christian life was really all about, and how much it was a matter of sharing life together. In order to illustrate this perspective, Paul described the church as the body of Christ. I’ll get into this in more detail next time.
Topics: Church as Body of Christ | 7 Comments »
Lone Ranger Christianity
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Part 2 of series: The Church as the Body of Christ
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In my last post I began a blog series on the church as the body of Christ. I examined the story of the church’s birthday in Acts 2. There, the very first believers in Jesus gathered together in fellowship. For them, the Christian life was quite clearly something to be shared with others. Often, we in America aren’t so sure about that.
When I was a boy, I loved watching The Lone Ranger on television. He was a mysterious masked man who, along with his faithful partner, Tonto, and his powerful steed, Silver, stood up for justice in the Old West. His famous call, “Hi-yo, Silver! Away!” still rings in my ears. And I will never be able to hear the Overture to Rosssini’s opera, William Tell, without picturing the Long Ranger racing along on Silver. (Photo: Clayton Moore as the Lone Ranger, with Jay Silverheels as Tonto. If you want to hear a unique version of the William Tell Overture, check out this video.)
In many ways, the Lone Ranger epitomizes American individualism. The goal of doing it my way touches just about everything we do, including our way of living the Christian life. When we became Christians, certainly a few of us expressed our new found faith in Christ by plugging in to some sort of Christian fellowship. But many of us tried to go it alone. We stood back, and still do stand back from churches and other Christian organizations, sometimes confused about how to connect, sometimes doubtful that such connection is necessary, sometimes even fearful that sharing with other Christians will dilute the intense, personal reality of our faith.
Others of us started out in relationship with other Christians, but for some reason we backed away from Christian community. Perhaps life was simply too busy to keep church participation in the long list of pressing priorities. Perhaps we were disappointed by Christians who failed to live according to the example of Jesus (as we all do!). I remember one woman in my church complaining bitterly about the inadequacies of her Christian fellowship group: “We have such a hard time getting along. It’s crazy! The church is supposed to be like a family!” My response took her by surprise. “That’s exactly the problem,” I said. “We are a family. How many families do you know that live in perfect harmony? In fact, most of experience more conflict within our families than in any other relationships.” But, however true my observation might have been, it doesn’t exactly make us want to run out and join a church! (And if you’ve followed my recent writings on the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), you know how much of a dysfunctional family we are.)
Virtually every survey of American religious belief and practice concludes that while the vast majority of Americans believe in God, only a minority regularly attend religious services. Among those who attend, a much smaller percentage of people actually become meaningfully involved in the life of a religious community. For us, personal faith means private faith. If I choose to share it with someone else, that’s just fine. But it’s certainly not expected or required.
In fact, many Americans are downright suspicious about the negative influences of religious communities, In a survey, 80% of Americans (including many self-confessed Christians) agreed that “an individual should arrive at his or her own religious beliefs independent of any churches or synagogues” (Wade Clark Roof, A Generation of Seekers [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993] p. 256). If we choose our beliefs all by ourselves, then we have every right to practice these beliefs all by ourselves.
The privatization of faith reflects the individualism that dwells deep in the American soul. Though we like to join lots of voluntary organizations and have lots of casual friendships, we are wary of committing ourselves in a way that would compromise our personal freedom. Though we enjoy touting our ideas, we are more reticent to share the contents of our hearts, especially something so personal as faith in Christ.
I can’t tell you how many times I have had the following conversation with a person whose parent has died and who needs a pastor for a memorial service.
“Well, if you’re coming to me, then I suspect that your father wasn’t involved in his own church,” I say.
“Yes, that’s right,” the daughter says. “He went to church a little when I was young, but then he pretty much stopped going. Said you didn’t have to go to church to be religious. But my dad was very religious in his heart.”
“Oh, that’s good. What can you tell me about your dad’s faith?” I ask.
“I know it was important to him because he read his Bible every day. I’m pretty sure he prayed too, every day,” she responds.
“Can you tell me anything more about the content of your father’s faith?” I inquire.
“Not much at all. My dad never talked about his faith. When I became a Christian and wanted to chat with him, he said those things are too personal to talk about.”
Too personal to talk about. That’s the American way. And for many Christians, that becomes a license to avoid church and other forms of Christian community, except on Christmas, Easter, and when weddings or funerals are needed. For these folks, their favorite verse in the Bible seems to be, “I can commune with God just as well on the golf course as in church, maybe better.”
These days, younger Christians among the Buster and Mosaic generations seem to be dissatisfied with the individualistic Christianity of their parents’ generation. They long for deeper community. But they tend to be skeptical about the church. In many cases, this skepticism has come from personal experience of a church, or even several churches. Those church folk who were supposed to imitate the love of Christ turned out to be judgmental, prideful, narrow-minded, and even hateful. Churches seems more interested in getting more members and building more buildings than in helping their members to be more like Christ. So many among the younger generations are cut off from church, not because they want to be Lone Ranger Christians, but because they don’t trust the church. (For a sobering account of how folks under 30 view the church, read unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity… and Why It Matters by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons.)
How different we are from the first Christians who, as we saw in my last post, followed up their Pentecost conversion with a commitment to intimate fellowship with other believers. But we’re not the first Christians with an individualistic bent. We see this very sort of thing in the New Testament, as I’ll explain in my next post in this series.
Topics: Church as Body of Christ | 5 Comments »
The Church as the Body of Christ: Introduction
By Mark D. Roberts | Monday, October 13, 2008
Part 1 of series: The Church as the Body of Christ
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
For the last three months I have been blogging about the distressing condition of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Yet, given all of my frustrations and criticisms, I have not given up on the Church. Oh, I’m not sure what will come of the PC(USA), but no matter what happens with my denomination, I’m solidly committed to the Church of Jesus Christ.
So I’ve decided to do a blog series on the church. Specifically, I’m going to talk about the church as the body of Christ. Now I realize this isn’t a new idea for most Christians. In fact, the notion that the church is like a body is almost 2,000 years old. But I think I’ll be able to say some things about the church as the body of Christ that aren’t commonly understood, even by Christians who think they know all there is to know about this subject.
Moreover, I believe there’s much to be gained by revisiting this common image from the New Testament. As we think about what the church should be, and as some of us try to figure out the role of denominations in the church, we would do well to return to the biblical basics. And little is more basic than the simple affirmation that the church is the body of Christ.
If you’ve read my book After “I Believe,” you will recognize some basic ideas and even some of the text in this blog series. What I’m putting up is an greatly expanded and updated version of some things I wrote several years ago. (After “I Believe” is now out of print, by the way. You can probably get a copy from eBay for a penny.)
But before we get to the specific topic of the church as the body of Christ, we need to celebrate a birthday.
The Church’s Birthday
It must have been quite a scene. The streets and squares of Jerusalem teeming with Jewish pilgrims from throughout the world. The tempting smells of food hawked by street vendors. The din of raucous voices shouting in dozens of different languages all at once. A thrill in the air as the festival of the spring harvest was about to begin.
And then, above the bedlam, clear voices were heard, strong and joyous voices, voices proclaiming the wonders of God, voices exclaiming in numerous languages, yet somehow strangely harmonious.
As the crowds rushed to see what was happening, they gathered around a small band of Jewish pilgrims, men and women whose clothing and accents gave away their Galilean origins. Oddly enough, this rather unimpressive bunch from a small geographic region seemed to be speaking in all the languages known by the crowd. Each pilgrim heard the praise of God in his or her own tongue.
“How can this be?” some of the onlookers queried. “How can these simple Galileans know so many different languages? What’s going on here?”
Others in the mob were unimpressed. “They’re just drunk,” they sneered. “Ignore them!”
At this point the crowd had grown to several thousand. One of those who had been praising God in a foreign tongue stepped forward and hailed the crowd, “Friends, we are not drunk. It’s too early in the morning for that! Look, this is what the prophet Joel predicted centuries ago, when he promised that God would one day pour out his Spirit on all flesh. Now it’s happening!”
The speaker, whose name was Peter, went on to say some disturbing but wonderful things about someone named Jesus, a man once supposed to be God’s savior for Israel, but who had been put to death by the Jewish and Roman leaders of Judea seven weeks earlier. Yet, Peter claimed, Jesus rose from the dead as proof of his divine appointment as Lord and Messiah!
At first the crowd didn’t know quite how to react. Were they being accused of something? Or was this some sort of invitation? A few felt their hearts moved by Peter’s announcement. “What should we do now?” they shouted emphatically.
Peter replied, “Turn away from your sins and turn to God. Be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you too will receive the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, just like we have.”
At first just a few came forward to accept Peter’s offer and receive baptism. But then others followed. Soon a mass of humanity crowded around the Galileans. By the end of the day, about three thousand had heeded Peter’s call. They turned away from their sins and trusted Jesus for salvation. They were baptized as a sign of their new faith in him as God’s anointed Savior.
On this day some 2,000 years ago, the church was born. We call the church’s birthday Pentecost, which is an English version of the Greek word meaning “fifty.” The Jewish harvest celebration occurred fifty days after Passover, hence Pentecost. (Photo: “Pentecost” by Jean Restout II, 1732).
What did the church do on its birthday? What did three thousand new Christians do next, after then turned from their sins and acknowledged Jesus as Savior? How did they begin their life in the Messiah? The Acts of the Apostles provides a tidy summary of early Christian activities:
So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs were being done by the apostles. All who believed were together and had all things in common (Acts 2:41-44).
Notice that the new believers joined themselves promptly to the band of Jesus’ followers. They continued to hang around the apostles, those who had been sent by Jesus to bear witness to him, in order to learn more about their faith. They also devoted themselves to “fellowship” (koinonia in Greek). The first believers began to participate in that intimate fellowship with God and God’s people that is so essential to Christian living.
This passage accentuates the human dimension of koinonia. The new converts shared intimate fellowship with the apostles and, by implication, with others who believed in Jesus. Notice that all of these folk “met together constantly” and “shared everything they had” (Acts 2:44). Their fellowship was far more than commenting on Peter’s Pentecost sermon over coffee and bagels after church. They shared their possessions, prayers, and praises (Acts 2:45-47). They enjoyed meals together, during which they remembered Jesus’ death on the cross as he had instructed his followers to do.
The earliest Christians seemed to sense, and no doubt were taught by the apostles, that what they had just done by believing in Jesus should be fleshed out in community with others who had done the same. They didn’t simply add some new religious beliefs to their worldview and go on with life as usual. Nor did they immediately withdraw from the crowd and engage in private devotions. Rather, they embraced the community of other Christians at the same time as they were embraced by that community. They were adopted into a new Christian family.
We Americans, on the contrary, have had a long history of thinking of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as mostly or exclusively a personal, private, individual matter. I’ll say more about this in my next post in this series.
Topics: Church as Body of Christ | 7 Comments »
Sunday Inspiration from The High Calling
By Mark D. Roberts | Sunday, October 12, 2008
Charging Ahead of God
This is what the Sovereign LORD,
the Holy One of Israel, says:
“Only in returning to me
and resting in me will you be saved.
In quietness and confidence is your strength.
But you would have none of it.”
The people of Israel were understandably frightened as the nation of Assyria threatened. Yet God has promised to protect them if they would rely on him. Nevertheless, Israel’s leaders decided to turn to Egypt as an ally, contrary to God’s will. They just couldn’t wait on the Lord or trust him. In response, the Lord rebuked Israel:
“Only in returning to me
and resting in me will you be saved.
In quietness and confidence is your strength.
But you would have none of it.”
If Israel would only turn away from their sin and turn to God, if Israel would only trust in him and rest in his promises, then the nation would be saved. But, as the Lord says, “you would have none of it.”
I can relate to Israel. Can you? Sometimes it is hard to trust in the Lord, to wait patiently. This is especially tough when it seems as if God is dawdling. My temptation is to charge ahead of him, to make things happen on my timetable. And, at times, I give in to this temptation.
Today I’m reminded that what was once true for Israel is still true for me today. I will be saved from the threats in my life only as I turn to God and rest in him. My strength comes, not from me, but from being quiet and trusting the Lord.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: Have you found that it’s hard to wait upon the Lord? Do you ever charge ahead of God? What helps you to trust God and be patient?
PRAYER: Dear Lord, how I need to hear this word today, and each day. My salvation comes from you and you alone. You will deliver me as I turn to you. You will take care of me as I rest in you.
Help me, Lord, to quiet my heart enough to receive your peace. May I trust in you more fully today, so that I might receive your strength.
All praise be to you, gracious God, my Savior, my Deliverer, my Safety, my Strength! Amen.
Daily Reflections from The High Calling.org
This devotional comes from The High Calling of Our Daily Work (www.thehighcalling.org). You can read my Daily Reflections there, or sign up to have them sent to your email inbox each day. This website contains lots of encouragement for people who are trying to live out their faith in the workplace.
Topics: Sunday Inspiration | 1 Comment »
A Texas Surprise
By Mark D. Roberts | Saturday, October 11, 2008
When I commute to and from work these days, driving about thirty minutes along Interstate 10 just outside of San Antonio, Texas, I keep seeing these giant trucks hauling giant white blades. This morning, for example, I saw four trucks that looked exactly like this:
Over the past year, I expect I’ve passed well over 500 hundred of this sort of truck hauling this sort of load. I’m almost sure that I’ve been seeing blades for wind turbines, the devices that produce electricity from wind. They’re shaped a little differently from the blades I’m familiar with, but I can’t figure out what else I am seeing.
When I moved to Texas last year, I drove through West Texas, where I was surprised to see acres upon acres of wind farms. I must confess that, as a Californian for most of my life, I figured that Texas as an “oil only” energy state. Thus I wasn’t expecting lots of wind farms.
Well, I discovered, even more to my surprise, that Texas gets more electricity from wind than any other state, almost doubling the amount of wind-power generated in California. Moreover, Texas has the largest windfarm in the world.
I also learned that T. Boone Pickens, one of the world’s wealthiest people, is investing billions in Texas wind power. He’s also working hard to get American independent from foreign oil, with wind as a central element of “The Pickens Plan.”
So much for my California green pride and bias against Texas! This state is leading the way in developing alternative energy sources. Who’d a thunk it?
Topics: Only in Texas | 5 Comments »
The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 16
By Mark D. Roberts | Friday, October 10, 2008
Part 16 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
Today I’ll finish this series on the PC(USA) and property. (Is that cheering I hear in the background?) I thought I’d review a few main points and add some concluding remarks.
The Book of Order of the PC(USA) states that all church property is “held in trust . . . for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” (G-8.0201). Taken out of context, this passage might suggest that any congregation that leaves the PC(USA) must always surrender its property. In fact, it seems that quite a few people, including many leaders of denominational bodies, interpret the “held in trust” clause in this manner. But, given the larger claims of the Book of Order, including the fact that the PC(USA) does not exist to advance itself, but rather to further the cause of Christ, and the fact that the PC(USA) explicitly acknowledges that our denomination is only one part of the Church of Jesus Christ, and the fact that we have a process for dismissing a congregation to another denomination, and the fact that we are committed to ecumenical partnerships with other denominations, it seems fully consistent with the Book of Order for a presbytery to dismiss a congregation with its property in certain situations. This is consistent with the larger mission and purpose of the PC(USA) because this whole denomination, property and all, exists for the use and benefit of Jesus Christ. Those who read the “held in trust” clause as preventing presbyteries from letting congregations leave with their property intact are missing the larger point of the Book of Order, not to mention the larger point of what it means to be part of the Church of Jesus Christ.
From a logical and theological point of view, I don’t think the Book of Order needs to be changed in order for presbyteries to feel both free and, at times, obligated to let congregations leave with their property. But I am aware that, in practice, congregations often feel intimidated by presbyteries when it comes to matters of property, and presbyteries often feel slighted by congregations that don’t consult with them before voting to leave the denomination. We have a huge lack of mutual trust, honesty, and grace in matters of church property.
For this reason, it might be necessary to amend the Book of Order in one way or another. I would be supportive of some amendment to G-8.0201. It might read something like this:
G-8.0201 Property Is Held in Trust
All property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the property is used in programs of a particular church or of a more inclusive governing body or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which exists for the use and benefit of Jesus Christ and his mission. Therefore, there may be situations in which legal ownership of church property should be transferred to another denomination or Christian ministry.
That’s not polished language, but you get my drift.
The way the Book of Order talks about the situations we’re facing in the PC(USA) is not, in my view, particularly helpful. We have a section that reads:
G-8.0601 Property of Church in Schism
The relationship to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) of a particular church can be severed only by constitutional action on the part of the presbytery. (G-11.0103i) If there is a schism within the membership of a particular church and the presbytery is unable to effect a reconciliation or a division into separate churches within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the presbytery shall determine if one of the factions is entitled to the property because it is identified by the presbytery as the true church within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). This determination does not depend upon which faction received the majority vote within the particular church at the time of the schism.
For one thing, I think the word “schism” is not especially helpful here. It is too inflammatory. When those in the PC(USA) describe those who leave as “schismatic” and those who leave describe the PC(USA) as “heretical” or “apostate,” we’ve left Christian truth and charity far behind. Nevertheless, this passage from the Book of Order appears to limit the actions of the presbytery, not to mention the work of the Spirit and the lordship of Christ. If I read it correctly, G-8.0601 says that if a church votes to leave the PC(USA), let’s say by a 80% to 20% vote, the presbytery can only “determine” that the 20% faction “is entitled to the property because it is identified by the presbytery as the true church within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” The presbytery does not seem to be empowered to recognize that the 80% group should keep its property, even in a situation where the 20% group wouldn’t be able to use it or doesn’t want to keep it. Doesn’t it seem better to say something like: “the presbytery shall determine how the property might best be used for the mission of Jesus Christ”?
If I’m reading G-8.0601 correctly (and I’d be happy to be shown that I’m wrong), then I think the Book of Order is making a theological and tactical mistake here. When a church leaves the denomination, the most important factor for determining who should own the property is not whether or not the church is a “true church within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” This shouldn’t be the main factor even when there is a minority of the congregation that votes to stay in the PC(USA). The most important question, and the only one that ultimately matters, is: “What is best for the kingdom of God?” Or, more simply, “What does Jesus want to do with his property?” It would be the height of arrogance to assume that Jesus always wants to keep PC(USA) property in the PC(USA).
In fact, some presbyteries have shown the kind of kingdom perspective I’m advocating. They have let churches leave the denomination with their property, sometimes at no expense to the church, sometimes selling the property to the church at a significant discount. But other presbyteries have taken a “PC(USA) only” approach to property ownership, and have, in fact, spent a whole lot of Jesus’ money fighting for the legal ownership to his property.
This move is terrible stewardship, but that’s not all. It’s also an example of the sort of narrow-minded institutionalism that is killing the PC(USA). The more we focus on the PC(USA) and its success, the less we’re focused on the kingdom of God and its success. Sometimes we get so wrapped up in our own self-preservation as a denomination that we forget our true mission. We forget the call of Jesus to deny ourselves and take up our cross. We forget that sacrifice isn’t expected only of individuals, but also of the church. We forget that we are to give ourselves away for the sake of the kingdom of God. We forget that all church property belongs truly to Jesus Christ.
Our intramural lawsuits are not actually protecting the PC(USA), but injuring it. For example, if you were looking for a church, would you want to join a denomination that sues former churches and sister denominations? I wouldn’t. Not in a million years! And neither do thousands upon thousands of potential Presbyterians. So, as we’re fighting each other for property, we’re chasing people away from the Presbyterian church. In our effort to save ourselves, we’re killing ourselves off.
Fights between presbyteries and churches over church property not only reflect terrible stewardship and suicidal institutionalism, but also damage the mission of Christ. The last General Assembly was absolutely right when it affirmed, in Resolution 04-28, that “litigation is deadly to the cause of Christ.” How many people are turned off, not just to the PC(USA), but also to the gospel by headlines about church lawsuits? I hate to think of the number. Our actions confirm the worst stereotypes of Christians as self-absorbed, institutionally-bound, materialistic, unloving hypocrites. I wonder if we’d continue on this path if we realized how many people we’re chasing away from Christ by our lawsuits and petty in-fighting.
What will save us from this mess? Nothing. The only hope comes if we ask the question differently. Who will save us from this mess? The answer comes clearly from Scripture, though the context isn’t at all similar. In writing to the Romans Paul says:
For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! (Romans 7:19-25)
Only Jesus Christ can save the PC(USA) from our sinful ways. Institutional renewal could take all sorts of forms. Yet what the PC(USA) looks like in the future or even whether there is a PC(USA) is not the main point. The main point is Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and Head of the Church. The main point is his mission and his glory.
I believe that what’s needed now more than ever in the PC(USA) is a widespread return to Christ. In the old days we’d call this repentance. We need to turn from our sin and turn to Christ. We need to turn from our self-interest and turn to Christ’s interest. We need to offer ourselves, our churches, and our properties to Christ, recognizing his lordship over all.
I’m not making this up because I’m so pious or clever. I’m simply restating what we Presbyterians say we believe. In fact, I will close this series by quoting the first section of the PC(USA) Book of Order. If you’ve never read this, it’s well worth your attention. And if you’ve read it before, I invite you to read it again.
G-1.0100 1. The Head of the Church
Christ Is Head of the Church
a. All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, who raised Christ from the dead and set him above all rule and authority, all power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body.
Christ Calls the Church Into Being
b. Christ calls the Church into being, giving it all that is necessary for its mission to the world, for its building up, and for its service to God. Christ is present with the Church in both Spirit and Word. It belongs to Christ alone to rule, to teach, to call, and to use the Church as he wills, exercising his authority by the ministry of women and men for the establishment and extension of his Kingdom.
Christ Gives the Church Its Faith and Life
c. Christ gives to his Church its faith and life, its unity and mission, its officers and ordinances. Insofar as Christ’s will for the Church is set forth in Scripture, it is to be obeyed. In the worship and service of God and the government of the church, matters are to be ordered according to the Word by reason and sound judgment, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Christ Is the Church’s Authority
d. In affirming with the earliest Christians that Jesus is Lord, the Church confesses that he is its hope and that the Church, as Christ’s body, is bound to his authority and thus free to live in the lively, joyous reality of the grace of God.
Thanks be to God! Amen.
Topics: PCUSA: Church Property | 5 Comments »
The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 15
By Mark D. Roberts | Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Part 15 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
As I’ve explained in two recent posts, on Thursday, June 26, 2008, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) approved Resolution 03-21. This resolution provided for the provision of funds from the General Assembly to presbyteries engaged in lawsuits with congregations that have left the PC(USA) and joined the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and have tried to keep their church property. An amendment to the resolution weakened its effectiveness by having all funding for the lawsuits come from special contributions.
Nevertheless, the symbolic statement of the Assembly was a strong one. They endorsed and encouraged lawsuits between churches and denominational bodies over church property. If a PC(USA) congregation votes to leave the denomination, it should be aware that its presbytery, with the approval of the General Assembly, will try to keep church property and will be prepared to go to court to ensure this result. Given the fact that the General Assembly didn’t actually provides funds from its budget, its clear that the symbolic statement was the main point. The vote on this resolution was meant to threaten and intimidate any congregations that might consider leaving the PC(USA). The Assembly’s vote said: “If you leave, we’ll keep your property, and will fight you in court to make sure we keep it. So beware!”
The next day, Friday, June 27, 2008, the General Assembly considered another resolution having to do with church property and litigation. Resolution 04-28 was co-authored by Robert Austell and Archie Smith. Austell, you may recall, was one of those General Assembly commissioners who spoke against Resolution 03-21. I quoted Austell’s remarks a couple of posts ago. As you might well imagine, the tone and substance of Austell’s resolution was radically different from that “go ahead and sue our fellow Presbyterians” resolution that passed on Thursday. Here is the whole text of Resolution 04-28:
The 218th General Assembly (2008) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
1. Directs the Stated Clerk to send this resolution to the presbyteries, synods, and sessions, indicating the will of the assembly that presbyteries and synods develop and make available to lower governing bodies and local congregations a process that exercises the responsibility and power “to divide, dismiss, or dissolve churches in consultation with their members” (Book of Order, G-11.0103i) with consistency, pastoral responsibility, accountability, gracious witness, openness, and transparency.
2. Believing that trying to exercise this responsibility and power through litigation is deadly to the cause of Christ, impacting the local church, other parts of the Body of Christ and ecumenical relationships, and our witness to Christ in the world around us, [the General Assembly] urges [congregations considering leaving the denomination,] presbyteries[,] and synods to implement a process using the following principles:
• Consistency: The local authority delegated to presbyteries is guided and shaped by our shared faith, service, and witness to Jesus Christ.
• Pastoral Responsibility: The requirement in G-11.0103i to consult with the members of a church seeking dismissal highlights the presbytery’s pastoral responsibility, which must not be submerged beneath other responsibilities.
• Accountability: For a governing body, accountability rightly dictates fiduciary and connectional concerns, raising general issues of property (G-8.0000) and specific issues of schism within a congregation (G-8.0600). But, full accountability also requires preeminent concern with “caring for the flock.”
• Gracious Witness: It is our belief that Scripture and the Holy Spirit require a gracious witness from us rather than a harsh legalism.
• Openness and Transparency: Early, open communication and transparency about principles and process of dismissal necessarily serve truth, order, and goodness, and work against seeking civil litigation as a solution.
The crucial affirmations in this resolution are those that have to do with litigation between churches. The resolution doesn’t mince words when it affirms that “trying to exercise this responsibility and power [for congregations leaving the denomination] through litigation is deadly to the cause of Christ.” This is because “Scripture and the Holy Spirit require a gracious witness from us rather than a harsh legalism.” So the process when congregations consider leaving should be open so as to “work against seeking civil litigation as a solution.”
In the Rationale that accompanied Resolution 04-28, Austell and Smith explain:
To be direct, if a church goes through the trauma of an internal split, wouldn’t we rather the members go to church anywhere than end up disillusioned and quitting on a local church and presbytery that have been to court in a protracted legal battle? Wouldn’t we rather lose some dirt or brick or even lose face than poison the well of witness in our community? As the resolution states, we believe litigation by Christians against Christians is deadly to the cause of Christ.
Not unlike me, Austell and Smith are hopeful about the potential for churches and presbyteries to deal graciously with the issues associated with a congregation’s departure:
What do we envision? We call on local church leadership and presbytery leadership to care pastorally for majority and minority groups in a church seeking dismissal. This could result in a final picture, not of two embittered enemies in court, but in mutual blessing and partnership in the midst of the sadness of parting. We envision presbytery leadership and local church leadership working together to bless and make way for a majority group and to take great care to relocate and shepherd a minority group. This could be the last great joint mission effort of two parts of Christ’s body who are focusing on different mission fields.
What happened with Resolution 04-28? Given the fact that only a day earlier the General Assembly had voted to supply funds for lawsuits over church property, even when these lawsuits were between denominational cousins and fellow Presbyterians (PC(USA) and EPC), and given the fact that the “sue your fellow Christians” resolution had won with 57% of the vote, you’d rightly expect that the General Assembly would reject Resolution 04-28 by about the same margin. After all, how could Austell and Smith expect an Assembly that had just approved to fund lawsuits among Christians to agree that such litigation is, in fact, “deadly to the cause of Christ”?
So what happened? Resolution 04-28 passed, with 76% of commissioners voting affirmatively (519 yes; 157 no; 8 abstain). How amazing! This means that around 200 commissioners who voted on Thursday to fund litigation between churches voted on Friday that such litigation was “deadly to the cause of Christ.” Whoa!
What are we to make of this discrepancy? Honestly, I don’t know. Were the 200 who switched sides hopelessly confused? Or were they just patting the New England Presbytery on the head by affirming their resolution but not funding it? Do these commissioners really believe that litigation between churches over church property is “deadly to the cause of Christ”? Or were they just trying to “make nice” in an effort to keep the PC(USA) together? Or are they convinced that litigation that is “deadly to the cause of Christ” is, nevertheless, necessary for the health of the PC(USA)? Or . . . ? I don’t know. You tell me.
This is part of what makes it so tricky and trying to remain faithful in the PC(USA). If the denomination would simply be clear about what it affirms – whether we’re talking about homosexuality, church property, the nature of Christ, or whatever – then we could decide where we stand and what to do about it. But the denomination is endlessly being “tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph 4:14). One day we vote to fund lawsuits against our fellowship Presbyterians. The next day we vote that such litigation is “deadly to the cause of Christ.” I wonder how much longer the PC(USA) will continue to affirm and do that which hurts the cause of Christ.
So is there a way out of the church property crisis? I’ve already made some suggestions in this series. In my next post I’ll sum up what I’ve said before and add a few final thoughts.
Topics: PCUSA: Church Property | 11 Comments »
The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 14
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Part 14 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In recent posts I’ve argued that the Presbytery of Eastern Oklahoma should allow the Kirk of the Hills to keep its property even though it has left the PC(USA) and joined the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. I’m not just singling out this one presbytery, however. I have made the case for a presbytery allowing a church to leave the denomination with its property if the church’s process is appropriate and if the vote of the congregation is at least two-thirds in favor of leaving.
One might object that I’m not being fair to presbyteries and their leaders. After all, they believe, rightly, that the Constitution of the PC(USA) states that all church property is “held in trust . . . for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S. A.)” (G-8.0201). They interpret this to mean that presbyteries should seek to keep congregational property within the denomination, even if this requires costly court battles. Though I have argued that the Constitution of the PC(USA) actually gives plenty of room for dismissing congregations with their property to other denominations, my view isn’t dominant among presbytery leaders. So, for them, keeping property in the PC(USA), or making sure the presbytery is compensated financially when a departing church keeps its property, is a matter of Constitutional duty.
Moreover, one might also object that I am not seeing things from the perspective of the presbytery. After all, I have been a pastor of a congregation, not a presbytery official. I may not realize how discouraging it is for presbyteries to lose congregations, how contrary to a presbytery’s mission, and how costly in terms of mission dollars. Currently, the average PC(USA) church contributes about $20.00 per member to the presbytery, of which about $5.00 goes on to the General Assembly. This means if a church the size of Kirk of the Hills (2000+ members) leaves the denomination, the cost to the presbytery is would be more than $30,000 a year. (Note: in my suggested process for a congregation that leaves, I argued that a church should gradually wind down its contribution to the presbytery, and consider a special gift besides.)
It’s true that I have never been on presbytery staff, nor held a leading role in a presbytery (moderator, vice-moderator, etc.). But I have been active in two presbyteries, and have had close relationships with presbytery officials in Los Ranchos Presbytery. It isn’t hard for me to imagine how hard it might be, emotionally and practically, for presbytery leaders to lose churches to other denominations.
In fact, I’ve experienced something quite similar in my tenure as a parish pastor. Let me cite a few examples.
A Family Leaves Because of Their Teenagers
First, I think of times when leading members of Irvine Presbyterian Church chose to leave this congregation and join another. For example, early in my pastorate in Irvine, a couple from the church met with me. They were central leaders in the congregation, arguably the most influential. They were also major contributors to the church (though I never knew exactly what people gave). They explained that they loved Irvine Presbyterian Church, but their teenage children had not connected to the youth ministry (which, at the time, was pretty weak; it’s much different today). Their kids had gotten involved in the top-notch youth ministry of a large, independent church in Irvine. Reluctantly, they had decided to leave Irvine Pres and move their family to the other church.
As you might well imagine, I was terribly disappointed. I think to some small extent I took it personally, though I believed their reason for leaving had nothing to do with me. I also worried greatly about the budgetary impact from their leaving. Yet I could understand why they wanted their children to be in an excellent youth ministry, and why they were choosing to keep their family together. So, by God’s grace, I was able to bless them and their move. We maintained a caring friendship over the years. And, in time, God brought new leaders and contributors to the Irvine church.
A Man Leaves Because He Is Unhappy with My Leadership
On another occasion, another leader in the church met with me to announce that he and his family were leaving. This departure did have something with me and my leadership. He was frustrated that I was not moving the church more quickly ahead in areas of disciple and mission. Our conversation was a hard one. Not only were we about to lose a key family, but also the reason for leaving had to do with me. I found myself wanting to be defensive, even to get angry. But, somehow, I managed to glimpse a larger vision of the kingdom of God. This man was not my enemy, but my friend and brother. Our differences were significant, and we wouldn’t be able to be in the same congregation anymore, but we were still part of Christ’s mission together.
Years later, that man and I continue to be good friends. Neither of us burned the bridge when he left. Over the years, he would sometime join us for worship. At times he became a trusted advisor to me. I still wish he hadn’t left our church (and denomination), but God has greatly blessed him and his ministry as a lay person since his departure.
An Elder Leaves to Become a Southern Baptist
My final example concerns a man named Buddy. He was one of my closest friends in the Irvine congregation and a key elder on the church session (board of elders). Buddy’s partnership in ministry meant a great deal to me and to our church.
One day I received a phone call from Rick Warren. (Yes, the Rick Warren. He was a casual friend whose church was about ten miles away from mine.) Rick began by saying, “I have something to ask you that you’re not going to want to give me.”
“What is that?” I asked. I couldn’t imagine anything that I had to offer Rick Warren.
“I want to hire Buddy for my staff. He’ll become a key leader in our Purpose-Driven ministry. I need somebody with Buddy’s maturity and experience. Obviously he can’t stay our your elder board, which is why I’m calling you.”
“Ugh!” I said. “But if that’s what God wants, then I don’t want to stand in the way.”
“I owe you two draft choices and another player to be named later,” Rick added. Thanking me for my support.
As I got off the phone, I felt almost sick to my stomach. I hated the thought of losing Buddy . . . and to a Southern Baptist church, no less. But I had to remember that the kingdom of God is much bigger than my church or my ministry. So, with sadness, we sent Buddy off to Saddleback.
A few months later I participated in his ordination at Saddleback. I had never before helped ordain a PC(USA) elder to the role of a Southern Baptist minister. I had never before particpated in any Southern Baptist ordination, for that matter. Though I rejoiced in God’s new call for Buddy, I still felt sad about losing such a fine partner in ministry. (Photo: The worship center of Saddleback Church. Talk about church property! Sheesh!)
A couple of months ago I had supper with Buddy. We are still dear friends. It was great to hear of all the ways God is using him at Saddleback. Though Irvine Pres and I missed Buddy after he left, and though our ministry was hurt by his absence, nevertheless, his kingdom impact was much greater at Saddleback than anything he would have experienced at Irvine Pres. I can see so clearly that God moved Buddy to Saddleback.
I’ll stop with my stories. I could tell many more like these. My point is that I do have some idea how it feels to invest in something – in my case, in somebody – only to see that investment pay off in another ministry. In none of the examples I’ve given did those who left Irvine Presbyterian join a PC(USA) church. Yet in every instance, God used them mightily in their new ministries. My loss, and Irvine Presbyterian Church’s loss, was clearly a gain for the kingdom God. And that is what really matters, isn’t it?
I’m sure there are times when it’s not the best thing for a PC(USA) congregation to leave the PC(USA), and to leave with its property. I’ve discussed some of these situations earlier in this series. But surely there are times when God is, in fact, leading a PC(USA) to join another denomination. And, surely, in many of these cases the kingdom of God is best served by presbyteries allowing the churches to leave with their property.
No, I haven’t stood in the shoes of presbytery leaders going through this process. But I’ve worn similar shoes, and found that sometimes it’s right to walk the second mile in them as people leave my ministry for another. I wish more denominational leaders, including presbytery leaders, could have this perspective and experience.
Topics: PCUSA: Church Property | 14 Comments »
The PC(USA) and Church Property, Part 13
By Mark D. Roberts | Monday, October 6, 2008
Part 13 of series: The PC(USA) and Church Property
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
On Friday I summarized a breaking story from the Tulsa World. After two years of litigation, the Presbytery of Eastern Oklahoma has offered to sell the property that was used by Kirk of the Hills for forty years to Kirk of the Hills for $1.75 million. Two years ago, Kirk of the Hills voted almost unanimously to leave the PC(USA) and join the EPC. They tried to keep their property, but the presbytery sought to evict them. This led to extensive litigation, and a judge’s ruling in August that the presbytery owns the property. Kirk of the Hills promised to appeal, so the presbytery countered by offering to sell them the property if they would forever end their appeal.
In Friday’s post I began to examine in detail the explanation of the presbytery’s action given by its leader, Rev. Greg Coulter. I tried to show that his way of opposing the constitutional duties of the presbytery with the presbytery’s pastoral concern was a significant misreading of the PC(USA)’s Constitution. In fact, pastoral concern for a congregation is a constitutional duty of a presbytery. The presbytery exists for far more than making sure the PC(USA) hands onto its property (or, more accurately, Jesus’ property entrusted to the presbytery).
Rev. Coulter had a bit more to say about his presbytery’s offer:
“We believe this is a grace-filled offer, and we hope for a grace-filled response.
“We believe this would allow them to worship, to continue their community programs, and to move on in their mission. We believe this helps them move forward.”
A grace-filled offer? When I last checked, grace meant giving something underserved, something for nothing. When we’re saved by grace, we don’t have to earn it. We don’t have to pay $1.75 million for our salvation, or even $1, or even one good work, because God paid it all through Christ. It cheapens the language of grace to use it in this context. Besides, it’s hardly gracious to sell to a congregation the property it developed with its own money. No, this isn’t grace-filled. It’s much more about law than grace.
In what Rev. Coulter said, he actually admitted that letting Kirk of the Hills keep its property would “allow them to worship, to continue their community programs, and to move on in their mission.” So what he is saying, in effect, is that if Kirk of the Hills doesn’t cough up the money, then the presbytery is ready to do that which will impede the worship, community programs, and mission of Kirk of the Hills. Rev. Coulter is openly admitting that the presbytery is ready to do that which will squelch worship, ministry, and mission, unless they get their money. And who loses if the presbytery does this? Kirk of the Hills? Yes. It has to find and build a new campus, and that takes a lot of money and effort. The people in the community for whom the church exists? Yes. The programs that utilized the church buildings are gone. The kingdom of God? Yes, because the work of the kingdom is hampered. The triune God? Yes. Because God’s worship and mission will be impaired.
If Rev. Coulter really believes what he said about helping to move Kirk of the Hills forward in worship, ministry, and mission, then I can’t believe he’d be willing to evict them from their property under any reasonable circumstances. If keeping the property will help Kirk of the Hills in worship, ministry, and mission, then how could the presbytery think it’s right to evict them? It wouldn’t be gracious to let them keep the property. It would be good stewardship of Jesus’ resources. It would be an obvious contribution to the kingdom of God.
According to the Tulsa World, Rev. Coulter said he hopes the church would accept the offer. “That’s the only way healing starts,” he said. Hmmm. So healing starts when the church pays the presbytery $1.75 million for the property it developed with its own money. Hmmm. That doesn’t sound too much like healing to me, at least not the healing that has anything to do with grace. I can’t seem to remember too many times in the Gospels when Jesus healed people only when they paid him first. Hmmm.
Rev. Coulter seems to like the idea of a grace-filled action by the presbytery and a grace-filled response by the church. I’m with him on this 100%. But I don’t think what the presbytery is proposing has much to do with grace. The presbytery can do much better than that, and so can the church.
What would a grace-filled presbytery action look like? How about this: The presbytery extends grace to the Kirk of the Hills by allowing it to retain its property at no cost. Moreover, the presbytery throws a giant party for Kirk of the Hills, thanking God for their forty years of shared ministry, and blessing Kirk of the Hills as it enters a new season of its service to Christ through the EPC. (Photo: My farewell party at Irvine Presbyterian Church a year ago. When a church leaves one denomination for another, it’s rather like when a pastor leaves one church for another ministry. Sometimes the church being left gets hurt and mad, making the pastor’s transition painful. Sometimes the church throws a party to celebrate God’s grace and sovereignty. Parties are so much better!)
What would a grace-filled response from the church look like? Try this: The church accepts the gracious offer of the presbytery and the party to celebrate their shared ministry. At that party, church leaders present the presbytery with a check (or I.O.U.) for $1.75 million, in thanks for forty years of partnership, and to help the presbytery plant a new church.
How’s that for grace-filled? Or is it too idealistic, too impractical? It reminds me a little of that impractical parable Jesus told of the Prodigal Son and his Prodigal Father. That Jesus, he always had crazy ideas, like turning the other cheek and walking the second mile and giving up your life for others. I wonder what he’d do with his property in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Topics: PCUSA: Church Property | 14 Comments »