You’ll frequently hear people talk about “the Word of God.” What comes to mind when you hear that phrase: the Bible? Or something else? It’s a hugely important concept for us Christians, so it’s good to take a moment to ensure that we understand it well.
A foundation for our Christian faith is the conviction that God reveals himself to us. (This isn’t unique to Christians, by the way. For example, Jews believe God revealed himself through the Torah, and Muslims believe that God revealed himself through a series of revelations to Mohammed.) Because God is so completely different from us (Isaiah 55:5), the only way that we can know anything at all about him is if he shows himself to us. That’s what “the Word of God” is all about: God speaking to us so that we can know him and know about him.
There are at least three ways to understand the concept “the Word of God,” and each flows from the one before it.
The first and most important is Jesus Christ (John 1:1-2, for example): the Living Word of God. God has revealed himself to us most fully by becoming one of us through the person of Jesus. It’s the only aspect of this concept that deserves to be capitalized.
The second is the Bible: the written word of God. The Bible is the word of God because it testifies to Christ, the Word of God. We risk turning the Bible into an idol if we believe that it is, by its own merit, God’s perfect revelation to us. It reveals God to us only because of its witness to Christ.
The third is the spoken word of God (Acts 4:31), for example. Whether it is a sermon in the church or a conversation between two people, God is revealed through our words about him. When the phrase “the word of God” is used in the New Testament, it most frequently refers to the message that is preached and believed by people. But, just as the Bible is the word of God only as it testifies to Christ, our words become the word of God only as they also testify to him. And our words can witness to Christ most fully as they are grounded in the Bible, the written word of God. That, for example, is why a sermon is only a sermon if it is based upon Scripture.
It’s good to keep in mind that the word of God, in whatever form we encounter it, is only the word of God (lower case) because it directs our attention to Jesus Christ, the Word of God (upper case). He is the one who reveals God to us in a way that no one and nothing else ever could.
Peter
Monday, March 21, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Open vs. Closed Society: An Ecclesial Consideration
This reflection begins from a very problematic foundation: the summary of a work that I didn’t actually read – Karl Popper’s The Open Society. But I will sin boldly and jump from this shaky platform. Maybe someday I’ll read Popper himself.
While denying historical determinism, Popper sees a sociological progression from closed to open societies. Closed societies are marked by the imposition of conformity upon a society by an elite that forbids questioning or dissent. Such closed societies are marked by “tribalism”, or the rigid identification of groups according to national, racial, religious and ideological boundaries. Open societies, in contrast, allow for and encourage the free debate of ideas by everyone who accepts broad and simple societal parameters. Citizens of an open society possess not only greater freedoms but also more personal responsibilities than their closed society counterparts. Open societies tend to be more flexible and adaptable.
But there is no inevitable march from closed to open societies. The transition from a closed to an open society can be difficult, even traumatic. Consider, for example, the current upheaval in Libya. And open societies may revert to becoming closed societies, particularly during times of stress. Consider, as an incomplete and simple example, the reaction to 9/11 in the US; personal liberties were curtailed and dissent was vilified.
This tendency to return to closed societies exists because the individual and sociological traits remain which created them in the first place. New predilections and sensitivities may emerge which engender open societies, but the old remain. A helpful analogy comes from the pop psychology description of the human brain as a superior cerebral cortex overlying a primitive reptilian brain. In a crisis, the urges of the primitive brain take over, and we act out of anger, fear, and passion, rather than reason and logic. Similarly, societies under stress allow the drives which promote unquestioning conformity and group identification to dominate over the flexibility and freedom of an open society.
What follows is a reflection of how these insights may provide a helpful perspective on Church governance and discourse. My goal is not to vilify certain church traditions although regrettably this may at times appear to be the case. Rather, my purpose is to determine (1) if an open society model is preferable to that of a closed society for the Church, (2) what factors influence the Church’s tendencies toward an open or a closed society, and (3) what, if anything, can be done to encourage the development of the preferable model.
Using this roadmap, the first task is to determine if, for the Church, a closed or an open society model is the most faithful response to the work of God through Christ in the world. As 2 Corinthians 5 explains, and as the Presbyterian Confession of 1967 elucidates in our contemporary context, Christ’s work is reconciliation: reconciling humanity to God, and reconciling people to each other. This seems to validate the goal of an open society; closed societies thrive in the competition and conflict between rival groups, or “tribes.” The reconciling work of Christ strives to eliminate the “us/them” dichotomy of groups with prescribed boundaries, enforced by expectations of conformity.
On the other hand, the Christian community is defined by its acknowledgement of the lordship of Christ. This critical feature appears to conform to the closed society model: the expectation of unquestioning conformity to the authority of the elite (i.e. Christ). Granted, there is a strong tradition in the Christian faith of complaining to and even of accusing God. But disavowal of Christ’s lordship, by definition, disqualifies one as a member of the Christian society. Conformity to the authority of the elite (Christ) is demanded, and violation is punished.
The proposal that the Christian community approximates a closed rather than an open society can be refuted along three lines First, while Christ’s unquestioned authority is affirmed, this does not necessarily lead to the sort of hierarchy that closed societies share. To name Christ as an “elite” is very different from doing so for a tribal chieftain or the Politburo. While some Christian groups consider the authority of their leaders to derive from Christ’s authority, this is not necessarily the case. In any event, the admonition that “whoever wants to be first must be slave of all” (Mark 10:44) precludes any sense that Church leaders wield authority in the way that leaders of closed societies do.
Second, it is disingenuous to argue that acceptance of the lordship of Christ is a demand of unquestioning conformity akin to that of closed societies. Popper explains that open societies also expect compliance with broad principles (such as the Bill of Rights in the US), which are less specific and encompassing as those in closed societies. The absence of any points of agreement would prevent a collection of people from being a society at all.
Third, open societies nurture and value flexibility, whereas closed societies require “one size fits all” conformity. Response to Christ’s lordship is nothing if it is not diverse and flexible. There is no single way, or set of ways, to live faithfully to that call. Consider Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, and Ephesians 4:7-13 as expositions of this point. Like Popper’s open society, Christian community encourages a wide range of activities and initiatives in order to respond faithfully to Christ’s lordship. For these reasons, it seems clear that the Church’s mission is more to be an open society than a closed one.
The second task of this reflection is to consider the factors that would influence the Church to be a closed or an open society. I will assume that its motivations to be an open society are self-evident, given the mission of the Christ described in the first part of this reflection. If the Church is to be an open society, what leads it toward being closed? The factors are several. Bear in mind Popper’s explanation that the motives which lead to the development of a closed society continue to exist in an open one. In situations of stress or conflict, these closed-society tendencies emerge and dominate, just as the “reptilian brain” takes over when a person is in crisis. In the same way, the Church’s tendencies toward a closed society and, I argue, away from a more faithful response to Christ’s lordship are more pronounced when the Church is in crisis or under stress. Parenthetically, let me note that this is not inevitably the case. Often, through the amazing work of the Spirit, the Church acts with the greatest faithfulness and courage precisely when it is in the greatest peril. I am speaking now of the times when this is not the case: when circumstances may lead the Church toward the traits of a closed society. I describe three such traits.
The first is tribalism. Despite Christ’s prayers that his followers may all be one (John 17:20-23), Christians frequently seek to identify themselves and associate as subgroups. Sometimes these sub-groupings are formalized, such as denominations. But these groups also, and perhaps more problematically, coalesce around particular beliefs, practices, and priorities. It is the danger that CS Lewis warned of in The Screwtape Letters: “Christianity And.” Once you no longer consider identity as a Christian to be enough, you qualify it as a particular type of Christian. You may label it “evangelical,” “progressive,” “orthodox,” “Bible-believing,” and so on. We seek to create our own tribe within the Church. The “reptilian” closed-society tendencies within us are unwilling to accept the lack of boundaries to define the group, and our own identity. In order to affirm ourselves and validate our own position, we create a division so that we can identify ourselves in opposition to “them.”
Second, the Church tends toward a closed society because of the inherent sinfulness of its leaders. Any individual, when given enough authority and enough time to exercise it, will inevitably begin to abuse it in order to advance his or her own position. And they frequently do so with the encouragement and blessing of the people under their authority. This is as true for leaders in the Church as it is anywhere else. Indeed, it is even more likely in the Church because the Church’s true Leader, Jesus Christ, is not as apparent and visible in his leadership role as other more conventional leaders may be. This is the temptation spoken of by the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. It is difficult for people to accept the ambiguity that comes from the freedom Christ offers. So they are willing to accept the restrictive, even oppressive, leaders of other humans in order to feel more secure.
Third, the Church may tend toward the characteristics of a closed society in order experience greater clarity of belief and purpose. The diversity and flexibility of response of Christ’s lordship can be unnerving: we want specifics. This desire for clarity and specificity can be termed “fundamentalism,” but a word of explanation is in order to avoid confusion. I do not refer to fundamentalism as a particular set of beliefs, such as fundamentalist Christianity. I refer not to any particular set of beliefs but to the establishment explicitly or implicitly, of any clear set of beliefs. “Political correctness,” in this sense, is just as fundamentalist as rigid evangelicalism. The “reptilian” brain wants certainty, and certainty requires clear rules. It wants to know what is right and what is wrong. Thoughtful reflection is much more difficult than following a code of belief and conduct.
The third and final task of this reflection is determine what can be done to encourage the development of the preferable model, which has been demonstrated by the first task to be an open society. One way for this to be done is to counter the three tendencies toward a closed society, which have just been explicated: tribalism, authoritarian leadership, and fundamentalism. Each of these can be neutralized, at least in part, by a renewed focus upon the lordship of Christ, the Living Word, and to the written word which bears witness to him.
The first of three tendencies toward a closed society, tribalism, can be diminished by a greater awareness of the universality of Christ’s kingdom. As Revelation 7:9 describes, his kingdom includes people “from every nation, tribe, people, and language.” But, even with this promise, we may still be tempted to draw distinctions and form tribes within the universal Church. We find a corrective for this in Ephesians 2:11-22 (among other places), where Paul addresses the first tribalist division in the Church: between Jews and Gentiles. Christ’s mission is to bring peace by destroying “the dividing wall of hostility,” in order to reconcile people not only to God but to each other. By removing these human barriers, Christ does not take away what makes us distinctive: Paul’s readers were still Jews and Gentiles. But these identifying features are no longer criteria for group identity, inclusion and exclusion.
Second, hierarchical authority no longer leads to a closed society when Church leaders heed the example and instruction of Christ. Authority does not exist in Christian communities for the purposes of imposing the leaders’ will on the people, or to consolidate and wield power. Leadership in the Church is servant leadership, as Jesus’ words of correction to James and John emphasize (Mark 10:35-45). Christ’s authority is based upon his emptying of himself (Philippians 2:5-11), not the exploitation of others for his own benefit (Ezekiel 34:1-16). Church leaders must constantly repent from the ways in which universal human impulses for self-aggrandizement lead them away from the example of Christ’s leadership.
Third, the witness of Scripture can help us to withstand the appeal of simplistic certainty, which can lead to a closed society. The very fact that the Bible is not an encyclopedia that delineates proper belief and practice demonstrates this point. It defies attempts to convert it into a simple answer guide. The juxtaposition of Proverbs 26:4-5 makes this point clear; two sayings exist side-by-side with contradictory instructions about how to deal with a fool. This does not indicate that Scripture contradicts itself; it compels the believer to seek God’s guidance at deeper and more complex levels. In the face of the discomfort that this ambiguity causes, we are tempted to manufacture our own code of ethics and belief, or to subscribe to those created by others. We can resist this temptation as we recall Christ’s promise in John 14:25-26: the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, instructs and guides us. Like the light that illuminates the footpath but not the entire landscape (Psalm 119:105), this guidance requires a constant dependence on God, rather than providing an overall perspective which enables us to be our own guides.
In summary, this reflection demonstrates that the Church exists more faithfully as an open society instead a closed society, and that the Bible’s witness to Christ helps us to avoid the allure of tribalism, authoritarianism, and fundamentalism.
While denying historical determinism, Popper sees a sociological progression from closed to open societies. Closed societies are marked by the imposition of conformity upon a society by an elite that forbids questioning or dissent. Such closed societies are marked by “tribalism”, or the rigid identification of groups according to national, racial, religious and ideological boundaries. Open societies, in contrast, allow for and encourage the free debate of ideas by everyone who accepts broad and simple societal parameters. Citizens of an open society possess not only greater freedoms but also more personal responsibilities than their closed society counterparts. Open societies tend to be more flexible and adaptable.
But there is no inevitable march from closed to open societies. The transition from a closed to an open society can be difficult, even traumatic. Consider, for example, the current upheaval in Libya. And open societies may revert to becoming closed societies, particularly during times of stress. Consider, as an incomplete and simple example, the reaction to 9/11 in the US; personal liberties were curtailed and dissent was vilified.
This tendency to return to closed societies exists because the individual and sociological traits remain which created them in the first place. New predilections and sensitivities may emerge which engender open societies, but the old remain. A helpful analogy comes from the pop psychology description of the human brain as a superior cerebral cortex overlying a primitive reptilian brain. In a crisis, the urges of the primitive brain take over, and we act out of anger, fear, and passion, rather than reason and logic. Similarly, societies under stress allow the drives which promote unquestioning conformity and group identification to dominate over the flexibility and freedom of an open society.
What follows is a reflection of how these insights may provide a helpful perspective on Church governance and discourse. My goal is not to vilify certain church traditions although regrettably this may at times appear to be the case. Rather, my purpose is to determine (1) if an open society model is preferable to that of a closed society for the Church, (2) what factors influence the Church’s tendencies toward an open or a closed society, and (3) what, if anything, can be done to encourage the development of the preferable model.
Using this roadmap, the first task is to determine if, for the Church, a closed or an open society model is the most faithful response to the work of God through Christ in the world. As 2 Corinthians 5 explains, and as the Presbyterian Confession of 1967 elucidates in our contemporary context, Christ’s work is reconciliation: reconciling humanity to God, and reconciling people to each other. This seems to validate the goal of an open society; closed societies thrive in the competition and conflict between rival groups, or “tribes.” The reconciling work of Christ strives to eliminate the “us/them” dichotomy of groups with prescribed boundaries, enforced by expectations of conformity.
On the other hand, the Christian community is defined by its acknowledgement of the lordship of Christ. This critical feature appears to conform to the closed society model: the expectation of unquestioning conformity to the authority of the elite (i.e. Christ). Granted, there is a strong tradition in the Christian faith of complaining to and even of accusing God. But disavowal of Christ’s lordship, by definition, disqualifies one as a member of the Christian society. Conformity to the authority of the elite (Christ) is demanded, and violation is punished.
The proposal that the Christian community approximates a closed rather than an open society can be refuted along three lines First, while Christ’s unquestioned authority is affirmed, this does not necessarily lead to the sort of hierarchy that closed societies share. To name Christ as an “elite” is very different from doing so for a tribal chieftain or the Politburo. While some Christian groups consider the authority of their leaders to derive from Christ’s authority, this is not necessarily the case. In any event, the admonition that “whoever wants to be first must be slave of all” (Mark 10:44) precludes any sense that Church leaders wield authority in the way that leaders of closed societies do.
Second, it is disingenuous to argue that acceptance of the lordship of Christ is a demand of unquestioning conformity akin to that of closed societies. Popper explains that open societies also expect compliance with broad principles (such as the Bill of Rights in the US), which are less specific and encompassing as those in closed societies. The absence of any points of agreement would prevent a collection of people from being a society at all.
Third, open societies nurture and value flexibility, whereas closed societies require “one size fits all” conformity. Response to Christ’s lordship is nothing if it is not diverse and flexible. There is no single way, or set of ways, to live faithfully to that call. Consider Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, and Ephesians 4:7-13 as expositions of this point. Like Popper’s open society, Christian community encourages a wide range of activities and initiatives in order to respond faithfully to Christ’s lordship. For these reasons, it seems clear that the Church’s mission is more to be an open society than a closed one.
The second task of this reflection is to consider the factors that would influence the Church to be a closed or an open society. I will assume that its motivations to be an open society are self-evident, given the mission of the Christ described in the first part of this reflection. If the Church is to be an open society, what leads it toward being closed? The factors are several. Bear in mind Popper’s explanation that the motives which lead to the development of a closed society continue to exist in an open one. In situations of stress or conflict, these closed-society tendencies emerge and dominate, just as the “reptilian brain” takes over when a person is in crisis. In the same way, the Church’s tendencies toward a closed society and, I argue, away from a more faithful response to Christ’s lordship are more pronounced when the Church is in crisis or under stress. Parenthetically, let me note that this is not inevitably the case. Often, through the amazing work of the Spirit, the Church acts with the greatest faithfulness and courage precisely when it is in the greatest peril. I am speaking now of the times when this is not the case: when circumstances may lead the Church toward the traits of a closed society. I describe three such traits.
The first is tribalism. Despite Christ’s prayers that his followers may all be one (John 17:20-23), Christians frequently seek to identify themselves and associate as subgroups. Sometimes these sub-groupings are formalized, such as denominations. But these groups also, and perhaps more problematically, coalesce around particular beliefs, practices, and priorities. It is the danger that CS Lewis warned of in The Screwtape Letters: “Christianity And.” Once you no longer consider identity as a Christian to be enough, you qualify it as a particular type of Christian. You may label it “evangelical,” “progressive,” “orthodox,” “Bible-believing,” and so on. We seek to create our own tribe within the Church. The “reptilian” closed-society tendencies within us are unwilling to accept the lack of boundaries to define the group, and our own identity. In order to affirm ourselves and validate our own position, we create a division so that we can identify ourselves in opposition to “them.”
Second, the Church tends toward a closed society because of the inherent sinfulness of its leaders. Any individual, when given enough authority and enough time to exercise it, will inevitably begin to abuse it in order to advance his or her own position. And they frequently do so with the encouragement and blessing of the people under their authority. This is as true for leaders in the Church as it is anywhere else. Indeed, it is even more likely in the Church because the Church’s true Leader, Jesus Christ, is not as apparent and visible in his leadership role as other more conventional leaders may be. This is the temptation spoken of by the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. It is difficult for people to accept the ambiguity that comes from the freedom Christ offers. So they are willing to accept the restrictive, even oppressive, leaders of other humans in order to feel more secure.
Third, the Church may tend toward the characteristics of a closed society in order experience greater clarity of belief and purpose. The diversity and flexibility of response of Christ’s lordship can be unnerving: we want specifics. This desire for clarity and specificity can be termed “fundamentalism,” but a word of explanation is in order to avoid confusion. I do not refer to fundamentalism as a particular set of beliefs, such as fundamentalist Christianity. I refer not to any particular set of beliefs but to the establishment explicitly or implicitly, of any clear set of beliefs. “Political correctness,” in this sense, is just as fundamentalist as rigid evangelicalism. The “reptilian” brain wants certainty, and certainty requires clear rules. It wants to know what is right and what is wrong. Thoughtful reflection is much more difficult than following a code of belief and conduct.
The third and final task of this reflection is determine what can be done to encourage the development of the preferable model, which has been demonstrated by the first task to be an open society. One way for this to be done is to counter the three tendencies toward a closed society, which have just been explicated: tribalism, authoritarian leadership, and fundamentalism. Each of these can be neutralized, at least in part, by a renewed focus upon the lordship of Christ, the Living Word, and to the written word which bears witness to him.
The first of three tendencies toward a closed society, tribalism, can be diminished by a greater awareness of the universality of Christ’s kingdom. As Revelation 7:9 describes, his kingdom includes people “from every nation, tribe, people, and language.” But, even with this promise, we may still be tempted to draw distinctions and form tribes within the universal Church. We find a corrective for this in Ephesians 2:11-22 (among other places), where Paul addresses the first tribalist division in the Church: between Jews and Gentiles. Christ’s mission is to bring peace by destroying “the dividing wall of hostility,” in order to reconcile people not only to God but to each other. By removing these human barriers, Christ does not take away what makes us distinctive: Paul’s readers were still Jews and Gentiles. But these identifying features are no longer criteria for group identity, inclusion and exclusion.
Second, hierarchical authority no longer leads to a closed society when Church leaders heed the example and instruction of Christ. Authority does not exist in Christian communities for the purposes of imposing the leaders’ will on the people, or to consolidate and wield power. Leadership in the Church is servant leadership, as Jesus’ words of correction to James and John emphasize (Mark 10:35-45). Christ’s authority is based upon his emptying of himself (Philippians 2:5-11), not the exploitation of others for his own benefit (Ezekiel 34:1-16). Church leaders must constantly repent from the ways in which universal human impulses for self-aggrandizement lead them away from the example of Christ’s leadership.
Third, the witness of Scripture can help us to withstand the appeal of simplistic certainty, which can lead to a closed society. The very fact that the Bible is not an encyclopedia that delineates proper belief and practice demonstrates this point. It defies attempts to convert it into a simple answer guide. The juxtaposition of Proverbs 26:4-5 makes this point clear; two sayings exist side-by-side with contradictory instructions about how to deal with a fool. This does not indicate that Scripture contradicts itself; it compels the believer to seek God’s guidance at deeper and more complex levels. In the face of the discomfort that this ambiguity causes, we are tempted to manufacture our own code of ethics and belief, or to subscribe to those created by others. We can resist this temptation as we recall Christ’s promise in John 14:25-26: the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, instructs and guides us. Like the light that illuminates the footpath but not the entire landscape (Psalm 119:105), this guidance requires a constant dependence on God, rather than providing an overall perspective which enables us to be our own guides.
In summary, this reflection demonstrates that the Church exists more faithfully as an open society instead a closed society, and that the Bible’s witness to Christ helps us to avoid the allure of tribalism, authoritarianism, and fundamentalism.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Jerub-Yahweh
In Judges 6, God calls Gideon to lead the nation of Israel back to faith, and to defeat the Midianites who had invaded the land. The first thing God told Gideon to do was to destroy the altars of the pagan gods that the people had begun to worship. One of these gods, Baal, was worshiped as the god of war and storm. When Baal’s devotees saw what Gideon had done, they demanded his death for his act of sacrilege. Gideon’s father Joash told the angry mob, “Are you going to plead Baal’s cause? Are you trying to save him? If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar” (Judges 6:31). His words made sense to the people. If Baal is a real god, he can fight his own battles. He doesn’t need anyone to fight his battles for him. So they gave Gideon a nickname: Jerub-Baal, which meant “Let Baal contend.” Or, to put it in more common lingo, Let Baal Deal With Him. Because Baal really isn’t a god, he wasn’t able to deal with Gideon. The altar remained broken down, and Gideon faced no supernatural punishment. The moniker “Jerub-Baal” changed from being an accusation against Gideon into a mockery of Baal. Baal couldn’t deal with him, after all.
There are times when we need to heed Joash’s advice ourselves. We see people mocking and violating the things of God that we hold dear. God’s ways are disregarded, and his laws are scoffed. We are as outraged as the people of Gideon’s village. Like them, we want to grab those blasphemers and make them pay for their disregard of the Lord and His ways. You may not have to think very hard to come up with at least one example of someone, or some group in society, that is performing some sacrilege. But we need to remember Joash’s words. If the Lord really is God, He can defend Himself. He doesn’t need us to do His dirty work for Him. Call these people “Jerub-Yahweh:” let the Lord (whose name in the Old Testament is Yahweh) deal with them.
God is a big boy; He can take care of Himself. He doesn’t need us to fight His battles for Him. It’s only natural for our blood to boil when we see people attack or disregard things that matter so much to us. But, as Paul said, “‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Romans 12:19). Part of the submission that comes with discipleship is to recognize that we do not need to take charge of God’s battles for Him. Yes, we have the responsibility to act when God calls us to do so. But we must be careful to distinguish between God’s call and our own desire to act. Perhaps it is our anger that is leading us to want to respond. Or it may be our own sense of self-importance, as though the forces of good and decency depend upon us to make things right. When you begin to feel this, just tell yourself, “Jerub-Yahweh. Let the Lord deal with it.” Then, not only can we avoid the danger of having zeal without knowledge, of being hasty and missing the way (Proverbs 19:2), but we can find a sense of peace and security. God is in charge. We can rest secure in His power and providence.
Letting the Lord deal with such things has an additional benefit. Sometimes, the offenses that we want to fight against may not actually be sacrilege. Because of our sinful shortcomings and incomplete process of sanctification, our own moral compasses may be a bit out of whack. That which seems terrible to us may not really matter that much to the Lord. In fact, there may be times when we’re the ones who are on the wrong side of God’s will. So we need to be “Jerub-Yahweh” as well, and ask the Lord to deal with us.
There are times when we need to heed Joash’s advice ourselves. We see people mocking and violating the things of God that we hold dear. God’s ways are disregarded, and his laws are scoffed. We are as outraged as the people of Gideon’s village. Like them, we want to grab those blasphemers and make them pay for their disregard of the Lord and His ways. You may not have to think very hard to come up with at least one example of someone, or some group in society, that is performing some sacrilege. But we need to remember Joash’s words. If the Lord really is God, He can defend Himself. He doesn’t need us to do His dirty work for Him. Call these people “Jerub-Yahweh:” let the Lord (whose name in the Old Testament is Yahweh) deal with them.
God is a big boy; He can take care of Himself. He doesn’t need us to fight His battles for Him. It’s only natural for our blood to boil when we see people attack or disregard things that matter so much to us. But, as Paul said, “‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Romans 12:19). Part of the submission that comes with discipleship is to recognize that we do not need to take charge of God’s battles for Him. Yes, we have the responsibility to act when God calls us to do so. But we must be careful to distinguish between God’s call and our own desire to act. Perhaps it is our anger that is leading us to want to respond. Or it may be our own sense of self-importance, as though the forces of good and decency depend upon us to make things right. When you begin to feel this, just tell yourself, “Jerub-Yahweh. Let the Lord deal with it.” Then, not only can we avoid the danger of having zeal without knowledge, of being hasty and missing the way (Proverbs 19:2), but we can find a sense of peace and security. God is in charge. We can rest secure in His power and providence.
Letting the Lord deal with such things has an additional benefit. Sometimes, the offenses that we want to fight against may not actually be sacrilege. Because of our sinful shortcomings and incomplete process of sanctification, our own moral compasses may be a bit out of whack. That which seems terrible to us may not really matter that much to the Lord. In fact, there may be times when we’re the ones who are on the wrong side of God’s will. So we need to be “Jerub-Yahweh” as well, and ask the Lord to deal with us.
Monday, December 20, 2010
It's Time to Be Two-Faced
New Year’s Day is an odd little holiday. For most of us, it’s mostly an opportunity to stay up late and have a party. Or, it’s a bookend to the holiday week that begins on Christmas. But the meaning of the holiday itself is pretty trivial: time to buy a new calendar and remember to date your checks with a different year. Perhaps you’ll use it as an opportunity to change something in your life by making a new year’s resolution. This year I’d like to suggest that you try something different. And for inspiration, I’d like to suggest that you consider a pagan god, of all things.
Usually, being called two-faced is an insult. But Roman mythology included a two-faced god named Janus; our month of January is named after him. For the Romans, Janus was the god of gateways, doors, beginnings and endings. He was depicted as having two faces, looking in opposite directions, so that he could see both what was in front of him and what was behind him. If you’ve wished that you could have eyes in the back of your head, then you can understand the advantage that Janus had. If he was guarding the gate, he could see people coming from both directions.
The Romans’ consideration of Janus extended beyond the literal, physical, practical aspect of having a guardian god that you could never sneak up on. Janus was also understood to be the god for times of transition: when something ends and something else begins. Metaphorically, he could look back upon the past, but also look to the future.
As you change your calendar and practice writing 2011 instead of 2010, I invite you to be two-faced. First, spend some time reflecting on what happened in the past year. Remember what God has done in your life. How has He changed you? What wonders have you been able to experience? What challenges has God brought you through? What has God taught you in 2010? And second, think about what 2011 will be for you. We of course have no idea what surprises and changes are in store for us. But we should be watching for the new things that God will do, so that we can respond to them with faith. We can prepare ourselves to participate in the unfolding of His plan that we will see in 2011.
Our God is not named Janus. But our Lord urges us both to remember what He has done (Deuteronomy 6:10-12, for example), and to watch in expectation for what He will do (Revelation 21:1-5, for example).
Happy New Year!
Peter
Usually, being called two-faced is an insult. But Roman mythology included a two-faced god named Janus; our month of January is named after him. For the Romans, Janus was the god of gateways, doors, beginnings and endings. He was depicted as having two faces, looking in opposite directions, so that he could see both what was in front of him and what was behind him. If you’ve wished that you could have eyes in the back of your head, then you can understand the advantage that Janus had. If he was guarding the gate, he could see people coming from both directions.
The Romans’ consideration of Janus extended beyond the literal, physical, practical aspect of having a guardian god that you could never sneak up on. Janus was also understood to be the god for times of transition: when something ends and something else begins. Metaphorically, he could look back upon the past, but also look to the future.
As you change your calendar and practice writing 2011 instead of 2010, I invite you to be two-faced. First, spend some time reflecting on what happened in the past year. Remember what God has done in your life. How has He changed you? What wonders have you been able to experience? What challenges has God brought you through? What has God taught you in 2010? And second, think about what 2011 will be for you. We of course have no idea what surprises and changes are in store for us. But we should be watching for the new things that God will do, so that we can respond to them with faith. We can prepare ourselves to participate in the unfolding of His plan that we will see in 2011.
Our God is not named Janus. But our Lord urges us both to remember what He has done (Deuteronomy 6:10-12, for example), and to watch in expectation for what He will do (Revelation 21:1-5, for example).
Happy New Year!
Peter
Saturday, November 27, 2010
My Thoughts About the Ordination Debate in the Presbyterian Church (USA)
The news from this summer’s PC(USA) General Assembly was dominated by the same issue that has overshadowed business at our denomination’s top governing body for more than thirty years: should practicing homosexuals be permitted to be ordained as church officers? The struggle to answer this question has become an obsession that defines pastors’ theologies for a generation. I don’t deal with the issue very often, so here goes.
First, we need to identify where we turn to seek God’s guidance. We Presbyterians, accept the Bible as the authority for all matters of faith and practice. This isn’t necessarily true for everyone else, but that’s what we’re about. In order to determine if homosexuals should be ordained we do not consult our personal feelings, society’s preferences, church tradition, scientific findings, or even a sense of what is just or proper. Scripture is our authority. So in order to answer the question, “Should homosexuals be ordained?” we need to ask the question, “What does the Bible say about it?”
Not much, as it turns out. Yes, the Bible does have some things to say about same gender sexual practices, but not as much as you’d expect: only a handful of passages. And that should tell us something. Apparently it’s not that big of a deal for God, at least not in comparison to other issues, such as the just treatment of society’s under privileged, or the sanctity of the Sabbath. Imagine a Presbytery asking a candidate if she thinks it’s OK to work on Sundays, and basing their decision on her answer! The Bible has many harsh words that condemn Sabbath-breaking, but not nearly as many that address homosexuality.
We can learn something from this. If this is a minor issue in the Bible, why do we make such a big deal out of it? It makes sense to be concerned about this issue if it affects you personally, but that’s not the case for the vast majority of Presbyterians who debate this topic so hotly. Perhaps we do it because we are guided by personal or cultural predilections, or by Western social thought that champions the equality of all people. But we are to be guided by Scripture, not by personal taste or cultural and social standards.
So let’s all step away from the brink and realize the answer to this question does not determine the integrity of the denomination. As far as the Bible (and presumably God) is concerned, this isn’t a major concern.
The Bible’s words on this topic fall into three major categories. The first is found in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13), part of the chronicle of Jewish law. It tells us that men who have sex with each other should be put to death. At first glance, that’s pretty grave – until we notice that the same code of laws tells us to execute Sabbath breakers and children who dishonor their parents. As people of the New Covenant, we don’t hold to the punishment system of the Law of Moses. And we need to take another factor into account: The law includes both vital and moral law. Christians believe that the laws for ritual purity no longer apply, because Christ has made us pure. Some people argue that the prohibition of homosexual conduct is part of the ritual law, because of where the passage is found. It strikes me as more of a moral than a ritual injunction, however. But for argument’s sake, let’s set these passages aside and not use it as a basis for our decision.
The other two categories of passages come from the New Testament, so we don’t have to deal with any ambiguity about the relevance of Old Testament law for Christians. Of these two categories, one is Paul’s description of homosexuality as a result of a rejection of God’s sovereignty (Romans 1:24-27). The other is the inclusion of homosexual conduct in several so-called “vice lists” (in particular, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10).
There’s no question that these passages apply to Christians. But there is some debate about whether today’s understanding of homosexuality is what these passages are talking about. The concept of homosexuality has only been in existence for the past 100 or 150 years. People were having same-sex intercourse before then, but they did not identify themselves as homosexuals or consider it to be a defining characteristic of their lives. Historians tell us that homosexual practice in the world of the New Testament was very different from what we see today. While committed loving same-sex relationships were not unheard of (such as the Golden Band Thebes elite squad of soldiers), most homosexual conduct was either an act of domination by one person over another or pederasty: Old men having sex with young boys. Some people assert that the New Testament passages actually condemns these sort of interactions, not today’s homosexual relationships.
I don’t find these claims convincing for two reasons. First, if the problem was pederasty or sexual domination, why isn’t that what these passages would address? After all, these sorts of problems can be found in heterosexual as well as homosexual settings. Second, Paul invented a new word to address this issue. The word is basically a combination of the words “men” and “bed”. So the passage addresses men who go to bed together. It is that, and not issues of domination or pederasty, which the Bible speaks against.
Some people accurately point out that the Bible has a strong message which promotes love and justice. They assert that this should apply to attitudes about homosexuality: it is a matter of love and justice to treat them equally. The flaw in the assertion however, is that we would all agree that certain behavior should not be accepted, such as child molestation and domestic violence to name extreme examples. In fact, the just and loving thing to do is to confront and not condone them.
So the bottom line is that the Bible tells us that homosexual conduct is wrong, but it isn’t a major issue. Not everyone will agree with my assessment. Some may disagree with my Biblical interpretation, others may refuse to accept my singular reliance upon Scripture for guidance, and still others may be influenced by their personal stake or sensibilities. It’s important to bear in mind the Presbyterian principle that people of good character and principle may disagree (G-1.0305 in the Book of Order). Unfortunately, many people think that those who disagree with them on this issue aren’t really Christians. So the next question is: if someone engages in such practices, can they be ordained? This is the sort of decision which should be made by the church, guided by Scripture and following agreed-upon deliberative principles. So, having looked at the Bible, the next step is to consider Presbyterian policy.
While it is far from perfect, we believe that the voice of the majority is the best way to discern God’s will for the church, but that the rights of the minority should be respected. Ever since the issue of homosexual ordination came to prominence in the 1979 GA in San Diego, the majority decisions of the denomination have been that homosexuals should not be ordained. In 1996 this perspective was added to our constitution with the “chastity and fidelity” clause, which applies to both homosexual and heterosexual relationships (G-6.0108b). There have been backs and forths, and tactical ploys from both perspectives, but the majority voice in the church has remained substantially unchanged. This consistency is notable, given both the growing cultural acceptance of homosexuality and the presence of a large and vocal minority advocating for homosexual ordination.
We treasure and protect the rights of the minority, even while we accept the decisions of the majority. God frequently uses the voice of dissent to reform the church. And so the minority in the Presbyterian Church that wants homosexual ordination has the right to bring up the topic for reconsideration. And they have done so at nearly every opportunity and in many different ways. Their tenacity is a model for action in the face of opposition when you believe you are acting for God. However, it has also been a source of significant tension and discord, a drain of energy, and a distraction from the church’s calling.
I’m a firm believer in the process of the dialectic: that two apparently opposing perspectives can be synthesized into a new position that contains the best of the two. I’ve been hoping that we could find a way to use this process to resolve this disagreement. Several attempts have been made, but none have succeeded. We truly seem to be in a “win – lose” scenario. For one side to “win” and have the church accept their position on homosexual ordination, the other side must “lose” because their position will be rejected.
For 30 years, one “side” has “lost” pretty consistently. If they are the voice of God’s challenge to reform the church, surely a change would have happened by now. We cannot and should not silence the minority. But it may be time to ask the question: why should we continue to argue and debate to the detriment of the church’s unity and vitality? Is it time for the minority to be willing to accept the voice of the majority and agree not to continue to raise the issue?
If the time has not yet come, I suggest that it soon will. Forty years is a typical Biblical time period for change and discernment. Would it be possible for us to agree that by 2019, the fortieth anniversary of the 1979 San Diego GA, we will consider the matter to be decided at least for the next generation? Because of our respect for the voice of the minority, this is not a step that can be imposed upon anyone. But people can be encouraged, for the sake of the church’s peace and unity, to let the topic rest. We may be amazed to discover what our church can do when everyone and everything is not viewed through the lens of this controversy.
This leads to a final point. Those who advocate for the ordination of homosexuals are able to point to homosexual individuals who would be excellent pastors. As the argument typically goes, the church should not obstruct God’s call for such people. That argument, however, fails to appreciate the Reformed understanding of how God calls us. It is not a private, individual process between God and the person. The personal call must be confirmed publicly by the church. Sometimes this takes place in an individual case-by-case process: someone believes she is called to be an elder, and that call is confirmed by the vote of the congregation. Sometimes the church has specific criteria which must be met in order for a call to be confirmed. When they are not met, there can be no public confirmation of a personal call. For example, someone who feels called by God must earn a seminary degree, display competence in the Biblical languages, and pass five ordination exams. If a pastoral candidate cannot meet these criteria, even with provisions for extraordinary circumstances such as learning disabilities, the call cannot be confirmed. (Of course, even if the criteria are met, the call may still not be confirmed if the church has reservations of some sort about the candidate.)
If the church has decided that engaging in same-gender sexual activity presents a person from being ordained, this does not mean that the church is blocking God’s call for her. It simply means that the person’s personal sense of call cannot be publically confirmed, because she failed to meet one of the criteria. Put simply, we believe that there is no call from God, no matter how passionately the person believes that there is one, if the church does not confirm it.
First, we need to identify where we turn to seek God’s guidance. We Presbyterians, accept the Bible as the authority for all matters of faith and practice. This isn’t necessarily true for everyone else, but that’s what we’re about. In order to determine if homosexuals should be ordained we do not consult our personal feelings, society’s preferences, church tradition, scientific findings, or even a sense of what is just or proper. Scripture is our authority. So in order to answer the question, “Should homosexuals be ordained?” we need to ask the question, “What does the Bible say about it?”
Not much, as it turns out. Yes, the Bible does have some things to say about same gender sexual practices, but not as much as you’d expect: only a handful of passages. And that should tell us something. Apparently it’s not that big of a deal for God, at least not in comparison to other issues, such as the just treatment of society’s under privileged, or the sanctity of the Sabbath. Imagine a Presbytery asking a candidate if she thinks it’s OK to work on Sundays, and basing their decision on her answer! The Bible has many harsh words that condemn Sabbath-breaking, but not nearly as many that address homosexuality.
We can learn something from this. If this is a minor issue in the Bible, why do we make such a big deal out of it? It makes sense to be concerned about this issue if it affects you personally, but that’s not the case for the vast majority of Presbyterians who debate this topic so hotly. Perhaps we do it because we are guided by personal or cultural predilections, or by Western social thought that champions the equality of all people. But we are to be guided by Scripture, not by personal taste or cultural and social standards.
So let’s all step away from the brink and realize the answer to this question does not determine the integrity of the denomination. As far as the Bible (and presumably God) is concerned, this isn’t a major concern.
The Bible’s words on this topic fall into three major categories. The first is found in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13), part of the chronicle of Jewish law. It tells us that men who have sex with each other should be put to death. At first glance, that’s pretty grave – until we notice that the same code of laws tells us to execute Sabbath breakers and children who dishonor their parents. As people of the New Covenant, we don’t hold to the punishment system of the Law of Moses. And we need to take another factor into account: The law includes both vital and moral law. Christians believe that the laws for ritual purity no longer apply, because Christ has made us pure. Some people argue that the prohibition of homosexual conduct is part of the ritual law, because of where the passage is found. It strikes me as more of a moral than a ritual injunction, however. But for argument’s sake, let’s set these passages aside and not use it as a basis for our decision.
The other two categories of passages come from the New Testament, so we don’t have to deal with any ambiguity about the relevance of Old Testament law for Christians. Of these two categories, one is Paul’s description of homosexuality as a result of a rejection of God’s sovereignty (Romans 1:24-27). The other is the inclusion of homosexual conduct in several so-called “vice lists” (in particular, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10).
There’s no question that these passages apply to Christians. But there is some debate about whether today’s understanding of homosexuality is what these passages are talking about. The concept of homosexuality has only been in existence for the past 100 or 150 years. People were having same-sex intercourse before then, but they did not identify themselves as homosexuals or consider it to be a defining characteristic of their lives. Historians tell us that homosexual practice in the world of the New Testament was very different from what we see today. While committed loving same-sex relationships were not unheard of (such as the Golden Band Thebes elite squad of soldiers), most homosexual conduct was either an act of domination by one person over another or pederasty: Old men having sex with young boys. Some people assert that the New Testament passages actually condemns these sort of interactions, not today’s homosexual relationships.
I don’t find these claims convincing for two reasons. First, if the problem was pederasty or sexual domination, why isn’t that what these passages would address? After all, these sorts of problems can be found in heterosexual as well as homosexual settings. Second, Paul invented a new word to address this issue. The word is basically a combination of the words “men” and “bed”. So the passage addresses men who go to bed together. It is that, and not issues of domination or pederasty, which the Bible speaks against.
Some people accurately point out that the Bible has a strong message which promotes love and justice. They assert that this should apply to attitudes about homosexuality: it is a matter of love and justice to treat them equally. The flaw in the assertion however, is that we would all agree that certain behavior should not be accepted, such as child molestation and domestic violence to name extreme examples. In fact, the just and loving thing to do is to confront and not condone them.
So the bottom line is that the Bible tells us that homosexual conduct is wrong, but it isn’t a major issue. Not everyone will agree with my assessment. Some may disagree with my Biblical interpretation, others may refuse to accept my singular reliance upon Scripture for guidance, and still others may be influenced by their personal stake or sensibilities. It’s important to bear in mind the Presbyterian principle that people of good character and principle may disagree (G-1.0305 in the Book of Order). Unfortunately, many people think that those who disagree with them on this issue aren’t really Christians. So the next question is: if someone engages in such practices, can they be ordained? This is the sort of decision which should be made by the church, guided by Scripture and following agreed-upon deliberative principles. So, having looked at the Bible, the next step is to consider Presbyterian policy.
While it is far from perfect, we believe that the voice of the majority is the best way to discern God’s will for the church, but that the rights of the minority should be respected. Ever since the issue of homosexual ordination came to prominence in the 1979 GA in San Diego, the majority decisions of the denomination have been that homosexuals should not be ordained. In 1996 this perspective was added to our constitution with the “chastity and fidelity” clause, which applies to both homosexual and heterosexual relationships (G-6.0108b). There have been backs and forths, and tactical ploys from both perspectives, but the majority voice in the church has remained substantially unchanged. This consistency is notable, given both the growing cultural acceptance of homosexuality and the presence of a large and vocal minority advocating for homosexual ordination.
We treasure and protect the rights of the minority, even while we accept the decisions of the majority. God frequently uses the voice of dissent to reform the church. And so the minority in the Presbyterian Church that wants homosexual ordination has the right to bring up the topic for reconsideration. And they have done so at nearly every opportunity and in many different ways. Their tenacity is a model for action in the face of opposition when you believe you are acting for God. However, it has also been a source of significant tension and discord, a drain of energy, and a distraction from the church’s calling.
I’m a firm believer in the process of the dialectic: that two apparently opposing perspectives can be synthesized into a new position that contains the best of the two. I’ve been hoping that we could find a way to use this process to resolve this disagreement. Several attempts have been made, but none have succeeded. We truly seem to be in a “win – lose” scenario. For one side to “win” and have the church accept their position on homosexual ordination, the other side must “lose” because their position will be rejected.
For 30 years, one “side” has “lost” pretty consistently. If they are the voice of God’s challenge to reform the church, surely a change would have happened by now. We cannot and should not silence the minority. But it may be time to ask the question: why should we continue to argue and debate to the detriment of the church’s unity and vitality? Is it time for the minority to be willing to accept the voice of the majority and agree not to continue to raise the issue?
If the time has not yet come, I suggest that it soon will. Forty years is a typical Biblical time period for change and discernment. Would it be possible for us to agree that by 2019, the fortieth anniversary of the 1979 San Diego GA, we will consider the matter to be decided at least for the next generation? Because of our respect for the voice of the minority, this is not a step that can be imposed upon anyone. But people can be encouraged, for the sake of the church’s peace and unity, to let the topic rest. We may be amazed to discover what our church can do when everyone and everything is not viewed through the lens of this controversy.
This leads to a final point. Those who advocate for the ordination of homosexuals are able to point to homosexual individuals who would be excellent pastors. As the argument typically goes, the church should not obstruct God’s call for such people. That argument, however, fails to appreciate the Reformed understanding of how God calls us. It is not a private, individual process between God and the person. The personal call must be confirmed publicly by the church. Sometimes this takes place in an individual case-by-case process: someone believes she is called to be an elder, and that call is confirmed by the vote of the congregation. Sometimes the church has specific criteria which must be met in order for a call to be confirmed. When they are not met, there can be no public confirmation of a personal call. For example, someone who feels called by God must earn a seminary degree, display competence in the Biblical languages, and pass five ordination exams. If a pastoral candidate cannot meet these criteria, even with provisions for extraordinary circumstances such as learning disabilities, the call cannot be confirmed. (Of course, even if the criteria are met, the call may still not be confirmed if the church has reservations of some sort about the candidate.)
If the church has decided that engaging in same-gender sexual activity presents a person from being ordained, this does not mean that the church is blocking God’s call for her. It simply means that the person’s personal sense of call cannot be publically confirmed, because she failed to meet one of the criteria. Put simply, we believe that there is no call from God, no matter how passionately the person believes that there is one, if the church does not confirm it.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
God Knows What He's Doing
God knows what he’s doing. And that includes what he does in our church. We have all the pieces for our church to be exactly what God has in mind for it. We all have the gifts, the interests, the resources, and the time. And God has made sure that everyone is included in the life of the church. No one sits in a back corner with nothing to do. And no one goes crazy because they have too much to do. We each have a role that no one else fill like we can. As we all do our part, everything gets done and our church is the powerhouse for the community that God wants it to be.
Unfortunately, that’s not the way it works out. God knows what he’s doing, but we think we know better. Some of us take on more than we should. Many more of us think that the church doesn’t need our gifts, our time, and our efforts.
If you think there’s a reason for you not to be involved in the church, God has already heard them all.
• Do you think you’re too old? Sarah did (Genesis 18:1-15), but God had the last laugh.
• Do you think you’re too young? Jeremiah did (Jeremiah 1:4-10), but God gave him what he needed.
• Do you think you’re not up to the job? Gideon didn’t (Judges 6:15-16), but God did it through him.
• Do you think you’re not a good enough person? Neither did Peter (Luke 5:1-11), but it didn’t matter to the Lord.
• Do you think other people won’t accept you? Moses didn’t (Exodus 3:11-4:9), but God showed him that it didn’t matter.
Ask God to show you the place that he has in mind for you in the life of the church. He’ll guide you to it, and your relationship will grow as you take part.
Peter
Unfortunately, that’s not the way it works out. God knows what he’s doing, but we think we know better. Some of us take on more than we should. Many more of us think that the church doesn’t need our gifts, our time, and our efforts.
If you think there’s a reason for you not to be involved in the church, God has already heard them all.
• Do you think you’re too old? Sarah did (Genesis 18:1-15), but God had the last laugh.
• Do you think you’re too young? Jeremiah did (Jeremiah 1:4-10), but God gave him what he needed.
• Do you think you’re not up to the job? Gideon didn’t (Judges 6:15-16), but God did it through him.
• Do you think you’re not a good enough person? Neither did Peter (Luke 5:1-11), but it didn’t matter to the Lord.
• Do you think other people won’t accept you? Moses didn’t (Exodus 3:11-4:9), but God showed him that it didn’t matter.
Ask God to show you the place that he has in mind for you in the life of the church. He’ll guide you to it, and your relationship will grow as you take part.
Peter
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Old Union's Core Values
For the past several months, Old Union’s session has been talking about our church’s “core values.” These are the things that make us who we are as a church. They’re what brought us together as a church, they’re what gives Old Union the character that it’s had for generations, and they are things that we value, even if no one else does. In order to identify these core values, the session and selected members of the congregation answered questions like “What are some things that we would continue to do, even if we didn’t get any benefit from them?” and “What’s the same about Old Union now, a hundred years ago, and a hundred years from now?” Here are the three “core values” that we came up with.
A. SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH: At Old Union, we want to deepen our relationship with God, to make him a more important part of our lives, and to commit our lives more to his will. We gather to pray and to worship the Lord.
B. PROVIDE A PLACE OF BELONGING: Old Union is a family. Even though the community around us is changing, we continue to cherish the values of a “small country church.” Old Union is a place of welcome, compassion, caring, togetherness, support, and forgiveness.
C. COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND SERVICE: We are God’s ambassador in our community. We reach out to help people in need, and we seek ways to share God’s love with those around us. We don’t serve others to receive appreciation. We do it because it’s who God made us to be.
If these “core values” seem obvious to you, then you’re a true Old Unionite. Each congregation is unique and has a special place in God’s plan for the world. Different values would seem obvious for people in other churches.
We put time into identifying these core values because we need to be true to God’s calling for our church. At times we may go lose sight of what our church is all about, and we need to focus ourselves again on what really matters. And as we make plans for the future, we should be sure that we are building on what makes us who we are, and not try to make ourselves something different from our calling.
Take some time to reflect on these “core values.” How can you strengthen the way that our church expresses them? What is something we need to change, to stop doing, or to begin, to help us be more faithful to God’s calling for us? Please tell me or a session member what you think!
(Or, if you're a leader in another church and are interested in the process we used so that you can identify the core values in your congregation, let me know.)
A. SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH: At Old Union, we want to deepen our relationship with God, to make him a more important part of our lives, and to commit our lives more to his will. We gather to pray and to worship the Lord.
B. PROVIDE A PLACE OF BELONGING: Old Union is a family. Even though the community around us is changing, we continue to cherish the values of a “small country church.” Old Union is a place of welcome, compassion, caring, togetherness, support, and forgiveness.
C. COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND SERVICE: We are God’s ambassador in our community. We reach out to help people in need, and we seek ways to share God’s love with those around us. We don’t serve others to receive appreciation. We do it because it’s who God made us to be.
If these “core values” seem obvious to you, then you’re a true Old Unionite. Each congregation is unique and has a special place in God’s plan for the world. Different values would seem obvious for people in other churches.
We put time into identifying these core values because we need to be true to God’s calling for our church. At times we may go lose sight of what our church is all about, and we need to focus ourselves again on what really matters. And as we make plans for the future, we should be sure that we are building on what makes us who we are, and not try to make ourselves something different from our calling.
Take some time to reflect on these “core values.” How can you strengthen the way that our church expresses them? What is something we need to change, to stop doing, or to begin, to help us be more faithful to God’s calling for us? Please tell me or a session member what you think!
(Or, if you're a leader in another church and are interested in the process we used so that you can identify the core values in your congregation, let me know.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
