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
Monday, December 20, 2010
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.)
Monday, August 23, 2010
Our Church's Communities
Old Union Church has more in common with John’s Bar, the Scoreboard, and Uncle Bob’s than it does with Family Christian Bookstore. And that’s OK.
I recently spent time visiting area businesses, asking them to post flyers for our upcoming Wednesday Worship (you can read more about that elsewhere in the newsletter). Nearly all of the businesses in Mars, Evans City, and along Route 8 were happy to post our flyers on their community boards, tape them to their windows, or put them on their counters. The staff and customers wanted to shoot the breeze with me, even if they had never met me. As I got closer to Cranberry Township, my visits changed. More of the businesses told me that their policies didn’t allow them to post flyers. Our conversations were short, polite, and professional.
The difference in my visits reflects a difference in the values and standards of the communities. In Evans City, Mars, and along Route 8, people tend to prefer personal interaction and strong relationships between people and community businesses and organizations. This may come from the area’s rural past, which focused upon neighborliness and close-knit groups. Residents of Cranberry Township tend to have fuller, faster-paced lives. They value brief, efficient interactions with people, in order to accomplish as much as possible as quickly as possible. They prefer large national chains because the selection of merchandise and food is large and predictable.
At its August meeting, the session began to talk about the core values that define our church. Not surprisingly, one of the main topics of our conversation was the fact that our church feels like a family. We value being with and caring for each other, and we easily welcome people into our fellowship. In other words, our church’s identity fits in well with the community standards of Mars and Evans City. But we are a poor fit for the values of Cranberry Township. It’s easy to see why large churches, with more polished worship services and less opportunity for personal interaction, do so well there.
It would be a huge mistake for us to think that we should change what our church is like, in order to attract more people from the Cranberry Township area. God gave our church the character that it has, and being faithful to our call means nurturing and developing this gift. That doesn’t mean that we should never change or offer anything new; it means that we should ensure that whatever we do builds upon the values and standards that have brought us together as a church.
By doing so, we continue to minister effectively to the Mars-Evans City community by providing a way to connect with our Lord in a way that feels natural to them. At the same time, we offer a “counter-cultural” presence to the Cranberry Township community. Some residents of that community hunger for a sense of belonging and connection with others. Others may be pleasantly surprised by a different type of life than we’ve known before.
I recently spent time visiting area businesses, asking them to post flyers for our upcoming Wednesday Worship (you can read more about that elsewhere in the newsletter). Nearly all of the businesses in Mars, Evans City, and along Route 8 were happy to post our flyers on their community boards, tape them to their windows, or put them on their counters. The staff and customers wanted to shoot the breeze with me, even if they had never met me. As I got closer to Cranberry Township, my visits changed. More of the businesses told me that their policies didn’t allow them to post flyers. Our conversations were short, polite, and professional.
The difference in my visits reflects a difference in the values and standards of the communities. In Evans City, Mars, and along Route 8, people tend to prefer personal interaction and strong relationships between people and community businesses and organizations. This may come from the area’s rural past, which focused upon neighborliness and close-knit groups. Residents of Cranberry Township tend to have fuller, faster-paced lives. They value brief, efficient interactions with people, in order to accomplish as much as possible as quickly as possible. They prefer large national chains because the selection of merchandise and food is large and predictable.
At its August meeting, the session began to talk about the core values that define our church. Not surprisingly, one of the main topics of our conversation was the fact that our church feels like a family. We value being with and caring for each other, and we easily welcome people into our fellowship. In other words, our church’s identity fits in well with the community standards of Mars and Evans City. But we are a poor fit for the values of Cranberry Township. It’s easy to see why large churches, with more polished worship services and less opportunity for personal interaction, do so well there.
It would be a huge mistake for us to think that we should change what our church is like, in order to attract more people from the Cranberry Township area. God gave our church the character that it has, and being faithful to our call means nurturing and developing this gift. That doesn’t mean that we should never change or offer anything new; it means that we should ensure that whatever we do builds upon the values and standards that have brought us together as a church.
By doing so, we continue to minister effectively to the Mars-Evans City community by providing a way to connect with our Lord in a way that feels natural to them. At the same time, we offer a “counter-cultural” presence to the Cranberry Township community. Some residents of that community hunger for a sense of belonging and connection with others. Others may be pleasantly surprised by a different type of life than we’ve known before.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Hank the Woodworker
Hank was proud to be a woodworker. He had a well-equipped workshop, complete with neatly laid-out tools, good lighting, lots of space, and even a state-of-the-art ventilation system to remove the sawdust particles from the air so that they wouldn’t contaminate surfaces or irritate the nose. All of his friends and relatives admired the marvelous equipment he had to create marvelous things from wood.
One day, as Hank walked through the booths at a craft festival, he met a young carpenter named Josh who was selling some simple items. Hank smiled to himself at Josh’s rough craft. He introduced himself, and asked Josh about his work. It was all Hank could do to stifle his snorts of disgust as Josh showed him his damaged, hand-me-down tools and described his dark, cramped workplace. “Josh,” he said, “Your heart seems to be in the right place. But without the right tools, you can’t really call yourself a woodworker.” And he proceeded to describe his beautiful workshop to the young man.
After a while, Josh looked up eagerly at Hank. “Would you be willing to show me some of the things you have made?” he asked. “I see an example of what you can make with your tools, I’ll have a better idea of what I should get.”
Hank replied, “Oh, I don’t actually make anything.”
“Really?!” exclaimed Josh. “You have all that fancy equipment, and you don’t do anything with it? What’s the point of that?” Hank was stunned at Josh’s question, and was at a loss for words. Josh paused, and then continued. “Hank, I might know much, but here’s what I do know. All of your fancy tools don’t really matter for anything if you don’t use them. Just because you have them doesn’t matter at all until you actually put your chisel and hammer to wood.” Josh picked up a rudely-made planter from his display. “This might not be much, but at least it’s something. I’d rather use the tools that I have to make what I can, than have all your wonderful equipment and do nothing with it.”
It’s silly to imagine someone like Hank having the tools available to do a marvelous job, but failing to use them. Or is it? God has provided us with marvelous tools to develop and deepen a meaningful relationship with him. But instead of using them, far too many of us focus instead upon the tools themselves. For example:
• Many Christians call themselves “Bible believers.” But the Bible isn’t the focus of our faith; it is a tool that directs us to the true focus. Yes, the Bible is an invaluable, precious tool. But that’s all it is: a tool. Too many of us are like Hank: admiring our planes without every applying them to the wood.
• People treasure their church. Its building, traditions, events, and people are a high priority for them. Some people are turned off to organized religion because of single-minded devotion that some have for it. But again, church is simply a tool to draw us closer to God, his will, and his work.
How are you using your tools?
Peter
One day, as Hank walked through the booths at a craft festival, he met a young carpenter named Josh who was selling some simple items. Hank smiled to himself at Josh’s rough craft. He introduced himself, and asked Josh about his work. It was all Hank could do to stifle his snorts of disgust as Josh showed him his damaged, hand-me-down tools and described his dark, cramped workplace. “Josh,” he said, “Your heart seems to be in the right place. But without the right tools, you can’t really call yourself a woodworker.” And he proceeded to describe his beautiful workshop to the young man.
After a while, Josh looked up eagerly at Hank. “Would you be willing to show me some of the things you have made?” he asked. “I see an example of what you can make with your tools, I’ll have a better idea of what I should get.”
Hank replied, “Oh, I don’t actually make anything.”
“Really?!” exclaimed Josh. “You have all that fancy equipment, and you don’t do anything with it? What’s the point of that?” Hank was stunned at Josh’s question, and was at a loss for words. Josh paused, and then continued. “Hank, I might know much, but here’s what I do know. All of your fancy tools don’t really matter for anything if you don’t use them. Just because you have them doesn’t matter at all until you actually put your chisel and hammer to wood.” Josh picked up a rudely-made planter from his display. “This might not be much, but at least it’s something. I’d rather use the tools that I have to make what I can, than have all your wonderful equipment and do nothing with it.”
It’s silly to imagine someone like Hank having the tools available to do a marvelous job, but failing to use them. Or is it? God has provided us with marvelous tools to develop and deepen a meaningful relationship with him. But instead of using them, far too many of us focus instead upon the tools themselves. For example:
• Many Christians call themselves “Bible believers.” But the Bible isn’t the focus of our faith; it is a tool that directs us to the true focus. Yes, the Bible is an invaluable, precious tool. But that’s all it is: a tool. Too many of us are like Hank: admiring our planes without every applying them to the wood.
• People treasure their church. Its building, traditions, events, and people are a high priority for them. Some people are turned off to organized religion because of single-minded devotion that some have for it. But again, church is simply a tool to draw us closer to God, his will, and his work.
How are you using your tools?
Peter
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Flag in the Sanctuary
Virtually every church in our nation has a US flag in it. But that wasn’t always the case. During World War I, the patriotism of anything German was suspect. Sauerkraut was called “victory cabbage” and German measles was renamed “victory measles.” So, in order to demonstrate their patriotism, German Lutheran churches placed flags in their sanctuaries. It seemed like a great idea, and before long flags sprouted up in places of worship across the land. And a new tradition was born.
At first blush, this seems like a good thing. After all, flags are displayed prominently in other public institutions: schools, banks, sports arenas, even car dealers. So, as a public institution, it’s appropriate for a church to fly the flag. However, there’s something different about a church from other institutions. While we are active participants in our nation’s life, our ultimate allegiance lies not with the United States of America, but with the kingdom of God. That’s why churches also display the Christian flag, and in a place of greater honor than the national flag.
To be honest, I’ve always felt uncomfortable about the flag in the sanctuary. It can be misunderstood to be an affirmation of a dangerous “God and country” mindset. It’s dangerous for three reasons. FIRST, it reduces Christianity to a civil religion practiced for the benefit of the country. That’s something Adolf Hitler tried to do, and German Christian leaders like Karl Barth courageously and vehemently denounced it. Their “Barmen Declaration” has taken its place in the Presbyterian Book of Confessions to declare that the church serves Jesus Christ alone. SECOND, “God and country” can lead to the false assumption that Christianity is an inherently American religion. American Christians are somehow more “Christian” than believers from other nations. Such bigotry has no place in a faith like ours that anticipates a gathering around God’s throne from “every nation, tribe, people, and language” (Revelation 7:9). THIRD, “God and country” is dangerous because it claims that the United States is an inherently Christian nation. If you’re a good American, then you’re a good Christian. This is false, even without considering the patriotism and faithful service of the many US citizens who follow other religions, or no religion at all. The United States is a great nation, and we are truly blessed to be part of it. But there are many ways that our country falls woefully short of God’s plan for our world.
And that is why it is not only appropriate but essential for the flag to be in our sanctuary. It is there to symbolize that our country, like each of us individually, stands under the judgment of God. It is there to remind us that our nation’s blessings are a reflection of God’s grace. It is there to hear God’s testimony and challenge for who we should be and what we should repent from.
The flag in the sanctuary is a reminder to everyone who gathers there to worship. The proclamation that we receive in worship is not for us alone. We are to carry its message to our nation: its leaders, its institutions, and its very values.
At first blush, this seems like a good thing. After all, flags are displayed prominently in other public institutions: schools, banks, sports arenas, even car dealers. So, as a public institution, it’s appropriate for a church to fly the flag. However, there’s something different about a church from other institutions. While we are active participants in our nation’s life, our ultimate allegiance lies not with the United States of America, but with the kingdom of God. That’s why churches also display the Christian flag, and in a place of greater honor than the national flag.
To be honest, I’ve always felt uncomfortable about the flag in the sanctuary. It can be misunderstood to be an affirmation of a dangerous “God and country” mindset. It’s dangerous for three reasons. FIRST, it reduces Christianity to a civil religion practiced for the benefit of the country. That’s something Adolf Hitler tried to do, and German Christian leaders like Karl Barth courageously and vehemently denounced it. Their “Barmen Declaration” has taken its place in the Presbyterian Book of Confessions to declare that the church serves Jesus Christ alone. SECOND, “God and country” can lead to the false assumption that Christianity is an inherently American religion. American Christians are somehow more “Christian” than believers from other nations. Such bigotry has no place in a faith like ours that anticipates a gathering around God’s throne from “every nation, tribe, people, and language” (Revelation 7:9). THIRD, “God and country” is dangerous because it claims that the United States is an inherently Christian nation. If you’re a good American, then you’re a good Christian. This is false, even without considering the patriotism and faithful service of the many US citizens who follow other religions, or no religion at all. The United States is a great nation, and we are truly blessed to be part of it. But there are many ways that our country falls woefully short of God’s plan for our world.
And that is why it is not only appropriate but essential for the flag to be in our sanctuary. It is there to symbolize that our country, like each of us individually, stands under the judgment of God. It is there to remind us that our nation’s blessings are a reflection of God’s grace. It is there to hear God’s testimony and challenge for who we should be and what we should repent from.
The flag in the sanctuary is a reminder to everyone who gathers there to worship. The proclamation that we receive in worship is not for us alone. We are to carry its message to our nation: its leaders, its institutions, and its very values.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
What I've Been Doing for the Past Several Years
Last month I successfully defended my Ph.D. dissertation, and on May 2 I will graduate from the University of Pittsburgh. As I write in the preface of my dissertation, “I am grateful for the prayerful support and encouragement I received from Old Union Presbyterian Church of Mars, Pennsylvania as their pastor undertook this challenge. Without their cheerful faith, this would not be possible.” So I’d like to tell you exactly what I’ve been working on all this time.
In the 13th chapter of Mark, Jesus describes what will happen in the future, including the collapse of the stars, the darkening of the sun and moon, his descent to the earth from the clouds, and the gathering of the elect from the far ends of the earth. A few verses later, he says that “all these things” will happen before “this generation” passes away. In case you haven’t noticed, the stars, moon, and sun haven’t changed. We’re still waiting for Jesus’ return, and God’s people are still scattered far and wide. It looks like the prediction of Mark 13 was wrong. Over the centuries, people have come up with all sorts of ways to solve this problem. Some people argue that “all these things” doesn’t include the ones I mentioned. Others claim that “this generation” means something different from what we usually think it does. Still others think that the prediction was fulfilled in some symbolic way. In my research, I’ve found that none of these explanations work. Mark 13 predicts that fantastic events will happen before the end of the first century at latest, and they haven’t. The prediction is wrong.
To come with an answer for this problem, I use the approach of a French philosopher named Paul Ricoeur. Ricoeur explains that a book can mean more than just what the author intended to say, and more than what the original readers understood from it. When a book is read in new situations, different meanings emerge from it. A book can’t just mean whatever you want it to mean, but it can mean more than what the author thought it did. According to Ricoeur (who was a Christian), the Bible in particular offers multiple meanings.
In my dissertation, I claim that Mark 13 can be read today as a metaphorical text, even though it wasn’t originally understood that way. As Ricoeur explains, metaphor isn’t just replacing a straightforward explanation with a fancier way to say things. Metaphor makes us see the world in new ways that we’d never recognize otherwise. And the possibilities that come from metaphor are more than you could ever completely explain. Ricoeur sees this characteristic of metaphor as a great way to express the richness of the gospel, which always has something more to say to us, no matter how much we’ve listened in the past.
Mark 13, as a metaphor, describes the powers of this world that appear to be in control. They deceive, they destroy, and they persecute God’s people. But their power isn’t as real as it seems. God limits how far they can go, and he takes care of his people through it all. There is a regular, ongoing interaction between these apparent powers and the true power of God, which will eventually be fully revealed.
In the 13th chapter of Mark, Jesus describes what will happen in the future, including the collapse of the stars, the darkening of the sun and moon, his descent to the earth from the clouds, and the gathering of the elect from the far ends of the earth. A few verses later, he says that “all these things” will happen before “this generation” passes away. In case you haven’t noticed, the stars, moon, and sun haven’t changed. We’re still waiting for Jesus’ return, and God’s people are still scattered far and wide. It looks like the prediction of Mark 13 was wrong. Over the centuries, people have come up with all sorts of ways to solve this problem. Some people argue that “all these things” doesn’t include the ones I mentioned. Others claim that “this generation” means something different from what we usually think it does. Still others think that the prediction was fulfilled in some symbolic way. In my research, I’ve found that none of these explanations work. Mark 13 predicts that fantastic events will happen before the end of the first century at latest, and they haven’t. The prediction is wrong.
To come with an answer for this problem, I use the approach of a French philosopher named Paul Ricoeur. Ricoeur explains that a book can mean more than just what the author intended to say, and more than what the original readers understood from it. When a book is read in new situations, different meanings emerge from it. A book can’t just mean whatever you want it to mean, but it can mean more than what the author thought it did. According to Ricoeur (who was a Christian), the Bible in particular offers multiple meanings.
In my dissertation, I claim that Mark 13 can be read today as a metaphorical text, even though it wasn’t originally understood that way. As Ricoeur explains, metaphor isn’t just replacing a straightforward explanation with a fancier way to say things. Metaphor makes us see the world in new ways that we’d never recognize otherwise. And the possibilities that come from metaphor are more than you could ever completely explain. Ricoeur sees this characteristic of metaphor as a great way to express the richness of the gospel, which always has something more to say to us, no matter how much we’ve listened in the past.
Mark 13, as a metaphor, describes the powers of this world that appear to be in control. They deceive, they destroy, and they persecute God’s people. But their power isn’t as real as it seems. God limits how far they can go, and he takes care of his people through it all. There is a regular, ongoing interaction between these apparent powers and the true power of God, which will eventually be fully revealed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
