If I Went Back: June 2007

Sunday, June 24, 2007

What I Would Do (4)

I had heard that the early church was a place where the faithful gathered to celebrate their faith in community. It was an acknowledgment of commonly held beliefs, yes, but more importantly an acknowledgment of common Christian practice.

In other words, church wasn't a "weekly filling station" where the faithful got enough fuel to last them all week.

I know I haven't invoked the "Early Church" as a reference for much of what I have written anywhere in this series. So Greg's comments bring me to the point of having to say something about it. I am not a First Century Church Scholar so most of what I'm going to say is based more on intuition than on study. So, let me jump in with my thoughts and opinions.

It would seem to me that there was not a single "First Century Church" style. It varied, I am sure with the leaders and ethnicity. The Gentile communities worshiped differently from the Jewish communities. That is clear from the arguments reported in Acts between those who insisted on the old Jewish ways and those who were willing to admit the Gentiles without circumcision. So the first thing to remember is that the styles differed by the community- a common ground that we share with them in this age that is far more diverse than any place since the First Century Rome. In other words it is not about the style of worship- it has to be something more.

Which brings me to Greg's reminder that the often heard comment about coming to church to get refueled for the week may not be the whole story- or even a very large part of the story. This gets to the very heart of what worship is to be. The "refueling station" concept is one that grows out of the individualism of our modern American civilization. "I" come to church for "my" benefit. It makes "me" feel better. It fits the individual (personal) salvation model that underlies much western Protestant thought, even outside the more conservative and evangelical circles. Church is all about "me" and "mine."

I don't believe that was the focus of the First Century Church's worship. It was about the community. It was the opportunity for the community to get together. It was the time to remember that it wasn't all about "me." It's about God and "us."

A number of things actually do occur in worship- and one of them is the "refueling" for the week ahead. But it's not for "me" to have strength. It is so that "we" can be strengthened and empowered to go do mission as community. The mission is always the motivating force of all that the church does. It is even part of what happens in worship. "We" are refueled- empowered- by worship because

we pray together
we hear God's Word together
we learn together
we confess our shortcomings together
we experience forgiveness together
we sing and praise together and, in short,
we are community together.

I would find it essential that when planning a worship service these elements be kept in mind. Somehow or another, depending on styles, traditions (or lack of them), culture, and so on, these are part and parcel of who we are as a church and therefore of our worship together. Which may be why, in the long term, the sweetened, self-centered styles of worship may feel good for a while, but will in the end discover they have lost the true center of worship- the mission of God.

The more I think about worship, the more convinced I become of this unbreakable connection. It is at the very center of Judeo-Christian worship, for example. Being God's People is what worship expressed. Not being God's individual person who happens to be sitting next to another of God's individual persons singing the same song or daydreaming during the same prayer. Those interconnections make community and become the very incarnation of Jesus in our world.

Greg is right- it is faith expressed in community, in the practice of worship in community, and ultimately the faith of the community lived and practiced in the world.

So, next week, on to leadership issues.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

What I Would Do (3)

Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (1)
3. Secular Ministry: Part 1, Part 2
4. What I've Learned: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (2)
5. What I Would Do: Part 1, Part 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Time now to think about preaching- the proclamation of the Word. It is fairly obvious from the Book of Acts as well as Paul's letters that preaching goes back to about as early a stage in the church as there is. Or, more to the point, the proclamation of the Word goes back that far. I am not enough of a Biblical scholar to know what the real difference is between what they did and what we tend to do. But somehow it seems to me that there is something quite different.

I think we can actually see that difference when we compare the "sermons" recorded in Acts and the fairly wide content of the different letters. The sermons tended to be given as an explanation of Jesus and the Good News, most often for those who were outside the church. They often included an outline of what we call salvation history in a kind of proof development. Peter's sermon in Acts 2 is the first such example, but far from the last. There is a formality to such things.

The letters are more like dissertations on Scripture. They seek to explain and dig and interpret the Word for people who are already within the church. While they may seem formal to us in style and language, they had a much more informal and less rigid style.

I have a hunch that there was a third style that is often referred to as being "devoted to the Apostle's teaching." They didn't have formal preachers. They didn't have formal teachers. They didn't even have informal ones- at least not in the way we think about them. It was not "The Expert" informing "The Unknowing" about the Word. It was a community event. It was a give and take. It was one sinner helping another sinner discover salvation.

Which reminds me- again- of the 12 Step movement. I am no longer surprised when I end up back in the AA or NA or Al-Anon rooms when I think about the church and its style. Way back in the earliest years of AA people were noticing the apparent similarities between the fledgling movement and the First Century Church. In essence the 12 Step movement was modeled upon the original small group movement.

You go to a 12 Step meeting and you will find amid all the different styles a basic approach that works quite well. Not perfectly, but overall, quite well. There is the basic text, the big book of Alcoholics Anonymous or whichever group you are attending. They read from portions of it. Some groups read larger portions. Others just the basics of the 12-steps and How It Works. Then they talk about a paricular step, topic, or problem related to being sober. You may or may not have announcements and prayer and concerns. Sometimes there is only a speaker and no discussion. Sometimes you break up into small groups for discussion of the lead or step and sometimes you remain in a large group and some get a chance to share.

But people walk out feeling better than they walked in. They also leave wit a deeper undrestanding of the step or topic. Some meetings will stick to the steps, repeating them every 12 weeks so in a year you will have covered the essentials and heard differing opinions on them 4 times. There is only one primary purpose of these groups- helping those who are still suffering under the effects of addictions. People attend these "religiously" - regularly. Several times a week. Some start recovery by going to 90 meetings in 90 days.

Now I realize this was a long detour but in that detour is, I believe at least a partial answer to the why and how of preaching. It is first and foremost a community event, shared by those who have gathered. Preaching, then, comes out of that life. One of the problems I have often seen with some preaching styles is that they are often "generic" or evangelistic. I think it is essential that in this postModern age such contextual opportunities for living and preaching the word become standard. Pastors cannot be "The Experts" who give "The Word". They are the mediators of the Word within the context of the community.

One way to experiment with this is for the pastor to gather a Prayer and Word group to look at the lessons upcoming and reflect on them in the light of the congregation's life and mission and within the greater issue of the missio dei. In that the pastor hears and responds and becomes aware as he or she works on the message how this passage might have an impact. Having personal messages from individuals on particular issues would also add to this. I have a hunch that a broad discussion of this within a congregation could have an impact in ways that we all would be surprised.

Sermons, though, are also ways to reinforce the mission and meaning of the Christian faith on a regular basis. A talk I heard the other day reminded me that of all those attending a workshop only 10% put what they learn into practice. Most have only an inspirational time and then go back to the ways they used to do things. I have a hunch that for many events, 10% may even be too high a number. The speaker commented that this is why he sees it essential to go to church weekly. It is to reinforce the message and build the possibilities of living it in daily life.

He's right. It can be so easy on Wednesday morning to forget how to live as a Christian. The time span from Sunday to then is too great. The way to get to a deeper commitment to growth is repetition. AND to practice the things we learn. One of my discoveries is how much more I have to think about my faith in the secular world. In the church I was surrounded by it day in and day out. Now I know that working in the church isn't a guarantee that one will be more faithful, but at least I thought about it more often.

So preaching for me, then, would attempt to be intentional about sharing the Word within the context of the community and the communities needs. Then it would be to reinforce the calling of each of us to live as Christ-followers in what we do all week. Somehow in this there may also need to be the opportunity to reflect and discuss about our own lives, but that is a response to the sermon, not the sermon itself.

As I wrote this I wondered how different this might be from what I used to do. From feedback I have received over the years, I think this has been my style for most of my ministry. But I can't say I was intentional about it. The intention now would be to reinforce the mission, not to make people just feel better. It would be the ongong challenge to see everything within the life of the church as going in that single, missional direction.

Next week I'll jump into the fray of leadership, management, and how to work in a church.

Thursday, June 7, 2007

What I Would Do (2)

Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, part 2, part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (1)
3. Secular Ministry: Part 1, Part 2
4. What I've Learned: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (2)
5. What I Would Do: Part 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I preached on Sunday, substituting for my pastor who was celebrating with his daughter on her graduation from high school. How easily one falls into the rhythm and mode of leading worship. Of course it is the church where I am a member and you know generally the routine and flow of the service. But you still look out and get an energy as you preach and look at their faces and hope you're reaching their souls.

Which takes me to going back, part 2. How would I do worship differently than before? What would my preaching look like? This makes me think of the development over the past decade or so of "seeker-sensitive" worship and whether that is what we should be about in worship. The goal of the mega-church developed seeker sensitivity is attarctiveness. It is, as is being described in some circles as "attractional" church (as opposed to "missional" church.) It's purpose has been to make worship "friendly and familiar" to non-Christians, to the "seekers" who are looking for something but still haven't found what they are looking for.

Hence seeker sensitive worship was often about looks and the surface of theology. In the larger churches the more "in-depth" worship for those who are further along in their faith was held on another night of the week. Things like Holy Communion may even be reserved for the non- seeker sensitive worship. It seems to me that such a set-up is a good way to develop a hierarchy of worshippers, a class system.

This attractional view of church presupposes that people have to come to us. We have to be attractive to them. When they walk in they have to feel comfortable. So we make it easy to understand and try not to struggle with hard questions. We may present a happy, smiley-faced worship. Obviously (?), this isn't wrong- to a point. But one of those points is that it easily turns into a bait-and-switch.

A number of years ago a friend of mine was attending one of these seeker-sensitive mega-church worship experiences. He was not a newcomer to the faith and had a deep and missional faith. He liked the worship, it's music, the preaching, the atmosphere. It was moving, and did provide more than the basic superficial stuff. But obviously not as much as was under the surface. After a few years he and his wife decided that they would explore joining. Now, all of a sudden they were presented with a lot of things they never knew before. There were requirements that were seldom if ever publicly shared. Once you joined there were rules, rules, and more rules. Once you wanted to be on the "inside" things changed. They left. Not because they were afraid of commitment, but because they felt misled.

I can agree that they should change. If one makes that committment to Jesus and his community discipleship comes along with it. That means living out the mission. But in these type of settings they are often church-directed, institution-driven, not discipleship building. And there was never a hint of these things to come at any time before they expressed a desire to join. Jesus wasn't worried about such attractionalism. He made it clear about having to carry yokes and walk narrow paths- although he also promised that such yokes and paths would be easier because they were his and not those of the world.

The worship service needs to express the mission, life, and needs of the church and community. It must represent the fullness of life in Jesus and the fullness of the life of the congregation. What you see is what you should get. Which means that the style, mode, feeling, and direction of worship must reflect the unique circumstances of the congregation's mission. Therefore it will be different in each church- within whatever liturgical, non-liturgical, historical, non-historical tradition that the congregation is part of.

It will also be determined by the size. One of the powerful moments in our cogregation's worship is the prayer time. All kinds of concerns are raised- joy and fear, celebration and sadness. There was one week when I was in a deep and sorrowful time right after we realized that our friend Sue was losing her battle with cancer. I was restless for three days waiting to get to church to have her in prayer time. It was an essential mission of the church and I needed to participate for Sue (and all of her family and friends.)

That won't work in the same way in a worship service with 200 or more people. It is often tried, but just as often feels out of place. The same would go for testimony, witness, and updates on mission that is happening. Some churches have used technology well to highlight these; others the old tried and true standing up and talking. The amount of "insider knowledge" that is necessary in order to appreciate what is happening can be a drawback.

Which comes back to the seeker-sensitivity. I'm not sure that what we want is to "dumb-down" what we do, but rather "open-up" what we do. This is actually an issue of postModern culture. As I have commented earlier the culture is no longer steeped in the language and rituals of Christendom. We can no longer assume that people have even a basic knowledge of what Christianity is. We absolutely must be aware that people may be completely lost when we begin to use big fancy words.

I think we often need to keep the words- and expand and unpack them. For example, there is power in the word Eucharist. It is an ancient power that can build into a life-changing understanding. We shouldn't lose it. But we can't assume that people know it, either. To build the unpacking into the service can be done quite unobtrusively with a welcoming attitude leading into the experience. We can do the same for things like "baptism" or doctrines like "Trinity" or "repentance". Yes, it may take some work on the part of worship leaders, but if they are listening to the people and paying attention to the culture it can be a redeeming (there's another word) experience.

Again, all this is built around the mission of the community as it incarnates the Missio Dei, the mission of God in their community. Tale a look around the Internet for "Missional" or "Emergent" churches for some examples. Better yet, maybe each of us should sit down with our brothers and sisters and see how we would describe- in a worship experience- the life of God's mission in our own midst.

Monday, June 4, 2007

What I Would Do (1)

“Why do people in church seem like cheerful, brainless tourists on a packaged tour of the Absolute? … Does anyone have the foggiest idea what sort of power we blithely invoke? Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it? The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning. It is madness to wear ladies’ straw hats and velvet hats to church; we should all be wearing crash helmets. Ushers should issue life preservers and signal flares; they should lash us to our pews. For the sleeping god may wake someday and take offense, or the waking god may draw us to where we can never return.”
—Annie Dillard, Teaching a Stone to Talk: Expeditions and Encounters (New York: Harper & Row, 1982), pp. 40-41.

I would not have the ushers in a church I served issue life preservers, but I would hope that working together with God's Spirit, we could become dangerous for God's sake and bring about the miracles and hopes that are at the heart of the Gospel. Like the description of Aslan in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe:

Safe? No he's not safe. But he is good.

That would be a way of describing church. Far, far from safe. It would be a place where people are introduced to power and life and hope and grace that will leave them changed. No, not safe- but more than good!

So what would I do? First, I believe that any form or structure can accomplish the things I would want to see in church. Community can be found at the heart of the most structured, hierarchical church to the least organized small group. Mission can be done by denominational mission boards with vision, church planting teams with strong core values, or a group of friends who get together monthly to visit the sick. Whatever the institution (or even non-institution) or group, organized, spontaneous, or de-centralized, it has to start with core values that support mission and a vision of where they want to go.

So if I were to go back to parish ministry- in whatever form- I would start with my own personal mission, vision, and core values and I would share them from the start with the people I am being called to serve together with. A great deal of my vision and values can be found in what I have already written here, but I would expand it to embrace the specific setting I was to serve in. These become the non-negotiables. If a church does not believe it can partner with me in my vision and values, it would be difficult to be a pastor there. That wouldn't mean they were wrong and I was right. I would mean that I wasn't the right person for that setting.

No matter the setting, though, it would start with a commitment on all our parts to develop broad-based ministry within the congregation and to mission beyond. I would be firm that my vision of mission is not that we should send money to missionaries, mission boards or local organizations (although we would!). It is to do mission.

The specifics of this would depend greatly on the setting, age, and size of the congregation. But size and setting don't preclude possibilities for answering the calling - and experiencing the joy - of actually doing mission. My task as pastor would be to help them discover their unique bend of ministry and mission where they are, with whatever gifts they have, and using whatever resources are available.

Over the past 20 years short-term mission opportunities have, I believe, started a revolution within many churches. One of the most exciting and humbling aspects of the ministry I shared in Wisconsin for 15 years was that we were able to be pioneers in developing those. In the mid to late 80s we simply went and did it. One member went to Alaska and then to Labrador. Ten youth and five adults went to New York City. We showed it could be done. I was told that it was a waste of time or money by some outside our congregation. Why go to these distant places and spend all that money?

I am still awed by the fact that parents let their children go with me to New York or Trinidad and Tobago or the Rosebud Reservation. Other churches soon picked up the idea and got a great deal of publicity out of it. Members of our church started water projects and helped rebuild hospitals and churches. Twenty years later they are still traveling to Alaska or California. It was a life-giving work- giving life to both those who were served- and those who did the serving.

I know all the pros and cons of the short-term mission movement. I am aware that at times it is more for us than for them- at least in our minds. Yes, we need to confess that. But I also know that relationships were made- community, albeit for only a short time. I know the Kingdom was advanced because people were touched. The remarkable and continuing outpouring of support and mission to the Gulf Coast since Katrina has been one of the remarkable by-products of the whole movement.

But mission is more than rebuilding homes destroyed by hurricanes, whether in Louisiana or Central America. It is also building relationships and living a Kingdom-based life. Matthew 25 where Jesus calls people to minister to "the least of these my brothers" and Matthew 28 where He tells us to "Go and make disciples of all nations" are intimately and completely intertwined. So are the Good Samaritan parable and the Lord's Prayer in Luke. You can have one without the other but neither alone gives you the whole picture.

To make disciples is to expand mission. Disciples are those who do what Jesus taught. To make disciples is to bring people into mission- internal, external, local, national, international. To make disciples is to be empowered ourselves and to empower others to join Jesus in living as He lived. Making disciples is far beyond baptisms, transfer of membership, or confirmation. Matthew 28 reminds us that baptisms are the symbol of having become disciples- people in mission.

Yes, I believe that Jesus was about "saving souls." As He freed us from sin by his death and resurrection he was setting a tone of service and mission. But being freed from sin by Jesus may only begin to touch the many ways we - and our souls are still imprisoned. Life itself can keep us from living the way we are called to live. Poverty, political oppression, addictions, crime, fear do more than harm our bodies. They suck the very soul out of us. "Saving souls" is as much about social and political and economic oppression as it is about spiritual oppression to sin and its effects.

The challenge to many of us within the church is to recognize- about ourselves- the ways we are imprisoned and how we may even participate in the imprisoning of others. Honesty, humility, turning from our own self-righteousness and self-elevation while celebrating the presence of God in the Holy Spirit works wonders- and miracles- that is when a church will begin to be dangerous. That happens because we are no longer afraid of our sins and shortcomings. They have been dealt with once and for all. We are no longer trying to impress others or ourselves. We discover - and come to believe - that we are no better or no worse than anyone else and only by working together can we work beside and with others who are just like us.

This then is the foundation of how I would serve with a church. Where this goes next could be interesting.

If I Went Back