COR Leadership Institute Begins Tomorrow

I am taking a break from packing the warmest clothes I can find in order to write down my thoughts about the Leadership Institute I will be attending with the other pastors from my chuch beginning today in Leawood Kansas.

The Institute is being held at the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection pastored by Adam Hamilton. This year, along with Adam, Mike Slaughter from Ginghmasburg UMC in Ohio will also be speaking at the main sessions.

I attended the Institute in 2006 with staff from Saint Paul's UMC in Tallahassee and really enjoyed it. I am looking forward to this year's even more.

My hopes are that we will return with some practical ideas for taking SUMC to the next level. We are seeing some amazing things happening in our church right now, but we can't relax and get comofrtable; we must begin strategizing about where to go from here.

I have a great deal of respect for Adam and for Mike and am looking forward to hearing what they have to say to us this year. The UMC has fallen on hard times as of late, and I feel that one of the major emphases is going to be on recruiting and training younger leaders. I think this is vitally important to the future of our denomination and anticipate hearing what they have to say on this topic. I am also looking forward to gaining some worship planning tips and checking out their young adult ministry as well as their new church start: Resurrection Downtown.

I am also really looking forward to the cooler air. It's been really hot here in Florida, and some nice Autumn weather will be a nice change of pace.

I'll try to blog frequently throughout the Conferrence, and share my thoughts on what I am learning.

Gray Is My Favorite Color

I tend to find myself in the middle a lot.

Most of the time that's where I am most comfortable (which is probably why I'm a Methodist). Methodists are people of the middle - or, a phrase that I prefer: "the radical center" - if we were fans of the Counting Crows we would surely be singing along with them: "yeh, well you know gray is my favorite color, I felt so symbolic yesterday. If I knew Picasso, I would by myself a gray guitar and play." Our pastors write books called Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White, and we find ourselves straddling the middle on almost every social, political and theological issue. Most of the time I am very comfortable with this; but then there are times where I think to myself, "make a decision for God's sake; take a stand for something; pick a side!"

My biggest struggle right now has to do with the whole missional/incarnational vs. institutional/attractional ecclesial model thing. My problem is that I read too much. I've read everything there is on the "emerging/missional" church, and I agree with much of what is being written; but not everything. Then I start to read everything I can on the "traditional/institutional" church, and I agree with much of what is being said; but not everything. I have some very good friends who serve in the Conference that I serve in who are doing some amazing things within a missional church paradigm. I also have some very good friends who are doing some amazing things within a traditional/contemporary church paradigm.

What I want is to hold the two in tension. I want to be able to do what I love to do within the walls of the "church" building: preach, sing, share in fellowship with other believers, baptize, preside over communion, officiate weddings, teach Bible studies etc, AND I want to be able to do what I love to do in my other parish: the world: serve at the Rescue Mission, volunteer in the schools, hang out with folks who don't want to come to "church," etc.

I went to a Conference on Church Planting a couple of years ago in Orlando and attended a pre-Conference workshop called Incarnational or Attractional. The folks doing the workshop had crossed out the "or" and replaced it with an "and." Unfortunately by the end of the workshop all the "missional/incarnational" folks were on one side of the room and all the "institutional/attractional" folks were on the other side of the room.

And all the Methodists were hanging out in the middle of the room having coffee.

Actually, we were almost required to take a side.

And I didn't appreciate that.

So much for the "and."

I think there has to be a way to bring the best of both of these concepts of how to "do" church together. There has to be some gray in this painting somewhere.

I'm determined to find it.

What is a Methodist?

My friend started a Facebook group called What is a Methodist? Here are some of my thoughts:

I think that “balance” is a key to unlocking the mystery of what it means to be a Methodist. My worship professor in seminary, Paul Chilcote, taught me a lot about Methodism primarily through the theology of John and Charles Wesley. His book, Recapturing the Wesleys’ Vision helped me understand what I believe to be the heart of Methodism more than any other resource that I have read. Chilcote focuses on the “conjunctive” nature of the Wesleys’ theology, but emphasizes that this conjunctive nature is not an either/or perspective but a both/and. In the book, Chilcote shows how the Wesleys’ were able to hold seemingly contrary concepts in healthy tension and thus provide a theology that embraces what Adam Hamilton calls “the radical center.” Chilcote argues for a balance of faith and works, Word and Spirit, personal and social, form and power, heart and head, pulpit and table, Christ and culture, and piety and mercy. The Wesleys’ promoted balance, I do not believe they would be content with the polarization that is taking place in our denomination today; they would be frustrated by our either/or stances on controversial issues, and our insistence upon choosing which “side” we’re on.

Likewise, I think Methodist’s should be people of the Word. One cannot read the sermons or letters of John Wesley (or the hymns of Charles for that matter) without immediately noticing the primacy of Scripture. John called all Methodist’s to be people of “one book.” Unfortunately, I think we are oftentimes lured into placing other books above The Book. I am guilty of reading too much. I have confessed it, and repented, but I love to read. And I am sure that I read too much. As Methodist’s I wonder sometimes if we haven’t gotten away from our book. The Bible has been reduced to nothing more than a good story with some helpful principles in many Methodist circles; this should not be!

And what of personal piety? Again, I do not claim to be exempt from this accusation: I am a big proponent of relevance, sometimes to a fault. The reverse of the old cliché is as true as the original: we can be so earthly minded that we’re no heavenly good. As Methodist’s we must be willing to critically examine ourselves and evaluate our piety. We should be people of “holy love,” to use one of Ken Collins’ favorite phrases: men, women, and children who love God with all their hearts; who actively pursue holiness through spiritual discipline; and who base all they say and do upon the words of Scripture. Listen to these words of John Wesley from “The Character of a Methodist:”

“…(T)he tree is known by its fruits. For as he (the Methodist) loves God, so he keeps his commandments; not only some, or most of them, but all, from the least to the greatest. He is not content to "keep the whole law, and offend in one point;" but has, in all points, "a conscience void of offence towards God and towards man." Whatever God has forbidden, he avoids; whatever God hath enjoined, he doeth; and that whether it be little or great, hard or easy, joyous or grievous to the flesh. He "runs the way of God's commandments," now he hath set his heart at liberty. It is his glory so to do; it is his daily crown of rejoicing, "to do the will of God on earth, as it is done in heaven;" knowing it is the highest privilege of "the angels of God, of those that excel in strength, to fulfill his commandments, and hearken to the voice of his word."

I don’t know if that’s what a Methodist is, but I think it’s pretty close.My friend started a Facebook group called What is a Methodist? Here are some of my thoughts:

Institutional AND Organic? Is it Possible?

I am a both/and kinda guy.

In the spirit of John Wesley, I tend to try to hold most things in tension whenever possible: piety and social justice; worship and evangelism; public and private; organic and institutional.

It is this final category that I would like to expound upon a bit here. I began reading Frank Viola’s book Reimaging Church today. I knew what I was getting into when I opted to bring this particular book to Starbucks with me, but I went ahead and did it anyway. Viola is an important voice in the ecclesial conversation taking place in evangelicalism today, but I am afraid he goes too far.

Like so many really smart people that I have been reading lately, Viola seems to have a need to throw down the gauntlet and demand that the reader choose which side they’re on. Either one abandons the institutional church entirely (as he did) and embrace an organic ecclesial structure, or one remains a part of the institutional church system which he claims is antithetical to New Testament ecclesial development, and thereby misses out on opportunities to truly experience church as it was intended to be.

Is there no room for compromise here? Is it not possible to develop organic communities of faith and mission that thrive within an institutional ecclesial structure?

I speak as one who has so much at stake in this, so I will seem biased: and I am! I spent thousands of dollars and several years as a husband and father of two small children, taking graduate courses and working full-time to earn a Master of Divinity degree in order to fulfill God’s call on my life to ordained ministry. My Master of Divinity degree credentials me for one thing, and one thing only: ordained ministry in the institutional church.

Of course, this will sound like I am endorsing the institutional church solely based upon my need for a job, but that is not entirely true. Of course, I need an income; of course I need to provide for my family; but, if God were to reveal to me today that the institutional church was irrelevant, and that I was spinning my wheels serving it, I would leave. But I haven’t sensed God telling me that. I will agree that the local church is not what God intended; but I would argue that nothing is. Every person, organization, and system in this flawed world is … well, flawed! We’re all broken and in need of God’s Spirit to bring new life; this includes the institutional church.

Having said that, there is certainly a need for the institutional church to consider the value of innovation and “reimagination.” I agree with Viola that the church needs to be reimagined, but reimagination does not necessarily mean abolition.

If John Wesley were around, he would challenge us to consider how to look at the strengths of both an institutional and organic model of church and then work towards ways of implementing the best of both into a functional hybrid that reveals Christ to the world in new and creative ways.

Christ commissioned the first apostles to go forth and make disciples. They had spent three years in the best seminary that money could never buy (the original “Masters Seminary.”) The church needs leaders – trained leaders – apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers as the apostle Paul said, to equip the saints for the work of the ministry. The institutional church could use to take a serious look at her mission, this much is clear, but a serious look should not lead to dissolution of the organization that has come into being over the past 1700 or so years. A fresh look should lead to the formation of organic groups and a newfound missional ethos; a fresh look should recognize that the world has changed, that the church is not the bastion of hope and spiritual enlightenment that she once was, that she must work hard to reintroduce Christ to an ever increasing secular world.

Can the church be all that Christ wants her to be without dissolving the institution en masse? I think she can.

Viola writes; “I have a dream that countless churches will be transformed from high-powered business organizations into spiritual families – authentic Christ-centered communities – where the members know one another intimately, love one another unconditionally, bleed for one another deeply, and rejoice with one another unfailingly” (28).

So do I.

The question remains whether this dream can become a reality through the institution we know of as the church.

I think it can.

Only time will tell, I suppose.

In the meantime, I'll keep on doing what God has called me to do and serve my church.

God Doesn't Love Your 401k

I read an interesting article today in The Christian Century entitled “An Alternative Investment Plan: Economics for Disciples” by Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove. I appreciated the article, but I confess I a struggle with Jonathan’s thesis, and I imagine that many people - Christians and otherwise - will struggle with it as well.

Hartgrove writes: “Most of us are too invested in securing our futures to trust Jesus for the good life now.” Hartgrove utilizes the phrase “the economics of providence” throughout the article and leans heavily upon Matthew 6:19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal” as his primary text.

Hartgrove lays out a compelling argument for complete trust in God’s providential care for us regarding all things economic. He challenges the reader with convicting questions: “Do we really trust the abundance of God’s economy or the goodness of God’s family?” and “Could it be that responsible Christian parents should give away all their extra money each month instead of putting it into a college savings account or an IRA?” His answer is unambiguous: “this is what Jesus challenges us to do – to entrust all ourselves and our resources to God’s kingdom alone.”

Aye, there’s the rub!

I am a father of two teenagers. I am a pastor and my wife is an artist. Am I not to think about my children’s future? Am I not to think about what lies ahead for my wife and I should we make it into our 70’s? Or should I simply trust God to work out all of the details? Is this what the Bible teaches? Is this what Jesus truly meant when he said to store up treasure in heaven?

I realize that we live in the most affluent society in history. I realize that even as a card carrying member of the lower middle class I make more than 90% of the people in the world. And the reality is, my wife and I give away as much as we can; sometimes more than we should. But my children are growing up in a culture that pushes against the kingdom values that we are trying to instill in them.

Although I completely agree that our “treasures” are not of this world; and I also agree that we should invest in things that have eternal value; I also feel obligated to invest in my 401k as well as do everything I can to ensure that my children are able to survive in the world.

Solomon says “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding (Proverbs 3:5), but he doesn’t stop there. He goes on to say, “in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.”

In Proverbs 16:3 he says “Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.”

Perhaps it’s not so much either/or as it is both/and.

Did God Send a Tornado to Warn the ELCA?

Don Heatley over at Creatio Ex Nihilo posted an interesting blog today. You can read it at http://www.donheatley.com/2009/08/so-we-still-believe-in-a-storm-god-1.html.

Although I have tremendous respect for John Piper, I can't help but wonder, along with Don, about the obvious problems associated with Piper's theology. An argument that God, motivated by anger over humanity's sin, orchestrates natural disasters to warn or punish us, paints a picture not of a God of love, but a God of wrath; and frankly, I struggle with that picture.

Too many innocent lives have been lost in natural disasters that occur all to frequently for me to place the blame for those kinds of events on a God who according to Elijah, wasn't in the fire, wasn't in the quake, wasn't in the wind, but was in the whisper.

Brett Favre, Entitlement and Pride: A Rant

OK. Every once in a while I just feel the need to rant: this is one of those times. A disclaimer up front: if you are not a football fan, this post may not be as meaningful to you as it will be to others.

I appreciate the accomplishments of quarterback Brett Favre. As a lifelong fan of Dan Marino, I had no hard feelings about Brett breaking several of his records a few years ago. Furthermore, I was actually rooting for Brett and the Packers in the NFC Championship game two years ago. However, Brett’s decision to return to professional football today is – for lack of a better term – infuriating. Why am I so fired up about this you may ask? Allow me to try and articulate.

Brett’s decision to return to football and play for the Minnesota Vikings today AFTER telling the team three weeks ago that he was NOT going to return is disrespectful and classless on many levels.

Brett seems to have little regard for the other men on the Minnesota Vikings team who are working tirelessly every day in an effort to earn the respect of their teammates and to earn a spot on the team. Quarterbacks Tarvaris Jackson, Sage Rosenfels and John David Booty are suddenly shoved to the sidelines and handed a clipboard and a headset even though they have pushed themselves daily in training camp all summer long. In the meantime, Brett conveniently waits until camp is over to announce his decision to return. Perhaps he feels that he has earned the right to skip out on the things that he doesn’t enjoy, but this pathetic appeal to entitlement is what’s wrong with this country today. Surely Brett feels that he has paid his dues and that his record speaks for itself, and indeed his record is pretty phenomenal as far as quarterbacks are concerned; but, no disrespect intended, who cares? You’re a man just like the rest of those men on that field and the entitlement argument – I am convinced – won’t increase the respect his teammates show him (which is what he expects), but just the opposite. If Brett wanted to win the respect of his teammates, he would have said yes to Minnesota three months ago, reported to mini camp and worked his tail off to show the other guys that he was in this together with them.

At this stage in his career, running back Adrian Peterson could have demanded a bit more respect from his teammates if he wanted to, but he didn’t. He is there in the trenches with his friends and his comrades lifting weights, running sprints, doing three a days, and not expecting any special treatment.

Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived wrote that “pride goes before destruction” (Proverbs 16:18a). I don’t mean to be a prophet of doom here, but the reality is, Brett did this last year in New York and the results speak for themselves. Minnesota will not be a better team because of Brett Favre. He brings incredible talent but the arrogance and utter disregard for the rest of the players on that team will ultimately prove to be the Achilles Heal of the Minnesota Vikings in 2009. They may win a few games to start the season, but Brett’s age, lack of conditioning, and his inability to bond with his teammates will let the team down in the end, and prove once again that football is a team sport.

Favre said in his press conference today that his legacy will be “his” legacy. That is precisely the problem: it’s all about Brett, and that won’t ever be enough in the NFL.

Or in life for that matter.