On being authentic shepherds

There you have the Inappropriate Priest on the Ten Commandments. More than just silliness there is a serious point here, I think. The members of this Church are rightly shocked at the open hypocrisy and insincerity of their shepherd. Perhaps he is an exaggerated version of those shepherds condemned in Jeremiah (see 10:21; 23:1-2; etc.).

I think there are various kinds of much more subtle hypocrisy that pastors are tempted to slip into, even unawares.

One sort of hypocrisy we must guard against is the temptation to put forward our own idiosyncratic preferences while (by virtue of our ordination) presuming to represent the community of Christ as a whole; to offer my own ideas instead of the faith of the Church.

In my own United Methodist Church we are asked in the Ordination Liturgy: "In covenant with the other elders, will you be loyal to The United Methodist Church, accepting its order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline, defending it against all doctrines contrary to God's Holy Word, and accepting the authority of those who are appointed to supervise your ministry?" to which we must (presumably) respond in the affirmative for the service (and our ministry) to continue.

Yet it sometimes seems as though some of our pastors are ignorant of parts of our doctrine (though all is plainly spelled out in The Book of Discipline, Part II, paragraph 103 most particularly), or perhaps they just plain don't believe or accept them. Instead they are tempted preach their own different personal beliefs. This is surely a betrayal of the ordination vow.

On the other hand, the liturgy is still neglected in some places. (As an aside, I think we ought to have a church-wide discussion on what it means to be 'loyal to the liturgy' while presumably maintaining a degree of flexibility with it as well - I myself am uncertain at times how to live in this tension).
The services that constitute the Ritual of The United Methodist Church are also spelled out quite clearly in the Discipline, paragraph 1114.3.

If I am willing to put my own opinions above the established doctrine of the Church and my own preferences above the liturgy of the church I become an unstable shepherd, without a firm foundation, and one who is decieving people if in fact they believe I am speaking for the church (as one with teaching authority) when I am really only speaking for myself. I become not unlike the pastor the Lewis describes in letter 16 of The Screwtape Letters:
At the other church we have Fr. Spike. The humans are often puzzled to understand the range of his opinions - why he is one day almost a Communist and the next not far from some kind of theocratic Fascism - one day a scholastic, and the next prepared to deny human reason altogether...there is also a promising streak of dishonesty in him; we are teaching him to say 'The teaching of the Church is' when he really means 'I'm almost sure I read recently in Maritain or someone of that sort.'

That is one sort of hypocrisy.
But obviously, this is not the problem of our Inappropriate priest. He's clearly got the doctrine right; it is just that the teaching is completely divorced from his actual lifestyle. The pastor's call to live out an authentic Christ-centered spirituality is, I believe, far more foundational to effective pastoral leadership than any administrative, vision-casting, or people-managing skills.

I wonder what we might call that passive sort of hypocrisy in which our own spiritual life - our prayers, our Scripture study, our zeal, and our nearness to God - is steadily allowed to deteriorate even as we continue to serve as presumptive models and shepherds for the faithful? Are we telling people how important it is to pray, but not ourselves in prayer; are we exhorting the faithful to practice sabbath and meditate on Scripture without doing so ourselves; are we proclaiming to others the sweet comfort of a deep relationship with Christ, even as we neglect and drift away from him?

But thanks be to God, with the help of the prayers of our fellow saints, with careful use of the means of grace (including sabbath rest) we can forever be drawn deeper into the heart of the Triune God and empowered by his Life and his Holiness for fruitful and authentic ministry.

Luther' ecumenical Pilgrimage

The folks over at www.hereiwalk.org are chronicaling their journey from the (now Lutheran) monastery at Erfurt to Rome in an ecumenical pilgrimage symbolically connecting the Evangelical and Roman Churches as we approach the 500th Anniversary (in 2017) of Luther's posting of the 95 Theses. The journey is the same route that the monk Luther took in 1510 in his own pilgrimage to the Eternal City.

To entertain or to edify?

One of my favorite United Methodist clergy-bloggers, Andrew Thompson, has been blogging again lately, bringing us more of his usual thought-provoking fare.

Most recently he is engaging with a New York Times article on preaching - here is an exerpt:

He's talking about preaching. And what he means is that congregations want to be entertained rather than edified. They want a 'feel good' gospel rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ. He relates an experience from his own ministry, where an oversight committee of laity once instructed him to keep his sermons to 10 minutes, with a heavy dose of funny stories and an eye to sending the congregation home feeling better about themselves at the end.MacDonald says that religion has become a "consumer experience." And that like all choices we make about what to consume, our choices about worship are increasingly aimed at obtaining a product that makes us feel better -- like we got our money's worth, so to speak...

Thompson goes on to offer some thoughts based upon his own experience and to some extent agrees with MacDonald but not entirely.

What do you who listen to or preach sermons think? Is there a pressure on the preacher to entertain even more than edify? If so, from whence comes this pressure? (Neil Postman's exellent book Amusing Ourselves to Death certainly has something to say about this, as he argues that all forms of public discourse - including preaching - have been reduced to "entertainment" in our culture; I recommend every preacher read it).

It seems to me that (among really earnest preachers of Christ) there is a tension between the desire to address people on a level that they can grasp and comprehend on the one hand, and pushing them to rise to "the next level" of understanding on the other. Though perhaps we may sometimes underestimate the understanding of our hearers.

I've noticed that many preachers (often including me) steer away from the theologically dense writings of Paul offered by the Lectionary in favor of the simple narratives of the Gospels in their preaching. Does this stem from a fear that Paul - while offering lots of theological meat - is "too dull" or "too abstract" for most folks in our culture to pay attention to? Is such a fear justified? Or does this fear show a lack of faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to capture hearts and minds through the proclaimed Word of God?

Has the Holy Spirit ever made mighty use of a meager sermon in such a way that gives you hope for the church's future?

Judge strikes down proposition 8

As you may have heard, a judge in California struck down Proposition 8 (the referendum that state voters passed defining marriage as between one man and one woman) as unconstitutional.

Click here for comments from Christianity Today (the following is a provocative quotation):

Judge Walker's decision is sweeping and comprehensive, basically affirming every argument and claim put forth by those demanding that California's Proposition 8 be declared unconstitutional. That proposition, affirmed by a clear majority of California voters, amended the state's constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In one brazen act of judicial energy, California's voters were told that they had no right to define marriage, and thousands of years of human wisdom were discarded as irrational.

Several things strike me here:

As a (rather common) observer of culture, I note the lack of historical consciousness that we see in this decision. The judge feels no burden for continuity with all of human civilization (which was before our nation existed, and will live on after our nation is dead) on the nature of marriage. We Americans can make and remake the fabric of society however we want - it's a free country after all...right? I believe the implications of this kind of (in my opinion, rather naive) thinking need to be further explored.

Also very interesting to me from a political theory point of view is the tension we see here between the will of the common people for how they should be governed and the will of an unelected, entrenched, and politically powerful judiciary. I would think, that in a democratic republic, the burden of proof would fall upon those who wish to overturn the will of the people, yet in the judge's statement, it seems that things were quite the other-way-round. What might this mean, I wonder, for the future of our political system in which the people are supposed to govern ourselves?

Finally there is the use of the words "rational" and "irrational" in the judge's decision (and in the CT article criticizing it). I worry that these words, both in political and theological discourse, have been strained to the point of near meaninglessness by contemporary cultural debates. Opposing "sides" simply assert the irrationality of their opponents' positions and then disagree on what is or is not 'rational.' Yet this betrays what logical reasoning actually IS. It is not opinion that is merely asserted - logical reasoning is objective and a rational conclusion can be demonstrated as such through tools such as the logical syllogism.

Logical reasoning is a skill available to every person (just like solving math problems) and so if we take the time and mental energy to "reason together" there should be no disagreement on what is or is not rational, or at least if there is a disagreement we should be able to identify exactly what differently understood premise causes the disagreement and focus our research in this area.

Yet this seems never to happen. Assertions (indeed, slogans) have all but replaced reasoning and demonstration in our cultural discourse. It seems to me that a basic course in elementary logic is badly needed by most of our populace. I think it ought at least to be required of all college students throughout this nation.

For a better discussion than I can manage on this aspect (the nature of moral and legal rationality) see here.

Thoughts on Cross-bearing discipleship

St. Luke the Evangelist (1st Century):

25 Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. 28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. 33 So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:25-33, ESV).

St. Basil the Great (4th Century):

In recieving the Baptism of water, we make this same agreement when we promise to be crucified and to die and to be buried with him.

St. Symeon the New Theologian (10th Century):

[In times of peace, when there is no persecution] the cross and death consist in nothing else than the complete putting to death of self-will. He who pursues his own will, however slightly, will never be able to observe the law of Christ the Savior.

Father John Wesley (18th Century):

[On giving up all that we have]: Withdraw the affections from the creatures and enjoy them only in God; enjoy them only for God, only in such a manner as leads to God.

The lord bishop N.T. Wright (21st Century):

Many of Jesus' followers then as now, have owned houses and lands, and have not felt compelled to abandon them. But being prepared to do so is the sign that one has understood the seriousness of the call to follow Jesus.