Where can we talk about this stuff??

The last three days I've been teaching some sessions out at Prairie Camp, south of Elkhart.  The topic was supposed to be apologetics, and in a sense that is some of what I did.  But I suspect that it is not entirely what they had expected.  Because it is usually my approach to challenge and provoke my audience rather confirm what they already believe.  So after an introductory session on Monday (co-taught with my friend Chad), on Tuesday the topic was truth.  And although I upheld the necessity for defending a notion of truth as a description of the way things are independently of what any of us think, I also claimed that it gets more complicated.  For instance we do make truth ourselves in the form of social realities -- say the rules of soccer -- and that there are some blurry lines between social realities and this supposed independently existing reality.  I tried to explain all this in smaller words using lots of examples, and for the most part the crowd was with me.  Then today I ventured into the dangerous swampland of science and religion as different sorts of explanations.  I assumed that most of them had been exposed to this only at the sound byte level, and I realized that I couldn't get pushing too hard or I'd lose them.  So we talked about interpretation of the Bible and gave lots of examples where scientific theories don't conflict with theological explanation, and I made an impassioned plea for us to take science seriously and not to indoctrinate our children that science is evil.  Everyone was a little bit more cautious today, but again ultimately seemed to track with me.

After the session there was a parade of people coming to talk one-on-one.  The first lady said her grandson was starting to read Buddhist literature and wondered what I would say to him.  The next person wondered if I thought the Camping guy who predicted the end of the world was a false prophet.  A couple of others came and made speeches to me about their pet theories of the hidden meanings of the Bible.  But there were also a couple of more meaningful conversations I had with people.  One woman told me about her son who graduated from my institution, but has gotten fed up with the institutionalized church because it is mostly about country club politics.  He's really interested in these deeper questions, but literally has no one to talk to about them.  It seems that most of our churches do not encourage questions and instead hand out pat answers to questions that aren't really being asked by thoughtful people.

Ouch.  Where can we talk about things that we wonder about?  Doubts that creep in?  Frustrations we have?   In my humble opinion, the church needs to cultivate such spaces.  For many people, if we just keep these bottled up inside, they will one day spill out in fully formed abandonment of faith.  

Financing Megachurches

The news came out today that Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral ministry is so far in debt that they are selling the campus to an investment group.  That group will then lease the main buildings back to them for 15 years under the terms of their bankruptcy settlement.

I don't think that I'm inherently anti-megachurch.  We attended Willow Creek for awhile back in the 90s and have very good friends who are part of the local megachurch.  I don't dispute that such ministries have done a lot of good in the world.  I wonder, though, what the future is for these massive campuses?  Will it be like going to Europe and seeing the huge cathedrals that sit empty except for the tour groups?  I doubt if the government will subsidize them as historical monuments here like they do there.

I hope everyone admits that there is at least an uneasy relationship between capitalism and the church.  It may be the best option we have, but I'm still uneasy about it.  I'll leave it at that for today.

Is it live?

Last night I dropped my son off at the Skillet concert in Elkhart where he was meeting his cousin. I brought my computer along and went somewhere for a couple of hours to kill the time. After the battery ran out, I drove back to the venue, thinking that it may about be over. When I pulled up in front of the auditorium, there were about 100 kids outside milling around and smoking. I sat there for a bit watching, and came to the realization that there were two opening acts (1000 foot crutch and someone else), and that it was probably in between acts at the moment. I also noticed that these people were going in and out without showing tickets or otherwise being regulated. So, I wondered if it was like a baseball game where after the sixth inning you can come and go as you please.

So I wandered in with the smokers and got to see the show. I'd seen Skillet a couple of times at Cornerstone and even have them listed in my favorite music section of Facebook. It's good hard rock with some pretty cool string sections. Lots of strobe lights and lasers and smoke in concert. Very loud. Not the most profound of lyrics (e.g., "you're better than drugs"), but still enjoyable.

The music is pretty heavily produced, though, so when you're watching it live, you're never really sure how much is just coming from the apple computer that is sitting on top of the keyboards. They had a violinist with them, but pretty obviously he couldn't have been make all that sound. And the bass player is also the lead singer, and about half the time he's romping around not even pretending to play (but the music doesn't seem to suffer). Nobody seems to care, though, because it sounds so professional.

I suppose that lack of caring is what has allowed video churches to thrive. It doesn't matter that the speaker isn't really there; we can watch it on the screen and get a more professional version than we would if we had to have a speaker that came out of the actual body of believers we're in the same room with. There's one local church who seems to be contemplating doing the entire service through video (not just the speaker, as many places do). I wonder, "Why not just have it piped to my TV and I can stay in bed?" It's not like we fellowship with the people around us while we're watching the "show" anyway (aside from the obligatory, "Turn to the people around you and tell them you're glad they're here" which takes place after the first music set).

I wonder where it is headed...

Church and Democracy

I think it was Winston Churchill who said, "Democracy is the worst form of government--except for all the others." Does the same apply to church government?

I've read Plato's Republic enough to be persuaded that democracy is not all that it's cracked up to be. It is certainly a leveler in terms of guarding against big swings (and so long as theocracy remains elusive, I don't think I'd want any other form of government for the state). But is subjecting difficult decisions to a popular vote the wisest? I think it was Descartes who said, "When you're dealing with difficult questions, you'd expect most people to get the answer wrong."

So what does this have to do with church polity? I'm drawn to the Catholic Church in many ways, but I think they've got the doctrine of the Church substantially incorrect. I'm not infallible, and so could be wrong on this, but the Kingdom of God is not to be equated with the institution of the Church. That leaves the elder system vs. the congregational system.

So for me the central tension is my malaise with democracy vs. the priesthood of all believers. It seems to me that it is better for a group of elders to be charged with the governance of the local body--people who are good and gifted at that sort of thing. You want people making the decisions who are most qualified. But then that seems to encourage (I don't see that it has to lead to, but seems to do so pretty reliably) a class of rulers and a class of consumers. And because I believe so strongly in the priesthood of all believers--even though they have different gifts--I'm pulled toward a congregational model.

No resolution here. Just thoughts. I think it was Daffy Duck who said, "That's all folks."

Church Organization

I taught Sunday School this past week at NMC. The topic assigned to me was the nature of the Church. I wasn't sure that I had much to say about this, and gave the disclaimer beforehand saying so. And then I went on to make two claims--which may or not be true (again, I don't know that much about this stuff). The two claims (which are really just two parts to one claim) are the following:

The two events most significant in the early centuries of the Church for leading to the Church as institution were these:

1. The delay of the Parousia. That's the fancy word theologians use to mean the 2nd coming of Christ. It sure seems to me that the earliest Christians believed this was going to happen in pretty short order. Then by the time all those who had been with Jesus had died, and then all those who had been with those who had been with Jesus had died, it seemed that the Church would have to hunker down and bit and organize in order to survive. While there are a few comments about the organization of churches (that is, local bodies of believers) in Scripture, it doesn't look a whole lot like they do today (I mean, to whom is the chair of the refreshment committee supposed to report??).

2. Cyprian and the Novatian Controversy around 250 was a pretty big deal too. The church folks were trying to figure out what to do with the apostates who came crawling back to the Church (many of them now that the plague was staring them down). Long story short: Cyprian was very instrumental in making church membership the criterion for inclusion in the family of God. "No one can have God for his father who has not the Church for his mother." Now, it was not good enough to believe that Jesus was Lord. The Church had to let you in (and the Church could show you the door).

We talked then about different systems of polity that exist today: the RCC/Episcopal; the Presbyterian/elder; and the Congregational. It turned out to be a very lively and interesting Sunday School class.

Tomorrow I may hazard some further commentary on the polity situation.

Is the Church Held Accountable for its Mission?

I spent the whole day at work schlogging through our institution's self-study. Once every ten years (if all goes well) the regional accrediting agency comes around to check to see whether we're doing what we say we're doing. In advance of this we have to prepare several hundred pages of documentation and reflection on how well we're doing. It's really a pain in the posterior, because tending to your mission is different than documenting or proving that you're tending to your mission. However, there is something about having someone check up on you that makes you do things better and more responsibly.

I got thinking, "What if churches had accrediting agencies?" I guess those that are part of denominations in some sense do have a regulatory body, but I'd bet that there is not a lot of rigor with regard to the expectations.

What if Jesus showed up occasionally to see how we're doing with regard to the mission he left us? The Great Commission in Matthew has four components to it as normally translated:

1. Go into the whole world;
2. Make disciples of everybody;
3. Baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit;
4. Teach them to obey all that I have commanded.

When people talk about the Great Commission, they rarely make it to #4. What if the accrediting agency came around to our churches to check up on this one? Disregarding for the moment all of those people who aren't in the church (whom we're supposed to be going to, discipling, and baptizing), could we demonstrate that those who are in our churches have been taught to obey all that Jesus commanded? Notice that this is not just teaching them what the commands of Jesus are (though we might not do so well on this easier task either). Rather, we have been charged to teach people to obey.

I'd even like to claim that it is not just declaring to people that they ought to obey the commandments. If I were writing a Message-esque paraphrase, this passage would be rendered, "Teach them how to obey all that I have commanded." For that is the sense of what Jesus is expecting. And these were pretty tough commandments: Love your neighbor, love your enemy, bless those who curse you, turn the other cheek, be perfect, etc. Have we been teaching people how to do this stuff? This is the beginning of spiritual formation.