Bandits No More

October 31, 2007

Keeping Violence Safe

Filed under: Leadership,Ministry,Violence,Youth Ministry — rheyduck @ 4:39 pm

A few weeks ago the New York Times ran a story on churches using violent video games to attract youth. Now there’s a story out of Alabama about a lock in sponsored by a First United Methodist Church featuring games like Halo. Reflecting on whether this is appropriate or not:

Some churches monitor the games, opting to restrict the games played in church to ones that aren’t violent. Others, however, say children will play the games no matter what, and they might as well play them in church, where adults and ministers can talk to them about their moral implications.

I’ve heard this “they’re going to do it anyway” argument before – usually in relation to sex, drugs & alcohol. There was no indication in the article that the church in question was featuring “safe sex rooms,” or “clean needle rooms,” or “drink till you drop, then sleep it off in safety rooms.” At least not yet.

Talking about the moral and spiritual implications of video games is a good thing. But why do we need to encourage killing (fake) people to do it? Will the kids not know what we’re talking about? I doubt it.

“But the kids won’t come” if we don’t do this! I don’t believe it. Sure, there are some events that some kids won’t come to. (Some kids won’t even come to a “Frag Fest.”) But does the end of getting kids in the door justify any means used? I’ll need to hear some better arguments before I’m convinced.

October 25, 2007

Five Practices (and More)

Filed under: Podcast,Pursuing Jesus,Theology,United Methodism — rheyduck @ 8:27 pm

Here in the Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church we have adopted (in a slightly modified form) the Five Practices of Fruitful Congregations as featured in Bishop Robert Schnase’s book. With some other ideas (“Key Drivers”) added, we’re trying to shape our mission toward more evangelism, discipleship and healthy churches. I’ve preached on several of these over the past couple of years, giving my own take on them. Here they are with links to the mp3 versions:

Thoughts on Preaching

Filed under: Evangelism,Leadership,Ministry — rheyduck @ 3:20 pm

When I think of preaching, I find the 3 categories of classical rhetoric useful.

1. Ethos – This is our character. People listen to us when they know us to be people of character. Character refers not only to our moral qualities – are we honest and credible, etc. – but also are we interesting? Are we characters? Do we have something to say? As Christian speakers we continually develop our relationships with people – to build trust – and with God, to become interesting people. When we preach we’re putting words to the life of God in us. That’s why traditional teachers of preaching have said that sermon preparation is as much preparing the preacher as preparing the message. To a great extent, the preacher is the message.

2. Logos – Does our message make sense? Is there a logical flow to it? When we prepare a message with logos in mind, we think not only of the logic of the content we’re communicating, but also the logic of our audience. With regard to the first, we approach the text and pursue understanding. We question the text – and let the text question us. The closer we preachers stick to the text (of scripture) the better we do. But we’re not just learning the text for our own sake, but for the sake of our audience. We know our people. The better we know them, the better we can anticipate the questions they would bring to the text – and perhaps the ways the text might question them. The work of anticipating the questions people will have is difficult, but offers the potential of great reward.

3. Pathos – I detest boring sermons. Like it or not, sermons are often the centerpiece of Sunday morning worship in the eyes of many. in worship we seek to meet with the God of the universe. Some in the audience are living on the very edge of commitment. Will they become followers of Jesus? Our words and actions can tip them one way or the other. I never want bore people away from Christ. With pathos we add feeling – energy – to our message. Our character and our logic may be impeccable, but without pathos we leave people disconnected from the truth, unwilling to take up the call of Jesus. In this context we preachers entertain our audience, not in the vulgar sense of merely making them laugh, but in the deep sense of grabbing their attention, waking them as they stumble blindly on the road to death. This is not pathos for the sake of pathos, but pathos – passion – to connect people with the passion of Christ. In preaching pathos and logos are comrades in arms – not competitors.

4. Sometimes a fourth characteristic is added – Mythos. Some preachers are great story tellers. Some use stories to make a point, while some shape the whole sermon as a story. Mythos may include either approach but is to be identified with neither. Rather, mythos looks at the way the sermon fits into the story of God. As Christians, we inhabit a story much larger than ourselves. As preachers, we take cognizance of that story, point our audience toward it, and urge them to become willing participants. Some times our messages will be primarily urging participation in the story. Other times our messages will be primarily giving direction for how to take up our roles in the story – what our next steps might be. Our preaching is not something that takes place outside the story, but is itself an act in the story, so in our preparation we approach it as such. The leading question we ask in prayer as we prepare is, “Lord, given where these people are now, what do they need to hear next as they live as your people?”

October 23, 2007

Inexplicable

Filed under: Leadership,Local church,Ministry — rheyduck @ 9:08 pm

At LeadershipJournal.net Steve Gaines writes:

I am convinced that one of the reasons so many people are turned off from the idea of church these days is that it is all so explainable. Too many churches are growing simply because they are well-oiled machines.

For a long time we’ve been taught to think apologetically. We want people to understand us. We want what we do to make sense. I get that idea. But I also see how it is completely misguided.

When we look at the ministry of Jesus we see him doing things that didn’t make sense to his audience. He spent time with the wrong people. He seemed to work harder at provoking confusion than producing understanding. His followers weren’t much better. The first thing the church did was go out in public speaking in tongues. How can you get any weirder and non-sensical than that?

We’ve come such a long way. Joe Non-Believer today understands church all too well. We have meetings. We wear fancy clothes. Depending on Joe’s enculturation he may identify us as either boring or as irrelevant. Either way we can be safely ignored.

Jesus couldn’t be ignored. He provoked a response. The response was either “I will follow you!” or “Crucify him!”

My prayer for my church is that God will do something here that doesn’t make sense – to the world’s way of thinking. I pray that he’ll do something that draw people’s attention to Jesus, something that makes the ask questions.

That’s the original context of the keystone verse of modern apologetics: 1 Peter 3:15. It’s not just “Give a reason for the hope you have.” It’s more “When people see you suffering they’ll see that you are submitting to it voluntarily out of devotion to Christ. Your life as followers of Jesus – as people who have taken up your crosses and follow him – simply won’t make sense to them. They’ll feel compelled to ask questions. When they ask you to explain your insanity, tell them about Jesus.”

Steve Gaines has it right. We can be weird all day along. It’s not weird qua weird that makes a difference. It’s God in us that makes a difference, that attracts people and draws them to Jesus. I’m tired of settling for just a well-oiled machine.

October 19, 2007

Slippery Jesus

Filed under: Bible,Jesus,Leadership,Ministry,United Methodism,church growth — rheyduck @ 7:13 pm

We who delve into the bible and lead congregations… Yes, it appears possible to do the one and not the other: One can delve into the bible purely for personal benefit, or one can lead congregations and ignore the bible. But the best option is to delve into the bible, thereby listening to God, and from that listening, lead God’s people. Surely this leadership need not be from the top – from the position of pastoral CEO or Chair. Bible-produced leadership is just as possible from someone who has no official position.

Back to the original thought. Here I am, delving into my bible and leading congregations (I speak of my life over the past 20 years). I find myself in an uncomfortable place. One of the things I find in the bible is that people need Jesus. This bible-enunciated need has also been evidenced by what I see in actual living, breathing people. I need Jesus. Other folks need Jesus.

Have you ever noticed, however, that many people either don’t think they need Jesus or if they see the need, fail to act on it? I’ve been lost, so I know what it is to be blind to the Gospel. I’m a sinner, so I know what it is to not act on what I know I need to do. The confusion I’m talking about today is with the church (sinners within) rather than sinners without.

Almost every church I’ve pastored would have defended the idea that it is the church’s job to join in God’s work of helping people know Jesus. Almost as universally, these churches have acted like meeting the needs of church members and keeping them happy  is the most important task of the church (or of the pastor, as the case may be). Those folks out there ought to come to our programs and participate in our ministries.

But they don’t. At least not enough to staunch a decades long decline in United Methodism as a whole – and most of our congregations taken individually.

Faced with these details, many who speak up for leadership in the church tell us we need to change. We need to get back to God. Out of obedience to God we need to do everything possible to fulfill the Great Commission – and to lead our churches in that direction. Yes! my heart says. That’s exactly what we need to do. If some of the members aren’t up to it, if they want to stick with the old ways that continue to not win the lost, well, they can just be lost themselves. The changes we need to make to fulfill the Great Commission will necessarily leave some behind, since not all are concerned with the Great Commission, apparently preferring to keep things they way they’ve always been. Nice and comfortable.

New pastors come to these “don’t rock the boat” churches with instructions to “reach people,” to “grow the church.” The old timers don’t know what hit them. They just know that their church has been taken from them. Or… the hard charging, determined-to-reach-the-lost-at-any-cost  pastor is run off with this tail between his legs, either to go plant a church, try another transformation, or to sell insurance.

Where does Jesus fit in this mix (mess)? We could look at John 10 – the Good Shepherd. He’s a good enough shepherd that he doesn’t lose any. That’s way better than any shepherd (pastor) I’ve ever known. We all lose some, if for no other reason that we’re different from the last pastor. Surely the pastor who read John 10 and patterned ministry after Jesus would do everything to make sure none were lost?

Maybe. Maybe not. What about the Jesus of John 6? That Jesus begins well – feeding the multitude. We all like a free lunch. But by the end of the chapter he’s gotten so controversial that most of the crowd has left in disgust. He turns to the twelve. “Hey! Do you guys want to leave also? If so, you better hit the road.” Where’s the Good Shepherd who wants to keep everyone, no matter the cost?

Jesus is slippery. He just doesn’t fit our models.

Some of us like the model of Jesus as chaplain. Be nice. Make everyone happy. Don’t rock the boat.

Some of us like the model of Jesus the creator of storms. Stir things up. Cause a ruckus. Polarize.

Well, which is it? Do we pastors work our tails off to make everyone happy so no one ever leaves? Or do we push radical change to reach the lost, regardless of who (or how many) may depart in the interim?  I – with the help of Jesus – could make either case.

But I don’t think either is the right place to begin.

Instead, let’s consider stepping back and engaging Jesus in his context. Instead of taking our perception of our own context and laying Jesus (or our abstractions of Jesus) on top of them, let’s do what Jesus did. Put ourselves entirely at God’s disposal. Regular prayer and fasting. A broken heart for people – those on the inside, those on the outside. An irrationally stubborn commitment to his mission (how rational do you think it is to forego a quiet life of carpentery – or fishing – to go to Jerusalem to be betrayed, whipped and crucified?) regardless of how people responded (his best buds all ran away. Oh. All but two. One betrayed him, the other stayed close enough to deny him).

What would happen if we congregational leaders followed this Jesus – regardless of whether it made people happy or not? Regardless of whether it brought in the crowds or not?

It may be that we’ll be crucified. Wouldn’t be the first time. But it just may well be that we’ll hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

October 12, 2007

Muslim Outreach

Filed under: Al Qaeda,Alasdair MacIntyre,Clash of Civilizations,Current events,Islam,Theology,Tradition,War — rheyduck @ 2:05 pm

A group of Muslims from around the world have issued an open letter to Christian leaders everywhere. The call for peace is summed up in the beginning of the document:

Muslims and Christians together make up well over half of the world’s population. Without peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace in the world. The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians.
The basis for this peace and understanding already exists. It is part of the very foundational principles of both faiths: love of the One God, and love of the neighbour. These principles are found over and over again in the sacred texts of Islam and Christianity. The Unity of God, the necessity of love for Him, and the necessity of love of the neighbour is thus the common ground between Islam and Christianity.

The rest of the document lays out the two commandments – Love God and Love Neighbor – as the common ground between Christians and Muslims, showing both Quranic and Biblical support for the commands. What ought we to make of it?

Christianity Today is tracking some responses – so far mostly positive. John F Cullinan, an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, is less optimistic, calling attention to violence within Islamic practice and in the advice in the Quran itself. Do these “functionaries” actually speak for Islam?

My answer would be that surely they do speak for Islam, unless by “speak for Islam” you mean something like the Pope speaking for the Roman Catholic Church. These Islamic scholars, leaders, and “functionaries” do not have the same kind and extent of authority in Islam that the Pope has in Catholicism. But that doesn’t matter.

In Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Alasdair MacIntyre defines a tradition:

 “A tradition is an argument extended through time in which certain fundamental agreements are defined and redefined in terms of two kinds of conflict: those with critics and enemies external to the tradition who reject all or at least key parts of those fundamental agreements, and those internal, interpretive debates through which the meaning and rationale of the fundamental agreements come to be expressed and by whose progress a tradition is constituted.”

This is a philosophical definition. It is not an exact match with Christian, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or any other group’s understanding of tradition – but I would identify it as a possible general account of each of these more particular offerings.
What we see in the Common Ground letter is an instance of both external and internal conflict – or to use a more appropriate and irenic word – conversation. While explicitly addressed to Christians as a statement of Islamic thought and practice, it also functions as a move within Islam, a move very different from what we see the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the like making. Do they speak for Islam as a whole or for a majority of Muslims? While the answer to that question may have political import, I think it’s mostly irrelevant. As a Christian – and as a citizen of a country and participant in a culture that at least some Muslims have dedicated themselves to eradicate – I’m quite happy to hear that the there are other ways to be Muslim.

But that’s just it. There isn’t just one way to be a Muslim, just as there isn’t just one way to be a Christian. Both our traditions are in flux, in a continual effort of definition and redefinition. Each of us who speak for our traditions – I use “speak for” in a smaller sense than one would predicate of a Pope or Ayatollah – are participating in this work of definition and redefinition. Whether these guys “speak for Islam,” are representative of the majority of Muslims, or even get Islam “right” is irrelevant. From my point of view as a Christian, we are better off if they are right, if their position does prevail in Islam. I think they’d be better off for it also.

So what do we do if we feel positive about their statement? That could be tricky.  If you’re a Christian leader like I am, you could start by saying there is a movement within Islam that seeks to define it as what we on the outside would perceive as a religion of peace, and that they want to live in peace with those of us who are not Muslims. We can go further and tell them that from what we see, their’s is not the only interpretation of Islam currently available (they already know that from the news, so you’re just telling them your head isn’t in the sand), but is well worth encouraging.

The tricky part might come in how are positive response is taken by their foes within Islam. OBL and his ilk might reason, “These folks are reaching out to infidels. The infidels like what they say.  That means these so called Muslims are really infidels also.”  Personally I don’t care what OBL et al. say. And apparently the folks who wrote this document don’t either. They boldly set forth a “peace is possible with Christianity” version of Islam as true Islam, regardless of what their internal competitors might say.

“But do they really mean it?” We have to decide that about every momentous conversation we have. My perspective is, “Sure they mean it.” And they’ll mean it even more if they get a positive response from it.

“Do we agree with it all?” It’s too big a document to speak meaningfully of agreement on every level. A centerpiece of their argument is a quote from the Quran:

Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to a common word between us and
you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no
partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside
God. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who
have surrendered (unto Him). (Aal ‘Imran 3:64)

The phrase “ascribe no partner unto Him” has a history of use by Muslims to argue against the doctrine of the Trinity. If we endorse (the language of their website) or receive (language I’d prefer) this document, are we admitting the history of this phrase from a Muslim perspective, i.e., repudiating our Trinitarian faith? I don’t think so. Though the phrase is repeated many times in the text, not once is it raised as a club to bludgeon – or argue with – the Christians. They assume that Christians are monotheists – inspite of our Trinitarianism. That’s where I stand also – I’m a Trinitarian and a monotheist. So I can read this document as them getting us right.

In the end, I take this document as a positive step. I am willing to recognize that Muslims and Christians hear a common call to love God and love neighbor – and that we can include each other within the definition of neighbor, and thus look at each other as people to love.

October 2, 2007

Does Pacifism Work?

Filed under: Current events — rheyduck @ 1:42 am

Some of noted Gandhi-style pacifist protest works better with some groups than others. If you are protesting against a group that thinks its wrong to kill unarmed protesters you’re more likely to survive than if, as in Myanmar, you go up against people who just kill any opposition that gets in the way.

Some might consider this an effective argument against pacifism. If pacifism is put forth because it works better than violence or force, then yes, such an argument would have force. But at least some of the pacifists I know consider pacifism to be right regardless of whether it works or not.

Powered by WordPress