Affinity Is Not Community

Many thanks to Mollie Ziegler Hemingway for articulating what has long been on my heart and is what I love about the church that I serve.

Churches that intentionally target one generation specifically, without an eye on incorporating them into the larger family, are barking up the wrong tree.  As Mollie puts it, “congregations are families that, by definition, include people of all ages and circumstances.”  That is, affinity is not community.  True community happens when diverse people live together, attempting to love each other authentically.

Here are another couple of gems:

Each of us learns and benefits from caring for the old, the sick, the suffering, and the dying, just as we benefit from the vitality that children, teens, and young adults bring. We all have vastly different experiences in life. By existing together in one community, we all benefit.

And,

It’s unfortunate enough that many churches tend to be populated by people of the same race or socioeconomic group. But to intentionally segregate worship by age makes things worse.

I love my church because people whose lives are mostly behind them freely interact with people whose lives are mostly in front of them.  No, it’s not perfect, but it’s real.

Thanks, Mollie!

The Evangelical Trajectory

Eric Gorski has reported that Highlands Church, an evangelical megachurch in Denver, has opened its doors to SAPH’s (self-affirming, practicing homosexuals) who are in committed same-sex relationships.  Gorski speculates, through the voices of commentators pro and con, that perhaps this is the new direction for evangelical churches.

While most mainstream journalists would love that to be true, Highlands Church is probably more an anomaly than the new norm–at least for now.  But who knows?  Perhaps he is right and evangelicalism is bound for this ultimate conclusion.

This is my fear for Protestantism in general and low-church evangelicalism in particular.  If a movement casts aside the entire history of the church (including liturgical, confessional, and theological traditions), then it is probably no small step to cast aside traditional sexual ethics in favor of more seeker-friendly standards.  Likewise, if independent churches have no apparatus beyond the local board of elders to defend orthodoxy and orthopraxy (right faith and ethics), then it is a distinct possibility that they will slide on past traditional sexual teaching.  And if the low-church evangelical movement encourages novel, individual biblical interpretation, then it is a definite possibility that worldly forces will crowd out biblical standards for sexual expression.

This is what I pine for as an evangelical Protestant myself: some durable, time-tested mechanism for maintaining the Faith (Christian doctrine and practice) that doesn’t bind the believer’s conscience beyond the Word of God.

So although I doubt that including SAPH’s in evangelical churches will become the norm, I lament–as an evangelical myself–that evangelicalism has devolved into a loose movement that too often accommodates the culture and sails in the direction of whatever prevailing winds are blowing.

What Makes a Legitimate Church? Part 2

What is it about a particular church that makes it seem legitimate, cool, relevant, happening–a true church of Jesus Christ?

Myth #1: Numbers

Many of us Americans assume that if a church is attracting a big crowd, then they must be doing something right.  It’s the same reason why people flock to a new restaurant, even when they can’t get a table, or the same reason why people crowd into a new big-box superstore: not necessarily because of quality or getting a good deal, but simply because it’s the popular thing to do.

Likewise, people flock to churches who seem to have numerical momentum.  But are numbers a fair representation of legitimacy?  You remember what your mom said about popularity, right?  Just because it’s popular doesn’t make it right, and just because it’s right doesn’t make it popular.

Consider this:

• Does the fact that there are more than a billion Roman Catholics on the planet mean that it is the one, true (legitimate) church?
• Does the fact that tens of thousands of people worship at Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church each week make it a true representation of what Jesus had in mind for his church?
• Jim Jones was able to lure more than 900 people to the jungles of Guyana and subsequently commit mass suicide.  Does that mean that the Peoples Temple and Jonestown were legitimate spiritual movements, simply because of their respectable numbers?

The fact is that objectively measuring the success/legitimacy of a spiritual organization is extremely difficult.  How do you put a measure on how good a church is?  Unfortunately, our default answer is numbers, which usually only measures popularity.

Myth #2: Worship Quality

A subsequent, related myth is that if a church presents a heck of a worship service, then it must be closer to God than a church with a more humble presentation.  Whether it’s a grand cathedral with stirring organ music and gilded pomp, or a stadium church with a professional band and a polished preacher in an expensive suit, we assume that these people must be getting it right…you know, because of the aesthetics and the quality and such.

Now, don’t get me wrong: it is important for church leaders to put their hearts into their craft, creating meaningful worship services that will enable worshipers to draw near to God.  Musicians should put forth their best effort, preachers should make the most of their gifts to present God’s message, ushers should put their best feet forward for God’s glory, and readers should read God’s Word with reverence, clarity, and poise.

But consider this:

• Is a PowerPoint projection system a mark of a true church?
• Is it necessary to have a band playing the latest contemporary Christian hits in order for a church to be considered relevant?
• Is it necessary for a church to have an organ and a professional-sounding choir for it to be real?

Actually, our contemporary fixation with the professionalism of the worship service has backed us into an old familiar corner that plagued the Medieval church: clericalism.  Hiring professionals for everything and insisting on quality above all else has bifurcated God’s people into the “performers” and the “recipients,” obscuring the priesthood of all believers and erasing the Trinitarian essence of worship (communing with the Father, by the Son, in the Holy Spirit).

Sometimes, having a slick, well-choreographed worship service can glorify God and lift his people in worship.  But sometimes a slick, well-choreographed worship service just puts the spotlight on the “performers” and takes it away from God.

Tune in next time for more myths of legitimacy.

In the mean time, what say you?  What makes a church legitimate?  What are some false measurements of a true church?  I welcome your comments!

Straight Shooting on Health Care “Reform”

Jay Cost, a thoughtful political analyst who is gentle on no one–left, right, or center–has really hit the nail on the head in his recent blog post.  He has called a spade a spade, suggesting that congressional Democrats are rushing toward an electoral cliff by abandoning their core principles and public opinion at the same time.

I have often wondered whether the individual mandate that is in the current Senate plan–that all Americans buy health insurance–is even constitutional: a super-requirement for citizenship.  Some in Congress have tried to draw the parallel between required auto insurance and required health insurance.  But driving and owning a car are elective activities, and living and breathing are not.  Here’s what Cost says: “…the United States government will require citizens to contract with private corporations as a condition of citizenship–whether they want to or not. If they don’t, the feds will levy a tax on them, the revenues of which will ultimately find their way to the insurance companies.”  That doesn’t sound like a Democratic ideal.  Fascists in bed with insurance fat cats, maybe.  But not Democrats, who used to be for the average joe.

Reading all the news and analysis about the health care debate crawling through Congress, I have also wondered whether it would be a good idea for everyone to just quietly let the whole thing just drop and start over again with the right parameters: bipartisanship, broad public support, and smart, incremental changes in regulations that will actually make a positive impact on Americans.  Or just walk away and forget about it altogether.  After all, does the federal government really have to poke its nose into everything?

Cost also raises the warning flag on the electoral reckoning that is coming for tone-deaf Democrats next year: “When the people catch wind of the full scope of this bill, and they will, there will be hell to pay. The public has been known to vote against big business and big government. Somehow, this compromised bill manages to deliver both–big government and big business, joined together, with the little guy forced to participate…Democrats were bound to lose seats next year because it is a midterm and they’re in charge. They were bound to lose extra seats because it’s a recession. But if they pass this bill, God help them. The people sure as hell won’t.”

Thanks for the straight shooting, Jay.

What Makes a Legitimate Church? Part 1

In every town I’ve lived in there has been an invisible, yet tangible, sense among the people about which churches in the area were cool, dominant, and legit, and which ones were passe, insignificant, and illegitimate.  For instance, I grew up in a heavily Lutheran area in Iowa where non-Lutherans were often seen as deficient.  Later I lived in a very Roman Catholic city (Dubuque, Iowa) where non-Catholics were culturally sidelined.  Then I lived in South Carolina for a brief spell, which is spiritually dominated by Baptists and Pentecostals, and where Roman Catholics seem to hide in the woodwork.  If you lived in western Pennsylvania, you might conclude that Presbyterians were the greatest, and likewise western Michigan with Reformed Christians.

But as I reflect on what influences people’s perceptions of those churches and what seems to legitimate them, however, most of the reasons are pretty flimsy.

Over the next few posts, I want to discuss–and dismiss–what makes a church legitimate, that is, a true church of Jesus Christ, and separate truth from myth.

For Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians (and many Protestants, too), the marks of the true church are pretty much cut and dry: the church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic (Nicene Creed).

Even Reformed Protestants have a pretty clear statement of what constitutes the true church:

The notes of the true Kirk [that is, Church], therefore, we believe, confess, and avow to be: first, the true preaching of the Word of God, in which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, with which must be associated the Word and promise of God to seal and confirm them in our hearts; and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God’s Word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished. Then wherever these notes are seen and continue for any time, be the number complete or not, there, beyond any doubt, is the true Kirk of Christ, who, according to his promise, is in its midst. (Scots’ Confession, Chapter XVIII)

But when a local church is seen as “legitimate,” these theological distinctions are rarely cited.  Being Americans, we are usually concerned with other, less important reasons that we think churches are true and false.  In the next few posts, I want to deal with those reasons.

So tune in next time!

Review of the Oxford Study Bible

The Oxford Study Bible, Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha.  Suggs, Mueller, and Sakenfeld, eds. Oxford University Press, 1992.

Well, it took me an entire year, but I finally did it.  I read The Oxford Study Bible, Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha (OSB), in its entirety, and I would like to give a broad, general review.

This was my first experience with the Revised English Bible (REB) translation as well as the Oxford study apparatus, so I will comment on translation and edition separately.

The REB

The REB is probably under-appreciated on this side of the pond; it isn’t available online, and finding a hardcover edition (at least an affordable one) of the OSB is rather difficult.

I could try to compare the REB to an American translation, but it resists being boxed up.  As for equivalence in translation, it is occasionally rather literal and often more dynamic–sort of like the New International Version (NIV), but distinctly British.  In fact, I often found myself reading it, silently, with a bit of a British accent.  It probably reads much like average Brits would talk, which I guess is to its credit.  A bit more formal and dignified than, say, the New Living Translation (NLT), but not nearly as stuffy as our more literal translations (English Standard Version, New American Standard Version, New King James, etc.).  The REB does have some quirky wording now and then,* but I understand that the REB is much less innovative (read heterodox) than its predecessor, the New English Bible (NEB).

The REB occasionally takes great liberties in rearranging the biblical text, “correcting” what it assumes to be corruptions in the transmission of the text (see Job); and although this sounds questionable, it is actually very helpful.

To its credit, the REB deletes nearly every vocative “O,” giving it a more contemporary sound.  However, the REB persists in the pesky habit of translating the Hebrew word ruach as “spirit” (with a lowercase “s”) when referring to God’s Spirit (with an uppercase “S”).  Does this betray a non-Christian approach by the translators?

I also had never read all the deuterocanonical books of the Bible before I read this edition (I know: shame on me), which sandwiches them between the Old and New Testaments.  Very clear and understandable.

Overall, I enjoyed the REB.  It was fresh, different, and challenged my too-familiar reading of the Bible.  I would probably stick with an American translation when recommending Bibles to those I know, but it’s definitely worth the read.

The Oxford Apparatus

The OSB is basically a compendium of Modernist biblical interpretation from the Enlightenment era–like you would get in a secular college class on the Bible.  The articles and notes are not written for spiritual edification, and they aren’t even necessarily written in a Christian (or really any kind of religious) voice.  Unfortunately, the scholarly perspective is written from a dry, skeptical, outsider’s viewpoint–a dissection of the text like so many frogs in biology class (I lament that academy and church have been largely separated, but that’s another post for another day).

Introductory Articles

The OSB provides 199 pages of articles titled “Understanding the Bible and Its Communities.”  Truly, it’s about as exciting as it sounds.  Mostly, these articles are historical-critical boilerplate: they assume the source theory for the OT (the elohist, jahwist, and priestly sources), minimalist archaeology, late dating for nearly everything, and have a generally non-religious, “scientific” approach to the Scriptures.  There are some very helpful articles on historical context and archaeology, but I would not recommend this edition to my church family.  Alas, it is more suited to a secular college atmosphere.

Introductions and Annotations

The introductory articles to each book could be more extensive (and the same could be said about the annotations), but they are concise statements of Modernist scholarly consensus.

Occasionally the annotations give excellent historical, archaeological, and grammatical insights into the text.  Word plays, ancient customs, other religious myths, and modern archaeological findings are often pointed out, which shed further light on the biblical documents.  There is no cross-reference system in this edition (only verses cited in the annotations), which is a minus.  As I mentioned, the annotations and introductory remarks are written from a neutral, non-religious perspective, approaching the text in an anthropocentric (rather than theo- or christocentric) way.

Conclusion

On the whole, the OSB was a useful read–refreshing and enlightening.  It is scholarly complete and hits all the high points.  It would be useful for an academic introduction to the Bible.  But spiritually speaking, the OSB did little to feed my faith.  I would not recommend it as a Bible text for most Christians, and certainly not as a beginner’s Bible.

* A couple of examples of strange words and phrases:

• “On that day I shall break Israel’s bow in the vale of Jezreel.” (Hosea 1:5) 
• “Like someone who seizes a stray cur by the ears is he who meddles in a quarrel not his own.” (Proverbs 26:17)
• “Every morning you will say, ‘Would God it were morning!’” (Deuteronomy 28:67a)
• “David was living in the fastness of the wilderness of Ziph.” (1 Samuel 23:14a)
• “You strain off a midge, yet gulp down a camel!” (Matthew 23:24b)
• “The people were all agog, wondering about John.” (Luke 3:15a)
• “They put him to death, hanging him on a gibbet.” (Acts 10:39)
• “This has been no hole-and-corner business.” (Acts 26:26)

Prayer for the Week – Proper 28

Proper 28

Blessed Lord, who caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: Grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which you have given us in our Savior Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

- Book of Common Prayer

Prayer for the Week – Proper 27

Proper 27

O God, whose blessed Son came into the world that he might destroy the works of the devil and make us children of God and heirs of eternal life: Grant that, having this hope, we may purify ourselves as he is pure; that, when he comes again with power and great glory, we may be made like him in his eternal and glorious kingdom; where he lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

- Book of Common Prayer

A Theology of “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat”

Over this past summer and fall, our family has nearly worn out our CD of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat from listening to it so much in our van on road trips.  In addition, our two preschool-age daughters have nearly worn out our VHS copy of the Donny Osmond version of Joseph from watching it nearly constantly (Sorry, Donny, Jason Donovan is much better in the role of Joseph).  For months, everyone in our house, kids and adults alike, has been singing snippets of Joseph over and over again.  In fact, it was a little embarrassing when our then-four-year-old daughter was going around quoting Mrs. Potiphar, saying, “Every morning she would beckon, ‘Come and lie with me, Love.’”  But, as they say in the musical, “It’s all there in chapter thirty-nine of Genesis.”  And at least our kids are learning one Bible story really well.

In some places, Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice did an extremely clever job of telling Joseph’s story.  “Benjamin Calypso” is a great way of demonstrating Judah’s willingness to trade his life for his little brother.  And who could resist “The Song of the King,” when Pharaoh is wearing blue suede shoes?

But it’s amazing how Messrs. Webber and Rice totally missed the point of the biblical narrative of Joseph that stretches from Genesis 37, 39-50.  For them, it’s the inspiring story of a young man who caught a good tailwind in life and made it big by harnessing his talents.  The narrator says, “But all that I say can be told another way, in the story of a boy whose dream came true, and he could be you”–as though the story was really about our ability to make our dreams come true, just like ol’ Joe.  Later on, Joseph himself reveals the purported theme of the musical: “Anyone from anywhere can make it if they get a lucky break!”

In fact, Webber and Rice did a pretty thorough job of sanitizing the Joseph story of all God references and making it an inspiring story of one man’s achievement.  The only God stuff I can detect in Joseph (and I’ve had plenty of repetitions to check this over) are some passing words in Joseph’s song, “Close Every Door.”  When he sings that the “Children of Israel are never alone,” I presume the reference is to their covenant God, who promised to never leave them or forsake them (Deuteronomy 31:6, 8).  Likewise, when he says that “We have been promised a land of our own,” I assume the Promiser is the LORD their God.  Otherwise, the musical is pretty much God-free, except maybe for Joseph’s comment that he doesn’t believe in “free love” when he’s resisting Potiphar’s wife (an obscure reference to Exodus 20:14 and Leviticus 18:20?).

On the other hand, the Bible’s narrative of Joseph is all about the God who calls, empowers, preserves, protects, and works all things to his grand purpose and the well being of his chosen children.

In the Bible, when Pharaoh’s servants ask Joseph to interpret their dreams, he gives credit where credit is due: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Genesis 40:8)  Again when he is charged by Pharaoh to interpret his dream, Joseph, once again, demurs and says, “It is not in me; God will give Pharaoh a favorable answer.” (Genesis 41:16 ESV)

Finally, when Joseph’s brothers attempt to indenture themselves to him, Joseph sets the whole, sordid affair in its proper context.  Joseph says to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God?  As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.” (Genesis 50:19-20 ESV, emphasis added)

As the biblical narrative shows, God worked it out so that the brothers’ evil intent actually became their salvation, since Joseph was able to keep them fed during the famine that ravaged the region.  And hundreds of years later, even through the bitterness of slavery in Egypt, God was still able to bring about his good promise to lead his people to the Promised Land.  And even later still, God was able to rescue a remnant of humanity through the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah–despite the people who opposed him and tried to do evil to him.

That is the true meaning of Joseph’s story–good news that is much better than, “anyone from anywhere can make it if they get a lucky break.”

Prayer for the Week – Proper 26

Proper 26

Almighty and merciful God, it is only by your gift that your faithful people offer you true and laudable service: Grant that we may run without stumbling to obtain your heavenly promises; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

- Book of Common Prayer