Resignation FAQ, part 1

22 July 2012

For those of you who haven’t heard, I’ve resigned — or more accurately, been asked to resign — from my seminary teaching position. You can find the announcement here.

As the dust has settled, a few questions have come to the forefront.

  • What will I do now?
  • Aren’t I mad about being asked to resign?
  • Why did I change my position on spiritual gifts?

Let’s take them in order.

What I will do now is exactly what I have been doing. Youth ministry at The Fount, writing curriculum for Headwaters Christian Resources, involvement in the Englewood community, seeking to know and follow Jesus, to introduce others to Him and help them follow Him, to be a better disciple, a wiser discipler, a more loving husband, a stronger friend. I won’t be teaching in the RMBC&S classroom, but I’ll continue to support the students, my friends among the faculty, and the mission of the school by whatever avenues are open to me; they’re doing good Kingdom work. The beauty of seeking first His Kingdom and His righteousness is that the work is not tied to any one organization (Pope Benedict, are you listening?). Organizational ties come and go. Wineskins wear out; all is mist, as the Preacher once said, but through it all, we fear God and keep His commandments.

And no, I’m not even a little mad about it. I don’t believe that this is an issue Christian brothers should divide over, but the school is serving a community that feels differently about it than I do. Theology is a contact sport, and when you change your position on something, you have to expect some organizational alignments to change as well; there’s nothing sillier than a professional theologian whining about having to change jobs after he’s changed his theology. That’s just the nature of the beast. When it comes to something like this issue — where the very, very contentious debates only died down about 40 years ago — the lines are brightly drawn and well policed. They’ll be gone in another 10-15 years, because people on both sides have matured, because much of the divisive craziness that characterized the debate 40 years ago isn’t around anymore, and because the younger generations are simply refusing to polarize around that issue — and God bless them for it. However, we have to deal with what’s going on now, and right now, things are still polarized enough that some folks feel the need to politicize the issue.
Also, not to put too fine a point on it, God will not be mocked. We reap what we sow. I was a foot soldier for the Doctrinal Purity Police in the not-too-distant past; in God’s good pleasure I am reaping a little of what I have sown. Of course I don’t like it, and I wish that God had arranged things differently. But discipline is never comfortable, because it brings change, and change is never comfortable. I look forward to being trained by it in order to reap the peaceable fruit of righteousness.

Finally, why the shift? This is the most common question I’ve gotten over the past days, and it’s more difficult to answer than you might expect, for two reasons. First, it’s not quite as simple a question as it looks, sitting there on your screen. Some people mean, “Please give me an autobiographical account of your shift.” Others mean, “Please tell me you haven’t turned into a snake-handling whacko.” (I haven’t, by the way.) Others mean, “Is there something wrong with my theology?” Still others, “Young man, we taught you better than this. No excuse will be good enough, but explain yourself anyway!” There are other nuances too — lots of subtext on this one. I need to be clear about which questions I can hope to answer. I intend to give an autobiographical account of how I came to hold this view. Along the way, I do also feel a responsibility to explain myself to the community that raised and trained me. If what I say addresses some of the other nuances along the way, then so be it, but these two are all I’m really trying for.

Second, it’s difficult to give an account for my shift because I’m kinda done being a foot soldier for the doctrinal purity police. I’m happy to be clear about what I believe and why, and I have no intention of dancing around the shortcomings of cessationism. As I always have, I’ll say what I believe to be true and make no apology for it. That said, there’s a lot of needless division and brother-hatred around this issue, and I have no desire to exacerbate the wounds already inflicted on Christ’s Body. I don’t want to be dishonoring to anyone, least of all to the community that raised and trained me. I can hardly avoid criticism — at least implied criticism — of that community; an autobiographical account of my shift will discuss why I started with their position, found it inadequate, and adopted a new one. That said, it is still a matter of Christian duty for me to be properly honoring and grateful to my community and the many gifts it has given me. This is a difficult balance to strike, and it is essential that I do it well. With that in mind, I’m going to delay answering this question publicly until I am able to do so in a manner that is agreeable to my conscience.

I intend to put an answer up in a few days to a week, but I’m making no promises. Articulating all this well has been significantly harder than I had thought it would be, and I had a full life before all this came up. I’ve got other things to do, and if this is going to take 50 hours, it will be a while before it gets done. I welcome private conversation on the topic at any time, so if you feel you need an answer sooner, please don’t hesitate to contact me. As I said in my resignation announcement, nobody has anything to hide here, and I’m happy to share the details in private conversation.


A Letter to my Colleagues and Students

19 July 2012

I was raised and trained in a cessationist tradition, but a number of years ago, I began to have serious doubts about the biblical integrity of cessationism (the belief that certain biblically attested spiritual gifts ceased shortly after the first century). Over a period of years, I have devoted considerable time, effort, and prayer to a careful study of the exegetical, theological, historical and practical issues involved.

Rocky Mountain Bible College and Seminary, where I have served as a curriculum designer and instructor since 2008, and an assistant professor since 2010, maintains a very specific teaching position on the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It reads,

The miraculous gifts (apostles, prophets, healings, miracles including a word of wisdom or word of knowledge, and tongues) were temporary in nature as signs to unbelieving Jews and as a validation of the New Testament message and its messengers at the initial stage of the church.

As a result, my possible shift on this issue had some fairly serious ramifications. I want to assure you that I hid none of this from Dr. Lewis. I consider him a mentor and a friend as well as being my boss at RMBC&S, and I’ve kept him apprised of my progress as I have wrestled through this issue. For his part, he made it clear that as long as I was willing to stick to the school’s teaching position while I was working through the issue, he was happy to have me continue on faculty. These things cannot happen overnight, and I’m very grateful for his openness and support while all this was in process. He is far from the only one; a number of mentors and friends have been generous with their time and insight. I am grateful to you all.

As the process continued, the conviction that began as a trickle of doubt about the viability of one exegetical argument in one passage became an overwhelming flood. I don’t say this lightly at all, but my conclusion is simple: cessationism is exegetically insupportable, theologically weak, historically false, unable to account for realities that I personally witnessed, and practically very far removed from the New Testament. The Bible simply doesn’t teach it. Of course this is a large claim, and my reasons for making it are a separate discussion that I will be happy to have; for the moment suffice it to say that I did my best to investigate every reasonable avenue. After discussion with Dr. Lewis, I wrote and submitted a letter in which I laid out my exception to the RMBC&S teaching position on spiritual gifts, and my reasoning for it.

At this point I felt myself in a bit of a dilemma. I do not believe that this sort of issue should divide Christian brothers. I continue to believe in the mission of RMBC&S and would like to continue aiding the school in our areas of common endeavor. As a result, I didn’t feel that I could simply resign in good conscience; it seemed to me that would convey a rejection of the school that I didn’t, and don’t, feel. On the other hand, I am well aware that within our tradition the lines on this theological issue are brightly drawn and well-policed, so my resignation might be necessary for the school’s sake. I had no desire to cause the school undue trouble, and of course I didn’t want to be one of those jerks who — just to make a point — refuses to resign and forces the administration to fire them. That’s no way to love your neighbor.

Unable to act unilaterally in good conscience, I sought Dr. Lewis’ counsel on a way to resolve the issue to our mutual satisfaction. I was prepared to tender my resignation immediately if the school wanted it; on the other hand if they would prefer to continue discussing how we might navigate our differences and continue to work together, I was open to that as well.

On July 17, Dr. Lewis chose to accept my resignation. At the same time, he also indicated that he would like for us to continue discussing these issues, and to continue discussion on the possibilities for looser collaboration as opportunities arise where we might serve together: ministry within the local community, student internships, and the like.

Working with RMBC&S and with Dr. Lewis has been a lot of fun, and I am grateful for my time there. My students and colleagues, each and all, have been a blessing to me. I continue to ask the Lord to bless the school, its students and faculty, and its mission to equip believers for service, and of course I remain happy to assist in that mission as the Lord may provide opportunity.

Please be assured that there are NO hard feelings; we all remain friends. We may not be working under the same organizational umbrella for the present moment, but we are all still working for the same boss, seeking His Kingdom and His righteousness — each in the manner that God has convicted him to do.

This kind of event, if not carefully and fully explained, presents opportunities for unfounded speculation and gossip. I would not have the enemy gain a toehold through this, so I have chosen to be as clear and specific as seemed advisable. If this isn’t clear and specific enough, please ask for more details; nobody’s got anything to hide here. Thank you for bearing with the length of the explanation, and again, if I have left you with some concern or doubt, please don’t hesitate to talk with me.

God’s richest blessings attend you as He leads you in His will for your lives. My love and my prayers go with you.

In His service,

Tim Nichols


Focusing on the Bullseye, part 1

15 July 2012

3DM’s Mike Breen likes to say that if you focus on doing church, you’ll never get round to making disciples — and your church won’t be very good either.  But if you focus on making disciples — what Jesus said to focus on — then you’ll get disciples, and you’ll get church along the way.

Hold that thought.

***

We all can agree, I think, that it’s important for ministers to be trained, and that there are varying degrees and types of training needed.  Not everybody needs to know Greek and Hebrew, but we certainly need some that do.  Not everybody needs to have a solid grounding in how to minister to the homeless population, but we certainly need some that do.  And so on.

In our culture, we default to preparation that involves a lot of time spent in a classroom, which at first glance seems strange.  In the classroom, we are constantly seeking to import real-life scenarios, bring in guest speakers, or send the students out on internships in order to get them some real-world experience.  The classroom is very far removed from the front-line realities of ministry; why did we ever think it was a good venue for preparing people for ministry?

The removal from front-line reality, of course.  Withdrawing to the classroom permits time for discussion, reflection, long debates about the varying merits of different approaches to this and that.  In real life, you very often don’t have time for that.  You shoot up a quick prayer, make a decision, and if it’s wrong, you fix it as best you can on the fly.  For exactly that reason, it’s a good idea to have made most of your big philosophy of ministry decisions long before the specific situation arises, and that means you need a certain amount of leisure for the necessary reflection and discussion.

This is not a big surprise.  Jesus “often withdrew into the wilderness and prayed” (Lu. 5:16).  Jesus also withdrew with His disciples on a number of occasions (Mt. 5:1, Mar. 3:7, 13), and they traveled together, which afforded them a lot of time to discuss and debate. Becoming the sort of person that Jesus was shaping His disciples to be requires time apart, time for learning and reflection and prayer.

So…hence the classroom prep.

***

But are we really doing what Jesus did?

Well, there is a sense in which Jesus spent three years preparing the disciples, and then launched them into their mission.  Three years’ preparation — that’s an M. Div. program, right?

Not really.

Jesus was capable of erudition.  He amazed the Temple academics when He was only 12, and His disciples later amazed the Sanhedrin in the same way.  But he wasn’t an academic; He was out in the field.  When He called the 12 disciples to follow Him, they followed Him as He preached and worked miracles — and then He sent them out to do the same.  He took time apart with them, but it was always in the context of being deployed to actively do the work.  The world was their classroom, and He prepared them to do what He was doing by leading them into doing it.

 

In seminary, professors train pastors.  At its worst, the Western mentality is to find someone who’s really good at writing for other scholars, and invite him to teach pastors how to be pastors.  At its best, the Western mentality goes out, finds a pastor who’s really good at what he does, and relieves him of his pastoring duties so he can spend all his time teaching pastors how to be pastors.  What we don’t do is precisely what Jesus actually did: go do the work, never stop doing the work — and take a disciple along, because that’s part of the work.

We don’t do this because it’s cumbersome and labor-intensive.  It takes one pastor/mentor for every student or three, and the pastors already have enough to do.  You’ve got to use so many mentors that quality control is effectively impossible.  And what would the accreditation process look like?  But this is just to say that Jesus’ process for reproducing leaders is not amenable to the metrics of factory production.  Why would that cause us to abandon what Jesus did?  The goal isn’t to make ball bearings; it’s to make more people like Jesus.

I want to suggest that if we focus on making disciples, and we really have a full-orbed understanding of what a disciple is — if we focus on that bullseye, then we will get all the erudition we need.  Jesus certainly did.  But we’ll get it from people who are doing the work, and new disciples will develop it in the context of doing the work themselves, which will mean far less silliness and a lot more love.  (Which will be the subject of next week’s post.)


Mission Creep in Ministerial Training

8 July 2012

Health clubs thrive on the people who sign a one-year contract on January 3 and then never actually come to the gym.  All the paying members ever showed up on the same day, the fire marshal would shut the place down.

Storefront martial arts studios live on beginners.  There are people who stick with it into the upper ranks, of course, but the endless parade of white belts who join, stick with it for six months or a year, and then quit?  Those people are the ones that are paying the rent.

What’s this got to do with training ministers?

Everything.

Say your pastor’s getting older, and the church realizes that come five, ten years, you’ll be needing a new pastor.  You’ve got a guy in the church, promising young fellow who’s definitely got the character and the gifts, but he needs the training.  Now, you could ship him off to seminary for a few years, and then hope you get him back.  But he’s got a wife, three kids, a mortgage, a dog, a steady job, and you’re asking him to pull up stakes, move to another state, struggle through four years of the most demanding academics he’s ever seen, spend his evenings waiting tables or sitting in a booth at a parking garage, trying to keep body and soul together on minimum wage and still be a good husband and a good father, only to come out of the experience thousands of dollars in debt, so he can come back to your church and get paid less than he’s already making right now–and for a lot more work.  He ain’t going.

Wait just a minute, you say.  What happened to dedication?  The church needs him!  Yeah, sure.  So do his wife and kids, and the needs of the wife and kids come first.  “He who does not care for his own has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”  As long as that’s the deal you’re offering, the only takers will be guys who are willing to put themselves a whisker away from disqualifying themselves from the very ministry they’re preparing for.  (And then we wonder why it’s so hard to hire a pastor who understands the church budget…)

So you think, “Well, okay…what if he could take evening classes right where he is?”  Ah, now you’re getting somewhere.  But there isn’t anybody offering evening classes within reasonable driving distance.  Now what?

Start something, of course.  Just to be talking about it, let’s say you can score a classroom in a church basement somewhere, and let’s say you have the skilled people you need to teach.  (That’s granting an awful lot, but let it pass for now.)  You’ve got one student, anyway…

…but where do you get enough to make this worth doing?  If you decide, right out front, that you’re training pastors for church leadership and pulpit ministry, and that’s it, then you won’t accept anyone unless you think they have a reasonable chance of being a pastor.  Right out the gate, that means you’re accepting nobody who seems to lack the pastoral gifts, and for many in the conservative world, no women, either.  So you’ve excluded a huge part of the population.  You’re happy, because you’re doing a narrow, well-defined job, but costs mount.  You need a photocopier for class handouts.  You need money for rent for your classroom.  Maybe you get enough things going at one time that you need two classrooms.  You need books for your library.  These are largely fixed costs, and you don’t have a lot of students to offset them.  You get some donors, but the truth is, with so few students, you’re serving a very small community, so the number of donors is small, and they don’t give much. A few years of barely making it, and you’re facing the possibility of having to close your doors.  You’ve got to bring in more money, or you’re going to go broke.  You’ve done everything you can think of to bring in more qualified students, but you can’t give people the pastoral gift — either they have it, or they don’t.

Meanwhile, you’re taking three or four calls a week from people who “just want to take a few Bible classes.”  You turn them down, of course, because you’re only training pastors.  But eventually, you start to wonder if maybe there’s another source of funds there.  So you give it a shot — you open up your entry-level courses to auditors.  They pay less, of course.  But you have a number who really want to do the work.  If your instructor’s grading the work, then he ought to be paid for that — so you let them take the class for credit, and charge them accordingly.

Shortly, you have a group of satisfied students who’ve taken everything that’s open to them and are hungry for more.  You open up the next group of courses.

And so on.  Fast-forward a few years, and you’ve got a Bible college on your hands.  Most of your students aren’t going to be pastors.  But anybody who shows up at the front door with a high school diploma and the tuition money can take classes, and then declare a “pastoral ministries” major.  Since you have the institutional memory of being a training institute for pastors, you’ve never made any sort of serious attempt at offering a well-rounded education.  Out of necessity, you’ve added an English Comp course or two, just because you had too many students coming in who couldn’t write a paper to save their lives.  You added English Grammar because you had too many guys flunking out of Greek and Hebrew because they didn’t know their own language.  But still, you mostly teach Bible.

Result: you graduate people who never had the pastoral gifts, never would have been selected to be pastors, and whose training is suited for nothing at all except pastoral work.  Churches hire these people because they have the training.  Disaster ensues.

What’s the answer?  I don’t know for sure (I have some ideas, but they’ll keep til next week).  One thing I can say for sure: this ain’t it.

 


What Doesn’t Belong to Caesar?

4 July 2012

As I’ve acquired a deeper and more theological view of American history, I’ve grown deeply ambivalent about uber-patriotic church services.  There’s a pep-rally atmosphere to it, a partisan spirit that seems deeply at odds with the Great Commission’s leveling admonition to disciple all the nations.  We’re glorying in our team, simply because it’s ours.

There’s an idolatry in it.  The Christian flag is on the speaker’s left, and the American flag is in the superior position, on the speaker’s right.  Now, I have issues with the ‘Christian’ flag, too — modeled after the American flag as it obviously was — but if we’re going to have a flag with a cross on it, why are we displaying it in the inferior position?  Is Jesus King of kings and Lord of lords, or is He subservient to the American government?  “Well,” people say, “that’s what the law requires.”  So it does.  Once upon a time it required burning a pinch of incense to the emperor as a god — a different way of indicating the same thing.  Christians used to know how to handle that kind of requirement.  What happened?

The pledge — which we say in church — is to the flag, and to the republic for which it stands.  That’s right, a bunch of professing Christians stand up, put their hands over their hearts, and pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth, and they won’t even blink.  I mean, it’s not like it’s actually a graven image; it’s sewn.  That’s totally different.  The finial on the flagpole is a golden eagle, not a golden calf — again, totally different.  This is your god, who brought you out of the land of Britain.

We are Christians.  Support of the civil magistrate is required of us.  In a certain way, then, there is a form of patriotism that is also required of us.  But we must have no other gods before Yahweh.  If we actually pay any sort of attention to what we are doing, is not our participation in the cult of the flag a blasphemous idolatry?  The words “under God” in the Pledge don’t wipe all this away; they make us like the ‘good’ kings of the northern kingdom in Israel — Jehu destroyed Ba’al worship at Yahweh’s command, but he did not take away the high places and he continued in the ways of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who caused Israel to sin.  Yahweh doesn’t much appreciate ‘true’ worship mixed with idol worship — because that’s not true worship.

**

Then there are the comparisons between what we’ll do for America versus what we’ll do for the church.

America is an ideal, a culture, and it has its forms, which we conservative evangelicals respect.  When we have a July 4th service — and boy, do we put on a show for those — we do not remix the Star-Spangled Banner to some contemporary jingle so the young people can “relate.”  We don’t do this to America the Beautiful either, nor to God Bless America.   We stand when the national anthem is played, and we put our hands over our hearts.  We say the pledge, in unison, without a second thought.

Aside from the issues about the Pledge already noted, I’m happy with all this, in its place.  I think it’s great, and I don’t want to seem ungrateful that we’re willing to show genuine reverence somewhere.

But this in a church service, from people who won’t do anything approaching this level of reverence for the Christian faith?  Something is out of balance.

We won’t say the Creed in church because it might be vain repetition, but we think nothing of saying the Pledge.  We change our songs like they were dirty socks — an apt metaphor for some of them, I admit.  We can’t resist the temptation to ruin a centuries-old, grand, well-constructed song by resetting the chorus to some advertising jingle.  We forsake the music of the past just because it’s old, but we’d never think of doing the same with our iconic American music.  We stand for the national anthem without being told, but will we stand up for the reading of Scripture? Dream on.

We tell ourselves that this is because the truth of Christianity transcends all these low, material, ritual things.  We tell ourselves that.  But the truth is a little different. The truth is that our Americanism is profound, meaningfully incarnated in the life of our community.  Our Christianity is so weak and shallow we don’t even meaningfully incarnate it in church, let alone in the public square.


Resting With Lifted Hands

24 June 2012

Two days ago, I returned from a 10-day trip to visit some friends and family in Minnesota.  It was an incredible time, filled with joy and tears and good fellowship, and I came back home in desperate need of some down time.  I have not been able to rest as completely as I really wanted to — a friend is getting married this weekend — but it’s all good.

Taking rest in the middle of the hurly-burly is a growth area for me right now, and this is a golden opportunity to practice.  I’d like to say something about how it’s all about attitude or whatever, but I don’t know what it’s all about.   I’m just fumbling along, trusting God to deliver me from my anxieties and give me peace.  The Lord has not given us a spirit of fear, as the apostle once said.  For all that I’ve been a Christian for most of my 37 years, I’m still kinda new to this dimension of walking with God.

***

I’m new to a lot of things.  Although I had been aware of 1 Timothy 2:8 for a long time, I’d never really been convicted that it was something important to follow until pretty recently.  Suddenly I find myself lifting up my hands in prayer, and I don’t really know why other than that God says to do it.  I’m a theology geek — I want to understand before I dive into things like this.  I don’t understand, not at all.  I can dig through the biblical passages that talk about lifting hands (there’s a fair few, it turns out), and I can get a general concept for what the practice is about, more or less.  Some conclusions rise to the surface pretty readily.  But to be honest, I don’t really get it.  So I find myself having to simply rest on the Father.  He knows what it’s about; He’ll take care of it.  I’m just aiming for obedience seeking understanding.  I expect to understand in a year, or five.  But understanding comes from the Father; He’ll give it when it’s time.

I fumble about with this one too.  Sometimes I just plain forget.  Other times I find myself caught in a cleft stick between obedience to the command on one hand, and on the other hand, obedience to other commands like loving my neighbor or not putting a cause to fall in my brother’s way.  I do have a few people in my life who are thoroughly put off by the whole thing; seeing me raise my hands this way grieves and annoys them.  I’m not sure what to do about that.

Re-introducing obedience to a culture that has grown comfortable with disobedience has a lot of inherent problems, and I don’t navigate the territory perfectly.  There’s no recipe for this; I’m making decisions on a case-by-case basis, and sometimes I make the wrong call.  All I can do is try to remember to keep an eye on the Father and follow what He leads me to do.

And rest.  He knows what He’s doing.


Beyond Advice

17 June 2012

There are times when advice is exactly what you need, because you don’t see as well as other people.  There are many other times, though, when you aren’t quite that helpless.  This does not mean, however, that you do not need the collective wisdom and experience of the community.

Let’s say you ignore all advice that boils down to “Do it the way I did.”

Let’s say you also ignore all advice that boils down to “Don’t do it the way I did.”

What do you have left?

Quite a lot.  What you’re looking for is not advice.  What you’re looking for is experience by proxy.  Ask “What did you have to give up to get what you have?”  “What were the advantages of your choice?”  What were the disadvantages?”  “How would your life be different if…?”

If someone gives you flippant, easy answers, just move on.  Find someone else to talk to.  You’re listening for thoughtful reflection on a life unlikely at every turn, a life where there were always thousands of other choices — as you will always have thousands of other choices.  Your interlocutor will value certain outcomes and devalue others; that is his (or her) affair.  You might adopt some of those values; others you might pass by.  But the experience, the chance to learn how the world works by looking closely at someone else’s story — that’s gold.

You can’t just do what someone else did before you.  There are millions of little details that make your situation different from theirs.  Teenagers learn this and endlessly argue that they aren’t about to repeat a stupid mistake: “This is different!” they whine.  Of course it is.  But as their parents know, often the differences don’t really make a difference.  You aren’t looking for anything so simple as “I did it this way; you can too.”  No, you are looking for paths, for well-worn trails where many individuals, each of them with their own story, motives, and dreams, each one different in endless ways, nonetheless wore a common rut in the world.  Don’t want to wind up where the rut ends?  Don’t start where it starts.  But if it goes where you want to go…now you’ve got something.

To see the ruts in the world, you can’t think like a lab tech.  It’s not a science.  The world you live in is not a mechanism.  Yahweh is not a watchmaker; He is a spoken Word artist, and everything you see and smell and taste and touch, He spoke into being.  He is upholding it all, even now.  If you would live in harmony with His world, His art, then you have to make decisions artistically. You have to think in metaphors and symbols and types, in foreshadowing and themes.  You think typologically, not technically.

You can’t plan your life.  You can make plans and blueprints and timelines until you’re blue in the face, but God is the One who speaks the world into being, who fashioned the days for you, when as yet there were none of them.  He allows you to collaborate with Him, but there are thousands of other paths, and many of the critical decisions in your life are not up to you.  Will that car suddenly swerve across the double yellow line and hit you head-on at 55 miles an hour?  You don’t get to decide.  You drive straight on, trusting that it won’t.  So far, you’ve been right.  The next time, you could be wrong.  All is mist, as the Preacher once said, and all your plans are shepherding mist.

You can’t plan your life.  What you can do is live in a way that matches the sort of world in which you find yourself, a way that honors the Artist and His intentions for the work.


Betrayal?

9 June 2012

I was reflecting recently on the pastors I’ve known who’ve fallen over the years, and the “sense of betrayal” that attends such an event.  (And no, before anybody asks, this is not because another one has bitten the dust.  Just looking back and ruminating.)

“Sense of betrayal” is in scare quotes above for a reason.  Granted that the man failed to live up to the obligations of his office — but let’s be honest, how much of this “sense of betrayal” was real, honest, personal betrayal?  Most of these people who feel so betrayed didn’t know his strengths and weaknesses, his triumphs and his temptations.  They didn’t know him to be an excellent human being, and then find themselves horrified that he had hidden some dark secret from them.  They didn’t know him at all.  To them, he was a position, not a person; he was trained to maintain professional distance, and they were frankly more comfortable with him at arm’s length.  They didn’t know the man, and they didn’t want to.

So the “sense of betrayal” in this case isn’t at all the same thing as, say, a wife experiences when she discovers her husband has had an affair.  This is not the shock of discovering that a person you know turns out to have a side you didn’t know.  This is the shock of discovering that your pastor is a person at all.  It is not the pain that comes from an unfaithful friend, but the scandal that attends a toppling idol.

And this is why, in some circles of the church, they simply can’t restore a fallen minister.  It isn’t that they could not do the hard work of coming to know the whole man in his brokenness and shame, ministering Christ’s healing grace to him, and bringing him back to full expression of the gifts and calling that God has irrevocably given him.  The fall of a minister is a tragedy, a disaster.  But it happens because of sin.  I don’t want to trivialize it at all, but it’s not some mysterious and insoluble malady — it’s just sin.  Jesus died for it.  We’re the church, for crying out loud, the very Body of Christ, whose body was broken and blood was shed to reconcile the entire creation to God.  Restoration is what we do.  In heaven, we all will be perfectly restored, and “Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven,” right?  These people pray it — why can’t they abide the thought of God answering their prayers?

Because they never conceived of their pastor as a fallen human being who serves God imperfectly in the first place.  They can handle the thought that their fallen former minister might some day serve God imperfectly.  What they can’t do is restore the illusion that this particular man can’t fall, and in those circles, that’s a basic qualification for holding the job — as is complicity with the illusion.  And then we wonder why so many of them fall.

Here lies a toppled god
His fall was not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal
A narrow and a tall one.

______

The above theological light verse is a Tleilaxu epigram from Frank Herbert’s Dune Messiah.


Survivor to Lifeboat: “You’re Losing Me.”

3 June 2012

This week I happened upon Fors Clavigera, the blog of James K. A. Smith, and read a suggestive little post on the millennial generation (for those of you who haven’t heard the term, it refers to people born from 1981 to 2000, or thereabouts).  In this post, Smith opines that it’s possible that millennials are just wrong about some things.  He links to a very well-written piece on the debates over homosexual marriage by millennial author Rachel Held Evans, which presumably articulates some of the attitudes he feels millennials may be wrong about.

In reading Ms. Evans’ article, one phrase leapt off the page at me.  “You’re losing us.”

It struck me for two reasons.  The first one is that it’s rather obviously true.  Millennials are, in fact, greatly put off by the culture wars, by continuing political battles over abortion, and certainly by the battles over homosexual marriage.  These battles are largely being waged by older generations, and millennials (taken as a group) want no part of it.  Millennials are famously one of the least-churched generations in American history, but Ms. Evans is speaking from the standpoint of Christian millennials who think of themselves as part of the church, but can’t stand the political battles.  Hence the message to the church: “You’re losing us.”

Which brings me to the second reason that phrase struck me so forcefully: “You’re losing us” is the language of consumerism, the complaint of a dissatisfied customer who is being kind enough to clue the business owner in on why his other customers are disappearing.  That is a really odd way to address the church, which a wise man once described as the pillar and ground of the truth. The church is the New Jerusalem, and she is the mother of us all.  Like the man said, “Forsake not the law of your mother.”

We have a duty to cling to her — including the past generations that are part of her.  The younger generation may well see the older generation’s follies for what they are, but “foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child.”   If the younger generation takes the older generation’s mistakes as excuses not to walk with the wise and learn what its elders have to teach, well…fools hate wisdom and instruction.  Solomon knew as well as anybody that the older generations were composed of sinners, but he wrote what he wrote for a reason.

Which is to say that I want to take a step further than Prof. Smith.  It isn’t just that millennials are wrong about some issues.  It’s that millennials have a fundamentally skewed orientation toward church.  They need to stop thinking of the church losing them, and start being concerned that they are losing the church. The church is a lifeboat, and it’s a wide, deep, shark-infested ocean out there.  Striking out on your own is a bit naive at best.  You might complain that there’s a centipede crawling around the bottom of the lifeboat, but you don’t jump overboard because of it.

Some of what millennials are reacting to — the teaching that homosexual behavior is sin, for example — is just black-letter Bible, and they need to make their peace with it.  Yes, it’s hurtful to your LGBT friends.  Mine too.  Yes, that strains the relationship and causes you distress.  Loving your (sinful) neighbor and your God is tough that way; welcome to the trials of the Christian life.  “Count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience.”  Can’t handle that?  Can’t see how it all works out for anybody’s good?  “If anyone lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.”  Pray more.  Sounds simplistic, I know.  It’s not.  Pray more.

But let’s be honest.  The responsibility for the situation is not all on the millennials.  Just because they have a duty to remain in the lifeboat doesn’t justify someone stocking the boat with centipedes. Some of what millennials are reacting to is just plain sin.  For example, the outright hatred that many in the older generations heap upon the LGBT population.  Other things are perhaps not sin, but certainly a bit foolish.  For example, a commendable desire to defend the institution of marriage that inexplicably expresses itself as a ferocious dedication to setting up legal bans against gay marriage, but not a single word about re-criminalizing adultery.  Really, guys?  Which destroys more marriages in your experience, old-fashioned adultery or a couple of gay guys getting hitched?  If the goal was really to bring the weight of the legal system to bear in order to protect the institution of marriage, which one would go further, do ya think?  (Which brings us back to the hatred issue, doesn’t it?  Try getting a law passed that re-criminalizes adultery.  Can’t be done, and we all know it.  Why?  That’s “protecting marriage” too.  But of course you know why — the gay marriage bans aren’t getting passed because people want to protect marriage; they’re getting passed because a sizable chunk of the population hates gays.)

There’s work to do on all sides here.  In the past year it has been my very great privilege to work with a group of millennials that cares very much about clinging to the church, about building bridges to the older generations.  It’s been wonderful to see.  I’m hoping to see the older generations respond by embracing the younger cohort and hearing the very real concerns their different generational vantage point allows them to see.  It’s a big Body; we need all the parts working together.


Expiration Dates

27 May 2012

Theological systems come and go.  Mostly, there are some central insights that don’t really fit into the milieu from which the new system arises, and then people try to push those insights out into the corners.  The result is a new theological system.  Often, that initial crucial insight is good — a breath of fresh air, a kiss on the lips, water in the desert.  Usually, some of the derivative insights that arise in the early days of the system are also good.

But the system as a whole has some blind spots and a few problems.  As time goes on, these get developed and magnified rather than reduced, and the whole thing gets stale.

Meanwhile, the Church at large is internalizing those crucial initial insights without necessarily converting to the system (“Well, I don’t agree with those guys on everything, but they’ve got a point about xyz”).  Alternately, the Church converts to the system, internalizes its key aspects, and then de-converts without losing those crucial insights in the process.  It’s important to realize that this dynamic wouldn’t happen without the formation of a system.  The core insight is not usually obvious to people in the beginning.  It conflicts with the existing system at a number of points.  That insight has to be elaborated in some detail and its implications worked out before people are willing to accept it.  System-building provides that work of elaboration.

However, there comes a point where the system has had the impact it’s going to have, the Body has absorbed its benefits, and it’s time to move on.  The system has reached its expiration date; as a system of thought, it has outlived its usefulness.  Its purpose, in the end, was to serve as a vehicle through which the Body could come to grips with a few crucial truths.  That work done, the members of the Body now regard those truths as self-evident, and the delivery vehicle can fall to the wayside.  There’s no need to keep the old wineskin after you’ve drunk the wine.

One of the signs that a system has reached its expiration date is that people will deny the system while holding to its key insights as self-evident.  In extreme cases, people are totally unaware that the “self-evident biblical truths” they are affirming only came to be considered self-evident because the system they so despise made people aware of them.  For example, missional types who regard the Trinity as the central biblical teaching for human relationships, but can’t say the word “Christendom” without sneering — they have somehow forgotten that Christendom furnished the historical conversation that resulted in the “self-evident” doctrine of the Trinity.  The Calvary Chapel movement furnishes another useful contemporary example.  Where else can you find pre-mil, pre-trib theology that holds to a firm distinction between the Church and Israel — and so abominates dispensationalism as a divisive and damaging doctrine that they actually ban discussion of dispensationalism in a home Bible study?

**

Ugly stuff happens along these fault lines.  I know of a situation where a Calvary Chapel-connected school was offered three faculty members — a Bible/theology teacher, an OT/Hebrew teacher, and a NT/Greek teacher — all three capable, all three offering skills and teaching far beyond anything the school had in its existing program.  The doctrinal statement wasn’t a problem.  The financial arrangements weren’t a problem.  Then somebody allowed as how all three teachers hailed from a dispensational background, and that was the end.  Not “Uh, guys, listen, can we talk about that?”  No deal, no discussion, nope, sorry, never gonna happen.  The school spooked and ran, and never looked back.  In fact someone tried to oust the president of the school simply because there’d even been a thought of working with dispensationalists.

Sad.  The students could have developed whole skill sets that school couldn’t and can’t deliver, but the administration they were trusting to deliver a good education couldn’t see past a word.

**

On the other hand, did it serve anyone well for the three teachers to use that word?  Was the term “dispensationalism” really necessary — or even helpful?

I’m not sure it is.  Dispensationalism is so diluted and diverse now that it’s necessary to heap adjectives upon it in order to have any hope of describing an actual position — “progressive” and “classic” are the favorites, but they don’t help much.  There’s substantial difference among “classic” dispensationalists — four dispensations, seven dispensations, etc. — and even more among the folks who take the “progressive” label.

When a student balks at learning a laundry list of theological terms, we tell him that it’s necessary in order to help the conversation along.  Having labels for things helps us to understand each other so that we can have good discussions.

Certainly worked out that way, didn’t it?

**

So it is that people who try to have a dispensational take on everything are about as helpful as those who try to have a Reformed take on everything — both systems, in their respective times, were a kiss on the lips, manna from heaven, good and godly work highlighting key aspects of Christian truth that were in danger of being forgotten.  Glory to God for them both.

Both systems, as systems, have now passed their expiration date.  In the end, they were not timeless systems of thought, but simply delivery vehicles for a few key insights.  The work is done; the Great Conversation has moved on.  Not everyone has accepted those few key insights, but they have been rendered difficult to forget: a Roman Catholic divinity student might ignore Hus, but he’s going to have a hard time avoiding the Reformation.  Moreover, a great many of the reforms called for by the Protestants (e.g., moral reform of the clergy) did take place in the Counter-Reformation, because the moral purity of the Protestant churches put the Roman church to shame. So the Reformation had its impact even on the Roman church which supposedly rejected it.  Dispensationalism likewise: today you can hear people who were never dispensational talking about how a certain biblical event took place “at a different point in the story” than where we are today, and you have to take that into account.  Hmmm….

Christ is building His Church, and He is using all these different movements and theologies to do it.  The gates of Hades have not prevailed, and will not.  And what Christ is building is His Church, not some sect or movement or particular theological system.  Christ’s blessing rests on these subsets of the Church for a time, as a means to edifying the whole Church.  Working in such a subset is good, honorable work, but it helps to keep in mind that you only see part of the picture.

Whatever strand of the Tradition you’re part of, whatever theological system you subscribe to, remember this lesson.

**

Cartoon used by gracious permission from Pastor Saji of St. Thomas the Doubter Church, Dallas, TX.

For a different take on the temporary nature of theological systems and creeds, see Jim Jordan’s Symbolism: A Manifesto (particularly the last 3 pages).