What is the Central Message of Jesus?

Before we arrive at a communal practice of following Jesus that is different from institutional Christianity, we must first figure out what it actually means to follow Jesus.

What is the essential message of Jesus? I think people would have a number of differing opinions.

Some may say that the central message of Jesus is about our reconciliation of our relationship with God (especially through the individualistic view of substitutionary atonement). While this is a message about Jesus, I'm not sure it is Jesus' message. Whether or not you believe reconciliation with God through the cross was one of the missions (or the only mission) of Jesus, I'm not sure you could rightly say it was Jesus' message - from our records, Jesus didn't talk about it much, if at all.

Others may say that Jesus' message was one of law. According to one gospel account, Jesus claimed not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. He talked a lot about how people spent their money, and had much to say about fulfilling the law not just to the letter but with the right heart. But was this Jesus' central message? He definitely talked about it. We may be on the right track.

Still others may say that Jesus' central message was the afterlife. He talked about the rich man and Lazarus, he talked about people being thrown "outside," finding themselves in Gehenna or Hades. In (almost?) every case, though, these discussions were directed at religious leaders oppressing people. So while this is a part of the message, it can't be the main point because his audience was broader than the religious elites.

So, here's my opinion; see what you think. Jesus' message, his central theme around everything else he taught and talked about revolves, is "the kingdom of God" (or "the kingdom of heaven" to Matthew). Check out the references:

Kingdom of God
Matthew 12:28
Matthew 19:24
Matthew 21:31
Matthew 21:43
Mark 1:15
Mark 4:11
Mark 4:26
Mark 4:30
Mark 9:1
Mark 9:47
Mark 10:14
Mark 10:15
Mark 10:23-25
Mark 12:34
Mark 14:25
Mark 15:43
Luke 4:43
Luke 6:20
Luke 7:28
Luke 8:1
Luke 8:10
Luke 9:2
Luke 9:11
Luke 9:27
Luke 9:60
Luke 10:9
Luke 11:20
Luke 13:18
Luke 13:20
Luke 13:28
Luke 14:15
Luke 16:16
Luke 17:20
Luke 18:16
Luke 18:24
Luke 18:29
Luke 19:11
Luke 21:31
Luke 22:16
Luke 23:51
John 3:3

Kingdom of Heaven
Matthew 3:2
Matthew 4:17
Matthew 5:3
Matthew 5:10
Matthew 5:19
Matthew 7:21
Matthew 8:11
Matthew 10:7
Matthew 11:11
Matthew 13:11
Matthew 13:24
Matthew 13:31
Matthew 13:33
Matthew 13:44
Matthew 13:45
Matthew 13:47
Matthew 13:52
Matthew 16:19
Matthew 18:1
Matthew 18:23
Matthew 19:12
Matthew 19:14
Matthew 19:23
Matthew 20:1
Matthew 22:2
Matthew 23:13
Matthew 25:1

So, yeah, Jesus talks a lot about the kingdom of God (or, at the very least, we can say that the authors of the gospel accounts thought the kingdom of God was pretty dang central to Jesus' message).

What I'd love to do is sit down with a handful of people and talk about Jesus' message regarding the kingdom of God, because there doesn't seem to be an easy checklist of what Jesus was trying to say. What's readily apparent is that the kingdom of God is quite different from other kingdoms. I'd like to (maybe in a future post) work through these references to the kingdom of God and figure out Jesus' themes for the kingdom of God. I think that only when we figure out Jesus' central message (and start actually doing it) can we then call ourselves followers of Jesus.

What do you think? What was Jesus' central message?

What is the kingdom of God?

Does institutional Christianity (or any other form of Christianity) discuss the kingdom of God as frequently as Jesus? If not, why not?

Check out Creating a New Corporate Practice Part 1, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6.

Naming What Doesn't (Yet) Exist

I started this blog after entering grad school. One piece of advice offered to us newbies was that grad school is about four things: reading and writing, listening and talking. In order to get the most out of our education, we would be reading (obviously a lot of reading is a part of grad school) and writing (the advice was write - write a lot, and don't stop); we'd be listening in classes a bit, but talking about what we're learning is also essential.

So, in response to this advice: alivereligion, a place to write about what I'm learning as a part of my program and specifically how it applies to my personal interest in the future forms and practices of Christianity.

The name alivereligion comes from four words:

"a" refers to my belief that future forms of following Jesus are one of many voices in contributing to the conversation about following God; and also my hope that future forms of following Jesus would be more inclusive with various denominations (and even faiths) and less sectarian. "a" instead of "the."

"live" refers to what is happening now. Christian history may be interesting and helpful to study, but it is not my focus - I want to discuss (and live) what is happening now.

"alive" refers to that which is changing, growing, interacting with its environment. It is the opposite of stagnant, dead, or static. The form may change to accommodate life.

"religion" is an interesting word to define. Different people use this word in different ways, and some use the word to mean different things in different contexts. I use it as referring to the practice of following Jesus, specifically the external evidence of internal belief and/or spirituality.

These four words capture what I wanted to do with this blog, and I think they adequately name the type of communal form I'd like to help create. So, for lack of a better word, the communal form of following Jesus I'll be building with you via this blog I'll refer to as alivechristianity.

I've appreciated the personal interactions both online and in person regarding what I'm writing here. Even more than before, I crave your input, thoughts, and arguments. Your points of view help me refine my own.

Before we arrive at a coherent communal practice of following Jesus that is different from institutional Christianity, we must first think about what it actually means to follow Jesus. What is the essential message of Jesus? If we don't know what we are doing as individuals, it makes no sense to try to do it together. So, that will be our first step: what is the message of Jesus? If he were right in front of us, what would he say his main point is? What does it mean to follow Jesus?

Check out Creating a New Corporate Practice Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6.

Coming Soon

I've discussed what's come before. Now I'd like to discuss what we can build together.

I also discussed that my goal from now on is not to be negative and dwell on the past, but build a positive future. I've given this statement a bit of thought in the last few days. I've been trying to understand why people are negative and what benefit (some) negativity can provide.

I've concluded there are at least two kinds of negativity. The first is being negative for the sake of being negative. Practitioners of such negativity are generally disagreeable and offer little constructive benefit to the world. They may greatly aid deconstruction, but as far as building something new, these people are not in that business. Maybe this is a mindset, or maybe some people are just geared toward tearing down.

The second kind of negativity might be more accurately described as contrasting. For instance, if asked if I have a cat, my response would be, "No, I have a dog." If asked to define my faith, I might say, "Well, my beliefs are not like this, they are more like that." Contrasting is sometimes necessary to accurately and adequately define something, but negativity is not the goal. The goal is clear communication rather than destruction.

So, I've come to a conclusion about negativity: I'll use it in a contrasting way, but not to deride another practice. It will help me greatly to keep my mind and heart focused on building something rather than tearing down what already exists. Tearing down is easy; lots of people have done enough already. I want to help build a practice of following Jesus that will be different from other forms, and noted where and how it is different, but only for the sake of clarity and definition.

Amid all of the withdrawal from institutional Christianity (what I will henceforth be calling the traditional, popular, program-oriented, hierarchical practice of congregational Christianity), I have been asked, "So if you aren't doing that, what will you be doing?" That question has never left me, but it has no easy answer to date.

So I'd like to explore this with you on this blog. I'd like to walk through various practices and beliefs normally associated with institutional Christianity, and compare and contrast them to what a more fluid, less static form of communal practice can be. Maybe, by the end, we'll have a clearer view of a new mode of practicing following Jesus together.

Which brings me to another issue: how will we designate this new practice? Naming a thing is often dangerous, as it automatically limits how people view it and what it can become. Once something is named, it can be easily controlled and manipulated. It then needs to be defended and preserved.

I thought about simply calling this new practice "the Way," the (first?) name for followers of Jesus. I thought that might be a bit arrogant, though. I thought about "organic church," but that name already has a definition (or two or ten), and we may arrive at a different practice. I also want to avoid the term "new" and "future." I'd also like to avoid "church" just because it's so defined. So what to call it, just so that I can write about it?

I mostly want to arrive at a practice of community for followers of Jesus. Maybe "Jesus followers." Who knows? (Acid Church! Now we're talking!)

Anyway, a new series is coming soon. It's going to be indefinitely long - long enough to compare and contrast adequately enough to define a communal practice of following Jesus.

Leaving Paid Ministry, Part 5 - Conclusion(s)

(Conclusion)

I've recently been considered competent enough at my job to be a closer, a person who checks other servers' closing work (rolling silverware and table set-ups), signing them out as they leave. I have a dilemma, though: I want my coworkers to like me (or at least not hate me), and I want to do my job well. So, if they don't do their job, I get to choose between letting them off earlier (and perhaps getting them to like me a bit more) or making them stay longer to finish their work (doing my job). Moral dilemma.

Moral dilemmas come about when any two values come into conflict. The moral agent must choose which value is more important. These values can be anything, from avoiding pain to saving money to living adventurously. The more important the values and the closer they are in importance, the tougher the decision. Any values that come into conflict, forcing a choice between them, creates a moral dilemma.

In my career in professional Christian ministry, I was faced with a moral dilemma: do what I believed God wanted me to do (based on my previous reasoning about pay, ministry, monetary use in congregations, and being a person of love in the world), or continue in the career I had trained for. This moral dilemma was complicated, though, because on one side was doing what I believed God wanted me to do, but on the other side was more than one value: continuing in the career I had trained for; having a stable, fairly guaranteed income with which to provide for my family; continuing to hold a moderately respectable position in a moderately respected career field; having the continued respect and understanding of my family, friends, coworkers, and basically my entire social circle. So, on one side was following God (and living with myself), and on the other was four other values of great importance to me. This decision was not an easy one. And it lead to the sacrifice of a lot of important values.

Perhaps I made more out of the reasons I've discussed in this series; perhaps I didn't really have a moral dilemma that lead to my resignation from paid ministry. At the end of the day, however, I was continually faced with a choice to do what I believed was right and what I believed was safe. That was my conclusion.

(Conclusion)

Sometimes, when participating in an activity or a job or a school assignment I ask, "what's the point? Why are we doing this? What is the goal of this?" I think I'm like a lot of people in my generation in that, if the answer to the question, "what's the point?" is unsatisfactory, I generally get out of it.

I began asking the question "what's the point?" about congregational Christianity. What is the end goal of doing organized religion the way we do? Many people in my denomination would say "saving people from hell" or "sharing the good news." Some might say bringing glory to God or worshiping God. Some might say doctrinal correctness. Outsiders may say the point is to continue being a congregation (which requires members and the money they bring). There seems to be no easy answer to "what is the point of congregational Christianity?"

I asked this question of my life as well. What's the point of my life? Is it to be a good husband and/or father? Is it to learn a lot of stuff about a lot of stuff and be smart? Is it to go to heaven when I die? Is it to make enough money so as to get enough pleasure and avoid enough pain? Is it to support congregational Christianity's nebulous aim? Is it to follow Jesus? That last one seemed to me to be the best answer. It seems that everything else would work itself out under following Jesus, being a person who loves everyone he meets, standing up for the social outsider, and living under a value system of self-sacrifice and generosity. That's what I wanted my point to be; that was my moral supreme.

There came a point where the point of my life had to be sacrificed or take precedence over participation in congregational Christianity. It seems that the goals of that institution sometimes differ from my own; it's hard to follow Jesus when concerns for self-preservation or money or maintaining an insider-outsider distinction are part of our life. If the conclusion of congregational Christianity is anything other than following Jesus, it would not be my conclusion.

(Conclusion)

Thank you for reasoning out with me my thoughts on leaving paid ministry. It has been quite helpful for me, and I hope it's been beneficial for you as well. At least now you know exactly what kind of crazy you're dealing with with me.

This series seems like a look at the past, and more negative that I've wanted it to be. Now, and with the rest of my time with this blog, I want to look forward, to help build something positive. You and I both have questions about what following Jesus looks like apart from typical congregational Christianity; I want to explore those options, and more importantly, live them out.

So, thanks again, and I look forward to continuing our discussions on being followers of Jesus.

*******

What are some of your highest moral values? How can you see them effecting your daily life?

What is the goal of congregational Christianity? What is your life goal?

What specific questions do you have for or about those leaving congregational Christianity?

Check out Leaving Paid Ministry Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

Did Jesus Die for Your Sins?

One common theory of the crucifixion is called the theory of substitutionary atonement. It states that Jesus' death on the cross was the punishment that all of us deserve. Jesus was therefore a stand-in sacrifice for us.

This view of the cross is often discussed, but there are several others. In the book The Story We Find Ourselves In, Brian McLaren outlines six theories of the cross. The theory of substitutionary atonement is the first.

The second and most ancient theory of the cross he calls the ransom theory. In it, humanity is under the authority of Satan. Jesus' death on the cross is the ransom through which humanity is set free.

The third theory, most dominant throughout church history, is called the Christus Victor theory. In it, the enemy, Death, is overcome by Jesus, who thereby opens the door for humanity to enter eternal life.

The fourth theory, the one preferred by C. S. Lewis, is called the perfect penitent theory. This theory holds that Jesus, as a human and acting on behalf of all humans, was completely repentant, completely turning away from sin and accepting death. Though his actions, humanity repented, and a right standing before God was restored.

The fifth theory of the cross is called the moral influence theory. In this theory, Jesus' death on the cross is simply the logical conclusion to his life and teaching - self-giving love. Jesus chose to live out what he preached, and it resulted in his death. Jesus' death highlighted the brokenness of the human race, and illustrated the kingdom of God.

The sixth and final theory presented by McLaren he calls the foolish wisdom theory. In this view, the crucifixion was Jesus accepting suffering rather than giving it out; it was showing forgiveness instead of revenge; it was being vulnerable instead of powerful; it was showing the kingdom was about sacrifice, not violence. It turned retaliation into reconciliation.

I have found that reading about views other than those with which I was reared is helpful. My faith is broadened by widening my perspective and seeing other people's points of view. It helps me focus on what really is central to my faith, and what is merely opinion. I hope you faith is strengthened by a broader view as well.

If you're interested in this subject, there is a helpful article here. I recommend it.

Which of McLaren's views of the cross have you heard before? Which makes the most sense to you?

Which of the views presented in the article do you most resonate with?

If you are a Christian, is the doctrine of substitutionary atonement central to your faith? What would happen to your faith if other doctrines (Biblical inerrancy, six-day creation, the deity of Jesus, etc) were seriously called into question? What is essential to following Jesus?

Quieting the Mind

Our culture is loud with sound, images, emotions, and information. It's tough to find a place that is restful, much less completely quiet. Even now as I write this, my four year old is singing loudly and dancing around, the washing machine is going, cars are driving by on a busy side street, and the heater is kicking on.

I'm convinced this constant barrage of noise is harmful to us humans mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.

We need some quiet. We need a place of rest, a Sabbath, a knowledge that, at least for a time, there is some semblance of peace.

For this reason, one of my favorite practices is meditation. For two years now I have practiced three Shaolin arts, one of them being standing meditation (called by my school Zen, a term I'm sure you've heard).

Standing meditation, at least the way we practice it, involves standing in a neutral position and relaxing the mind (the "Monkey Mind," as it is referred to in Buddhism, the part of your mind that jumps from one thought to the next like a monkey grabbing vines), and focusing on just one thing (Buddhists, to my knowledge, have the goal of focusing on nothing, completely quieting the mind). That one thing you focus on can be your breathing, it can be gratitude, it can be God. What is important is to silence all of the noise in your mind, relaxing into peace.

Some may argue that this is not an explicitly Christian practice; others disagree, claiming it is the highest form of Christian prayer.

Which leads us to some questions: is meditation a Christian practice? If it isn't, is it good or right to borrow practices from other traditions? If not, how shall followers of Jesus get away from all of the noise and havoc of our culture? How do you get away from all of the chaos?

Well, both kids are home now, playing loudly with their toys and narrowly avoiding brotherly fights. The laundry has been switched over, so now the dryer adds its rumble.

I think it's time for some practice.

Today, may you find some quiet, both inside and out.

Science v. Religion; or, rather, Science and Religion

You know the hoopty-doo about science and religion being at odds. Not everyone plays that game, but enough do that it still pops up often. Well, if you're tired of the false dichotomy between science and religion, check out this article.

In case words scare you, and for my own benefit, here's a list breaking down the previous article in as few words as possible:

Science: matters of fact; knowing through evidence; specialized language; low level of analysis; decisions with best possible data
Religion: matters of value; knowing through other source(s); specialized language; high level of analysis; decisions with best possible data

As you can see, science and religion at times are quite similar and at other times discuss the same things on different levels.

I see the misunderstanding most clearly in the tired evolution/creation debate. I think the main conflict comes in when religious thinkers misunderstand the facts (evolution is small changes in populations over time, a fact almost no one still argues against) and when scientific thinkers take the data and make conclusions about value (humans have no more value than their equivalent chemicals). Redding, in the article above, asserts that there need be no conflict when each thinker understands the tools she is using to understand the world.

What do you think about the article? Does the comparison have merit? Why or why not?

Do you have a conflict with science or religion? Do you use both in different settings and at different times, or do you rely on one or the other most of the time?

Leaving Paid Ministry, Part 4 - Incarnation

(For the impetus to this series, begin here.)

I've already discussed my main issues with paid, professional ministry, but I cannot neglect this one. It may be the longest-enduring problem I've had with congregational Christianity.

Congregational Christianity has the effect of isolating practitioners from non-practitioners, of creating a social barrier between insiders and outsiders. Western Christians eventually have little contact with non-Christians, and few friends outside the faith. Congregational Christianity separates adherents from those they are called to love.

It makes no sense to isolate ourselves in this way, when what is important is to actually live out what we believe.

So for me, it made sense to get a "real" job (as my youth group members used to tease me) and seek to love those people I bumped into everyday. Christianity cannot exist in isolation; it is about incarnation.

*******

Do you sense a barrier between congregational attendees and non-attendees? What about between clergy and non-attendees?

How much of a congregational attendee's time is taken up with congregational activities? How much is spent loving their neighbors? Is there a disparity?

Do you know your neighbors' names, or anything about them? If you are a Christian, do you think this is a reflection of your faith? Why or why not?



Check out Leaving Paid Ministry Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 5.

WWJVF?

Wanna be ticked off? Check out this article about whom Jesus would vote for.

Now that you're sufficiently riled, a few questions I have about the intersection of following Jesus and politics:

Do you make your election decisions based upon your beliefs? Do your decisions actually line up with your beliefs?

No political party reflects all of the values of Jesus. How do we choose which party to affiliate with when all have flaws?

Need followers of Jesus vote at all? Would Jesus be a political activist or participant? Why or why not?

The Way, The Path, The Road

Author and speaker Steve McSwain writes an article entitled, "Is Jesus the Only Way to God?" It's worth a read, as it raises some important questions.

I share some of McSwain's sentiments, as I have often wondered what religious path I would be traveling had I been born in China or India or Iraq. I believe I would still have an intense interest in religion and humanity's attempts to find God, but I probably would not have been a Christian.

Yesterday I was asked by a friend of mine if my current career path (teaching religious studies in a non-confessional school) would be a conflict of interest as a follower of Jesus. I knew the answer right away - no.  It took a while for me to articulate why, however.

I finally found the words: my faith doesn't demand that others conform to it. I don't expect people of other faiths to believe what I do. I trust that whatever is true will be made known; truth will come to light. I expect people to pursue God, and I trust that God will be found.

What did Jesus mean when he said, "I am the way and the truth and the life?" Was he speaking of confessing him exclusively or was he speaking about his way of life? 

Is it more important to identify the road you would take or to take the road?

Did Jesus care more about people claiming to follow him or people living like him?

Does respect for other faiths and traditions negate your own beliefs? Does learning about other religious beliefs and practices excite you or scare you?

Why Teens Are Leaving Congregations

David Kinnaman, president of Barna Research Group, has a new book entitled, "You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving Church...and Rethinking Faith."

According to one article's report on the book, some of the reasons teens are leaving are that they view congregations as "judgmental, overprotective, exclusive, and unfriendly towards doubters," that "'Christians demonize everything outside the church,'" and that congregations are antagonistic toward science.

As I discussed earlier, younger generations are just fine with walking away from groups that espouse ideals they don't embrace.

Can congregational Christianity stop the exodus of younger generations while also catering to their current audience?  Does it need to?

If you are leaving your congregation on principle and don't want to support another one just like it, where can you go or what can you do to practice you faith?  If you had to choose between leaving congregational Christianity and having no where to go or staying within a system you strongly disagreed with, which would you choose?

Do you share the concerns listed by the teenagers above?  Have you ever left a congregation because of the reasons they listed?

Dare to be Real

CAUTION: The following post is not kid-friendly.

"I can't learn anything from you...unless you want to talk about you, who you are. And I'm fascinated. I'm in.

"But you don't want to do that, do you sport?  Your're terrified of what you might say.

"Your move, Chief."

Few movie scenes so aptly capture the essence of community, its danger and possibility.

If we are to know anyone, be they in our congregations, communities, or families, we must be real. We must be ourselves, with our eccentricities and "flaws."

Only then can our religion be real and alive.

Try it out today - be yourself, without barriers. See how people respond. Some will be put off. Some will be enthralled. And all will see you as you really are. And you will be part of real community.

What Is God's Will?

What is God's Will?  Is it a specific set of missions for us to complete?  Or is it a set of characteristics to absorb and live?  Or is it both?

Jim Palmer writes a post about our lives as a novel.  It reminds me of a discussion I had many years ago about the nature of God's will.

If God's will is a set of tasks to accomplish or decisions to make, there is only one way in which a person can be in God's will - by making exactly the right decisions all of the time. If we mess up once, we've blown it. If God's will is exemplifying a set of attributes, there are a number of ways a person can live out God's will - by being the kind of person that spreads peace, equality, joy. There are a number of ways we can live this out.

Do you agree with Palmer's idea, that life is less about plot and more about how we live?

If God's will is a specific course of actions or decisions, how can we know what it is in order to follow it?

If God's will is a type of life we live, how does that change our lives as followers of Jesus?

Leaving Paid Ministry, Part 3 - Money

(For the impetus to this series, begin here.)

Over the last few years I've surveyed how congregations use their money.  Usually, 70-80% of a congregation's budget is used to pay for the building and staff (this is because we have turned the Church into a business).  While I was still in paid ministry, this became more and more unpalatable to me.

It seems like the earliest (organized?) incarnation of the followers of the Way gave their money to feed the poor and take care of widows and orphans.  Being part of that 70-80% drag on a congregation's budget, I felt the need to free resources so that much more feeding of the poor and caring for widows and orphans could take place.  Feeding the poor and caring for widows and orphans seems like a good thing to do with money; providing income for some of the richest people in the world (middle-class Americans) seems like less of a good thing to do with money.

Some people object to this, saying that 1) clergy members have a right to get a pay from ministry, and that 2) scripture supports this view (using mostly 1 Corinthians 9:8-14 and the related texts as validation).  They also say that Paul's example (2 Thessalonians 3:6-10) does not apply unless a minister is trying to prove that they aren't in it for the money.  I have no problem with the people who use this line of thought to defend or support the lifestyle of paid, professional ministry.  For me, however, there was enough evidence against paid professional ministry regarding money that I could no longer be a part of it.

First, a right is not the same as something that is best.  I have the right by U.S. law to quit my job and live off of government benefits, including food stamps and state health care. As a U.S. citizen, this is my right.  However, for me, it is not best.  I want to provide for myself and not be a burden to my fellow citizens.  While I have the right to be a burden, I choose not to because of my work ethic (which is, I think, Paul's point in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-10) and my desire to benefit society instead of dragging it down.  This same reasoning (not wanting to be a drag) is one reason why I stopped taking pay for ministry. Think of all the good we could do with a full-time salary!

Second, there is often a question about the motives of someone doing a job for pay.  I was occasionally asked by youth group members if I was only their friend because I was being paid to be.  In reference to the preaching ministers I've worked with, there was often an implication that they did what they did for money (money was their primary motivation for performing their tasks this week).  While we may say we're not in it for the money, paid ministers actually are in it for the money, at least to some degree.  And that fact will always raise questions as to the motives of those who take pay for ministry.

Third, adding money to the equation of ministry can create a conflict of interest. In Matthew 6:24, Jesus is famously quoted as saying, "You cannot serve both God and wealth."  Financial compensation complicates located ministry because you can either do what people say (or what you think they want) or you find yourself out of a job. It may happen that, at times, what you feel God leading you to do will not be received well by those who are paying your bills.  If that is the case, many ministers may have to stop and think about their families, their health, and their careers when following the direction of God.  And take it from me, when you have a ministry degree, there aren't a lot of jobs outside of paid ministry that you can move into quickly (think manual labor or food service).  While this won't necessarily be an issue for everyone all the time, the possibility of a conflict between the role of prophet and the lure of profit is enough to consider why we continue this practice.

*******

Does money complicate ministry?  Why or why not?

Are there other reasons paid ministry isn't the best idea?  Are there other reasons why it is?

If we don't have paid, professional ministers, what would we lose as congregations or as the Church?  What would we gain?

Are there other ways to organize (other than as a business) that would make better (or at least different) use of funds?  What are they?

Check out Leaving Paid Ministry Part 1, Part 2, Part 4, and Part 5.

Christians and Gay Rights

Tony Campolo, not a favorite author of mine, discusses gay rights from a conservative evangelical perspective:

What do you think of Campolo's argument?

Do you view religious beliefs and legal rights as intertwined or separate?  Can morality or faith be dictated through law?

Should marriage be a legal contract or a religious covenant or both (or neither)?

Is Jesus' Message Anti-Religious?

Micah Redding, a former member of the Church of Christ, writes this article.  Please read it right now.

Redding and I are about as close to each other with regard to tradition as can be - he's from the Church of Christ, and I'm from the Christian Church, which until about 1906 were the same group.

It's quite exciting for me to read his ideas and how he's arrived at them (namely, by pursuing the thoughts and beliefs of his tradition to their logical end).  He and I have arrived at some of the same conclusions by the same method.

So, did you really read the article?  If not, please do so - it's not long, and we can't discuss it until you do.  You'll either find it shocking or delicious.  Or, maybe just plain wrong.

So, questions:

1) What do you think Redding's definition of "religion" is?  What is yours?  Why?

2) Which of Redding's ten conclusions to you agree with?  Which do you disagree with?  Why?

3) If Redding is right, what does it mean for Christianity?  Will Christianity ever change?  Why or why not?

4) When faced with these ideas, many people say, "Well, if we stop doing what we are doing now (Sunday mornings, Sunday nights, etc.), what will we do instead?"  How do you think Redding would respond to this? What ideas do you have about how to follow Jesus outside of traditional congregational Christianity?

Grace and "Prison Break"

An author (I think it was Donald Miller, or maybe Jim Palmer) once talked about what makes a great story.  He said a great story is one in which there is risk, one in which nothing goes quite as planned, and life is better because of it.  In a great story, people become their best selves.

Amy and I finished watching the show Prison Break last night.  The last episode, I think, missed the opportunity to present a great story.

The show's antagonist (I believe the primary antagonist, and the opposite of the protagonist), is a man named Theodore Bagwell (T-Bag as his prison name) who was abused as a child, who committed some horrible crimes, and who eventually settled into a normal, loving relationship with a woman.  The woman found out his past and abandoned him.  He said that day his heart broke, and he returned to his life of crime and harm, eventually ending up in prison with the protagonist.

Throughout the four-year series, T-Bag is given opportunities to show mercy and to betray people - he chooses some of both. Toward the end of the series, Bagwell says that his goal since escaping from prison has been to return to a normal life (much like the one he had before his love abandoned him).

The ensemble crew of protagonists, in the last episode, have the opportunity to extend their immunity to Bagwell, including him in their freedom and start at a new life.  Instead, the give him a piece of gum and slap him in the face, sending him back to prison.  

The "good guys" had an opportunity to show grace, to forgive, and they decided instead to increase bitterness and hatred.

Theodore returns to his prison life, with no opportunity for change or hope.  T-Bag is how his character ends.

What if he had been shown mercy?  What if the good guys had given him one chance at freedom?

He may have continued his life of crime and pain.

Or, he may have been changed.  Forgiveness and a clean start may have been exactly what Bagwell needed.  Maybe in the final episode, instead of staring up at the sky from the prison yard, Theodore Bagwell could have been standing with his grace-givers at the grave of their friend, Bagwell's former nemesis, and have been a changed man, sharing the opportunity to thank the man who gave him grace and freedom.

Which raises the question: does grace really change people?  I know forgiveness is risky, but does it actually work?  Can enemies become friends?  Can broken, hurtful people start over?

I think they can.  It's too bad the writers of Prison Break don't - it could have been a great story.

The Purpose of Song in Congregations

So, having read this long, meandering book about sacred song, I'm using it for blog-fodder.  Here we go.

Stephen Marini shows several purposes of sacred song in religious ceremonies, four of which I'd like to focus on (because I think they're most applicable to Christian congregations and communities, and because they are the most distinct to me):
1) Liminality
2) Primary sacrality
3) Secondary sacrality
4) Repristination

(This list really makes you want to read the book, huh?)

Liminality
This category is a usage for sacred song in which participants are brought to the threshold (limen in Latin) of another state of mind (separate from every-day life), in which they can, with their fellow participants, experience communitas, a full experience of anti-structural worship.

Primary Sacrality
This refers to the music or tradition you grew up with, which in your view is sacred (your first practice - primary; putting you in touch with the holy - sacrality).

Secondary Sacrality
This category is like Primary Sacrality, except that it is not the tradition you are familiar with, and that is exactly what makes it special.  The fact that it is different is what helps you connect with the sacred (think of Baptists who become Catholics, or Christians who practice Buddhism, or Hindus who convert to Native American Tribal Worship, or...you get the idea).

Repristination
Repristination is the mode by which something returns to good condition (pristine).

Part of my issue with sacred music of any type or style is that it seems to be manipulative, like it is trying to accomplish something.  This book revealed that it is, and it also changed my mind about the value and importance of sacred music.  So, I'm no longer a hater, but I wouldn't call myself a lover either.

Into what category does your current sacred music practice fall?

Which category sounds most intriguing?  Which category sounds most common?

Leaving Paid Ministry, Part 2 - "Ministry"

(For the impetus to this series, begin here.)

One of my initial concerns about paid professional ministry was the paid part.  Close on the heels of this concern was the question about whether there should be a clergy class at all.

Consider these texts from Christian scripture:

1 Peter 2:9, Ephesians 4:11-16, Romans 12:3-5, Matthew 20:25-26, and Mark 10:42-44.

These texts seem to indicate that there was equality, rather than authority, that was the characteristic of Church practice.  There was to be no head but Christ.  There were no professionals superior to the amateurs. There were just followers of Jesus.

Some people may disagree, but the evidence for a class system in Christianity became evident while I was on the clergy side:

*Most Christians exist in a clergy/laity mindset, in which "ministry" is to be done by the clergy (isn't that what we pay them for?).

*Most Christians feel unqualified to talk about their faith unless they have been trained by a member of the clergy with "the right answers."

*The clergy/laity division creates an overwhelming majority of passive attendees for weekly services rather than an overwhelming majority of servants during the week.

The problem that arose with my continuation in professional ministry (even if it was unpaid) was this: professional ministry keeps Christians from living their faith.

I could no longer in good faith be a part of the clergy class.

There are a few more reasons why I chose to leave paid, professional ministry that piled on top of this one and the previous one, but these are the two big ones. Discussion on the others will follow.

*******

Do you see any validity in this reason for leaving paid ministry?

What are the holes in this line of thought?  What are the strengths?

Could clergy exist in a way that did not create a laity class?  How?

Check out Leaving Paid Ministry Part 1, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.

When God Sings

I'm reading a book for class about one of my least-favorite subjects of all time, religious music.  It is at times draining (especially the history-of-music parts), interesting, and occasionally thought-provoking.

I know I'm just beginning another series, but I'm afraid I'm going to also have to start a short series on religious music, because I both despise it and am inspired by it.

To begin, however, I'd like to share a fun exercise that has entertained me through many a dry and too-long song service: When God Sings.  Here are some examples:

*******

When God Sings Praise Songs:

My love is amazing, steady and unchanging.
My love is a mountain firm beneath your feet.
My love is a mystery, how I gently lift you,
When you are surrounded, my love carries you.

Hallelujah!  Hallelujah!  Hallelujah!  My love makes you sing
Hallelujah!  Hallelujah!  Hallelujah!  My love makes you sing...

*******

When God Sings Hymns:

Amazing grace!  How sweet the sound that saved a wretch like you!
You once were lost, but now you're found, were blind but now you see!

Through many dangers toils and snares you have already come!
'Twas grace hath brought you safe thus far, and grace will lead you home!

When you've been here ten thousand years, bright shining as the sun
You've no less days to sing my praise than when you'd first begun!

*******

Feel free to use When God Sings whenever you need to.  And have a great day.

What's A Man to Do?

For several decades now, people have been getting bent out of shape trying to define exactly what a "man" is.  There've been secular books and Christian books, old T.V. shows and new ones.

It still seems that people can't exactly define what a man is, or what he's supposed to act like.

And Christianity, with its tendency to despise all things sexual, doesn't offer up a satisfying definition either.

This brings up the question: do we need to define masculinity?  Should we just let males be themselves, and let that serve as our definition?

Do men (like many women I know) seem to defy traditional gender roles in surprising ways?

Can a man "do masculinity" wrong?  When a man does transcend our view of masculinity, how shall we respond?  With support?  With fear  With ambivalence?  With something else?