The Promise of the Messianic Child

by on November 28, 2011

Hope all of you had a good Thanksgiving! Moltmann Monday is back with an excerpt from a Theology Today article on children, childhood and hope. Here’s a snippet:

The child, whose birth and whose future reign of peace devoid of violence and war Isaiah announced (chapters 9,11), is the “Son of David.” He is a descendant of David, endowed with the dignity of the chosen King David. Just as David conquered Jerusalem, making it the capital of Israel, the future “Son of David” will redeem Israel (from the Babylonian exile) and will rebuild Jerusalem. Most important, the coming “Son of David” will fulfill the prophet Nathan’s ancient promise to David: “I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom forever.” (2 Sam 7:12-13)  The promised “Son of David” is the messianic king for which Israel is hoping.

The hopes placed upon him do, however, explode all (historical) limits: “he will raise up the poor of the land,” he will “bring justice to the peoples,” and he will sow peace between humans and animals: “The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fading together, and a little child shall lead them” (Isa 11:1-11). While this messianic hope exceeded all of life’s experiential limits, it was conceived during the time of the Babylonian exile, at Israel’s “ground zero.” From the very beginning, it was part of Israel’s traditions of hope.  [Abraham and Sarah's] promise brought into history an orientation towards the future, replacing the eternal return of the same in nature religions. Children were no longer merely included in the powers of origin through the veneration of the ancestors, but the generations were now aligned towards children as the carriers of hope and as signs of the steadfastness of the God of promise.

 

The hopes placed on the messianic child explode all limits. I love the imagery that conjures in my head, like an electric wire exploding from too much energy and making a fireworks show that lights up the night. I also appreciate that these hopes are beyond rational, really. They are not something most people walk around and assume. To have Advent hopes means to be willing to explode our limits of what is possible. Through this one promise, this one vulnerable human child, the whole world carries a new kind of hope for the future.

Comments { 1 }

Moltmann on Seminaries, Privatization, and Marketing

by on November 14, 2011

In honor of Patheos’ ongoing conversation of posts on the future of seminary education, today’s Moltmann Monday excerpt comes from God for a Secular Society in his chapter “Theology in the Modern University.” He’s been describing how theological faculties began as central and primary to the university when there was a religion of the state, but since the Reformation there has been an uneasy separation that has grown in isolation over the years until now we find ourselves in a multifaith society where only “religion departments” preside in universities and theology is relegated to privatized spheres of faith in seminaries. What that says for theology’s scope is rather grim. Here’s where he gets good and soapbox-y:

The privatization of religion has as its presupposition its de-politicization and as a consequence its marketing. What is called modern multifaith and multicultural society is nothing other than the total market society. Religions and cultures are on display in this market in just the same way as political options, commodities and services. Religions become the spiritual services on offer in the religious supermarket of the modern world. Individual religious liberty is certainly a powerful protection for every person’s own human dignity, but because of the typical Western concept of the consumer’s freedom to choose or dispose, that same freedom has turned religion into a commodity, where the customer is allegedly always right. Marketed religions take on the characterisitcs of goods on sale…

In the multifaith consumer society, peace reigns between the religious communities. That is a fact. But this religious peace is achieved through the political shut-down on religion, its privatization and marketing- not through recognition and esteem, but by reducing religion to insignificance. One does not have to be a fundamentalist to see this as practiced atheism.

 

This quote isn’t in reference to any particular post in that Patheos conversation, but I believe it’s an important discussion for those considering the future of the seminary. If the C/church is currently becoming locked down and even pigeonholed into a market-based enterprise in a multifaith world, what does that mean for how we prepare students and pastors? Where is the prophetic voice inside those competing forces and what is it saying? If a church doesn’t want to live as isolated as its seminaries, nor as marketed as the mall nearby, what kind of creative space must it find? How can we differentiate between the “peace” of insignificance and the peace of shared life?

Comments { 0 }

Moltmann on Meditation

by on November 7, 2011

Happy Moltmann Monday, y’all!  Today’s excerpt comes from The Spirit of Life in his chapter on the theology of mystical experience. I’m giving you the first few sentences for context, but pay attention to the last half particularly.

The Greek philosophers, the [parents] of the Church, and the monastic Fathers comprehended things ‘with their eyes’. They ‘theorized’ in the literal sense of the word (theoreiz in Greek=to look at). We really arrive at understanding when we go on looking at a flower or a sunset or a manifestation of God until this flower is the flower per se, and this sunset is the sunset, and this manifestation of God is wholly God and nothing but God Godself. Then the observer becomes part of the flower, or part of the sunset, or part of God. For through his perception he participates in his object or counterpart, and is transported into it. The act of perception transforms the perceiver, not what is perceived. Perception confers communion. We know in order to participate, not in order to dominate. Theat is why we can only know to the extent in which we are capable of loving what we see, and in love are able to let it be wholly itself. Knowledge, as the Hebrew word (yada) tells us, is an act of love, not an act of domination. When someone has understood, he says: ‘I see it. I love you. I behold God.’ The result is pure ‘theory’, and pure good-pleasure.”

 

You’ve likely heard me say before I’m not a contemplative. I won’t get into a passionate discussion of why here; suffice it to say I have a hard time sitting around trying to zone out. I have a hard time thinking that is in any way Christian. (Okay, I got into my discussion a leeeeetle bit.) However I’m trying to learn, and stretch myself into the uncomfortable territory that is the great mystical Christian tradition. And I am learning that it is not a zoning out, but a honing in. It is not a removal from the world, but an immersion into the world at the deepest level. This is why I love the phrase “perception confers communion.” That phrase makes me want to practice meditation daily, just for the hope that I can get a  taste of that happening in me. It is when we return to that feeling of being transported into something so much bigger and wider and more loving and present and real, which is to say, being transported into the presence of God. You have to set your intention to be present to it, but you can’t go there like you walk to the store. You have to be lifted, transported there. You have to set yourself in such a place that you can be carried into it.

And it doesn’t carry you away. It carries you in and with. It confers communion. And isn’t that our goal?

Comments { 2 }

Announcing the 2012 Emergent Village Theological Conversation

by on November 5, 2011

Hot off the presses, here’s the info!  I will be there- not only for the good conversation and time with friends but also for the warm California sunshine! I hope to see you there!

Nancey Murphy, Dallas Willard, Jurgen Moltmann, Miroslav Volf, Walter Brueggemann, John Caputo, Stanley Hauerwas. In the past decade the Emergent Village Theological Conversation has been held with the world’s foremost theologians, bringing robust conversation alongside the practice of ministry and the work of the church. This year, we are thrilled to partner with the Claremont School of Theology and Process and Faith to add to that list process theologians John Cobb, Philip Clayton, Bruce Epperly and others. We will engage and explore the dynamic conception of the living and life-giving God and it is our belief that a progressive, missional, holistic, and radically relational theology with legs will emerge. As always, we will partner these theologians with on-the-ground pastors and practitioners to ensure a fruitful and helpful dialogue for those of us in the trenches.

As always, SPACE IS LIMITED. You won’t want to miss this conversation, so register soon!

Click HERE to register.

When:
Jan 30 – Feb 2, 2012

Where:
Claremont School of Theology
1325 N. College Ave.
Claremont, CA 91711

Price:
$99 until 12/31/11
$119 after that

Comments { 2 }

Moltmann on Church Reform

by on October 31, 2011

Happy Halloween, all! Today’s Moltmann quote comes from The Church in the Power of the Spirit in a section about the form of the church as fellowship on page 317:

 

The church will not overcome its present crisis through reform of the administration of the sacraments, or from the reform of its ministries. It will overcome this crisis through the rebirth of practical fellowship. The reforms of evangelization and the administration of the sacraments, and the inescapable reform of the church’s ministries, will spring from the rebirth of fellowship and friendship among the rank and file. The one certainly cannot take place without the other, but the starting point lies in the congregation and its form as fellowship. Fellowship in word and sacrament, fellowship in the profession of faith, fellowship in the institution and the  hierarcy, become lifeless and are petrified into formalities with which people can no longer identify themselves, if fellowship among the congregation’s rank and file is lost, and if friendship is not recovered from the ‘grass-roots.’”

 

I like this section for at least two reasons. One, I confess that I just might explain my entire task as a pastor of an emerging community of faith by saying it is an attempt at rebirthing practical fellowship. What I mean by that is we try to structure our communal life in such a way that it gives us the tools and practices we need to become who we think we ought to be becoming. What I also mean by that is participation in the life of the community itself is a practice, because if you stick around long enough you will have to endure some conflict, or personality issues, or differences of opinion, and it’s in those moments where the fellowship can really give way to practical Christian life application. (Not to make it sound like a title on the front cover of a trendy new Bible) If we want to reform, there’s no shortcut. It’s a lot of practice, every day, with the same people, continually seeking those places of growth and grace. The hidden shadow-point Moltmann makes here is that the church can be a place where practical fellowship is less than fully present…a gauge which we should take seriously if we’re pastors.

The second reason is that I believe firmly in the power of friendship. I believe firmly in its transformational power, to put it more strongly. It’s why I continue to give my time and energy to the work of Emergent Village. It’s why I believe in keeping intentional friendships with other clergy across a number of denominational lines. It’s why I enjoy hanging out with people whose thoughts vary greatly from my own. Reform happens in, with and through friendship. It’s true personally, and it’s true communally.

Comments { 0 }

Children, Youth and A New Kind of Christianity

by on October 27, 2011

 

If you haven’t heard, there’s a great event coming up this spring. I’ll be there, and I’m excited to be able to learn and share ideas as a pastor and mom who cares deeply about the way we are raising our children in faith. Here’s some info, from their website:

 

This isn’t your average children’s and youth ministry conference!

Something is happening in the church. A new kind of Christianity is taking root and growing across the globe. New forms of ministry, worship, and community are emerging. Questions are being asked. And change is happening.

But amidst these changes and shifts, children and youth are being left behind. Innovative approaches to ministry with adults are emerging around the world, but little critical reflection and attention has been given to how to nurture young people within a new kind of Christianity.

In May of 2012, leaders, ministers, volunteers, parents, and students will gather in Washington, DC, USA to spark conversations about youth and children within a new kind of Christianity. They will talk about innovative practices, critical issues, and controversial topics like violence, racism, interfaith dialogue, and sexuality. They will embark on a journey together to engage in life-giving ministry with young people. And they will blaze a new trail for the 21st-century church.

 

You can find out all the important information- how to register, who’s speaking, etc.- at their website. ALSO, registration is going up from $169 to $189 on November 1st, so hurry if you want to get the best deal!  I hope to see you there!

Comments { 1 }

One down, one more to go…

by on October 24, 2011

Good news awaits us this morning from the pastor of Mars Hill Sacramento. Over the weekend they spoke with pastors of Mars Hill Seattle and are in the process of working things out. You can read all the details on Pastor Scott Hagan’s blog.  The short recap is this:  MH Sacramento received the cease and desist letter with 2 weeks to change their name and logo and website.  They responded with a letter to the lawyer (by request that communication go there rather than the church), in which they suggested a church-to-church conversation. They did not hear from MH Seattle. A pastor friend blogged about the situation, it went viral, and MH Seattle called over the weekend. MH Sacramento is going to keep their name, and they are now in the process of creating a new logo, etc.  All matters have been settled out of court, and both parties seem to be reconciled.

This is the reason we are called to work conflict out together rather than in court.  The purpose of the legal system is to exact punishment, while the purpose of the Kingdom is to bring about reconciliation.  The process of reconciliation requires truth-telling from all sides. It requires us to call one another to the carpet in a plea to our better selves. However MH Seattle got to the reconciliation table, I’m glad for it.  How good and pleasant it is when we live together in unity…especially after a spat. So that’s one for the win column.

NOW, if we could only get all of the copyrighting/trademarking churches to divest themselves of the desire to be known and use that time, energy and advertising money to pursue the Kingdom instead, that would really be something.  It will take more than a few phone calls over a weekend and a rather large amount of courage, but I will throw a PARADE of joy through downtown Dallas if any religious corporation decides to return to being a church.

 

Comments { 5 }

Churches that Copyright are not Churches

by on October 21, 2011

This morning Twitter was all a-flutter with news that Mars Hill Seattle has sent out Cease and Desist letters to other churches with the same name.

For years, I have watched church copyrighting become a trend.  Most closely, this has happened at the megachurch that resides just on the other side of the highway from us, Watermark.  When they began, copyrighting was one of the first things they did, because they had their eyes set toward the future, which they intended to be filled with conferences and satellite churches and books and other copyright-related things.  Before we get any further, let me be perfectly clear:  I applaud their desire to think big.  I applaud their vision of extending what they are doing as far as the eye can see.  However, I have a SIGNIFICANT problem with their assumption that to do so requires legal copyrighting.  What that communicates to me is not their desire to be a group of people who are intent on spreading good news and equipping people, but their desire to be a group of people KNOWN BY NAME (and not the name of the One in which they are doing so) who does these things. And that, my friends, is a HUGE, HUGE difference.  It is, to put it as bluntly as I can, the difference between a church and a corporation.

Corporations have the goal of expanding their brand.  Churches have the goal of expanding the Kingdom.  These things do not equal one another, and I would argue, the former prohibits the function of the latter.

But let’s move on to Mars Hill.  First of all, I’m disgusted that this move has come only after Rob Bell has decided to step down as Lead Pastor at Mars Hill in Michigan.  It’s as if Mark Driscoll was too scared to make this bold move before that, because everyone knows Bell is more well-known (and frankly, more liked) than Driscoll.  That to me feels sickeningly underhanded.  They have shared a name and a public profile as two churches for over a decade. Why now?  (I do know that Mars Hill Graduate School, also located in Seattle, has just undergone a name change to become The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology. I don’t know the specifics of the process or whether it came from similar legal pressure, but I do know they’ve been debating a name change for years in order to distance themselves from the assumption of affiliation with Mars Hill Church.)

As you can tell from my comments above, I already find it theologically suspect (if not abhorrent) when a church copyrights at all.  But this becomes even more odious still when the very name copyrighted is something that has been recognized and shared by people of faith for over two thousand years.  What in God’s name gives a church the right to attempt to copyright something that wasn’t theirs in the first place???  Can you imagine what kind of letter the Apostle Paul would write to Mars Hill if he were around?!

“To the church in Seattle called Mars Hill, I appeal to you to be united with believers across your continent whose church carries the same name. For I have heard troubling reports that you have instigated quarrels among you.  Was Mars Hill crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Mars Hill? Your boasting is not a good thing. And haven’t you heard me say that when you have a grievance against someone (and do you really think the name of your church constitutes such a grievance?), you are to speak with your fellow believer in person? Do you dare take something to court and seek legal means before you settle it by using the wise among you? You may recall in my first letter to the Corinthians that I declared lawsuits and legal quarrels are already a defeat. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? Why not allow the petty concern over church affiliation confusion to lay at rest rather than seek the glory of raising up your own church name? Do you not know that wrongdoers of such a kind will not inherit the Kingdom of God?”

I pastor a church called Journey.  In 1999, I’m pretty sure we were among the first to be named so.  As of this morning’s Google search, I found 70 pages of hits showing churches with that name.  It’s not ideal, and I do often get people who ask whether we are connected to the Journey here or there.  It can be a nuisance.  As a matter of full disclosure, one of those churches is located in DFW.  We learned of them a few years ago when they had just begun and we immediately began receiving voice messages and emails from people trying to find them instead of us.  I looked at their website and realized we shared the exact same name-Journey Community Church.  I called the pastor. We met for coffee.  We shared stories about who we were and what we were doing.  I told him we were very used to being confused with other Journey churches, but it might create a regular headache to share the same exact name in the same exact city. What can we do to alleviate that?  He was very emotionally tied to the name and, though they had not even begun meeting regularly yet, he was pretty adamant about not changing the name, even slightly for the sake of differentiation.  I will openly admit to being frustrated. (I will also admit that, had it been me, I would have opted to differentiate the name somehow out of respect for a church just miles from ours that had already been around for nearly a decade.)  So I understand the frustration of names. I really do. Everything under the sun these days seems to have “Journey” in it (including, I’ll say, a Bible study by Watermark called “Join the Journey” whose massive banner on their church, in the same font as our old font, was so confusing for some people that they wandered around Watermark thinking it’s where we met).  I also will say that I have seen other churches use our ideas in all kinds of ways. One church website a number of years ago basically plagiarized half of our website, including our core values statements. (Mars Hill Michigan strictly prohibits such a thing, so they have their own issues with copyrighting it seems.)

I get it.  It’s incredibly frustrating, not to mention dishonoring to the hard work and passion we put into it, to have another church come along and just take what you’ve done without asking permission or saying thanks or even sending you a five dollar love offering for the time it saved them not to have to come up with something on their own. Journey would have a far bigger budget if all the people who have gotten ideas from us over the  years would have left us a minor monetary thank you before returning to their massive buildings and pension plans.  I GET IT.  And maybe what we do need is a conversation about how to share things openly and respectfully in a digital world where idea-poaching is so prevalent.  Maybe we need to talk more about something along the lines of Creative Commons as a way of respecting one another’s contributions.  However, what we DON’T need is lawsuits, copyrights, or cease and desist letters.  Never for one second would I consider SUING any of these people to have them change their name, or stop using our verbiage or ideas. Never would I consider claiming that our Journey is the only Journey that can exist, because we were one of the first to employ the name.  The very thought is ridiculous, even when our shared name confusion is at its highest.

Because at the end of the day, we are ALL finding inspiration from a story that isn’t ours, and that has been freely and graciously given to us.  We  have been instructed and even commanded to take this story and to share it and to pass it along.  I don’t care how many books you’ve sold, or great church ideas you’ve employed.  We all owe our inspiration to the Holy Spirit, and she does not charge.

We are all people trying to be faithful to a story that has been around for far longer than any of our churches or ministries have.  NONE of us came up with this song.  None of us were original enough to create the ideas we share Sunday after Sunday after Sunday. We each have our own unique perspectives, some may have stumbled upon a way of communicating them that really strikes a chord with a lot of people, but we are all singing along to a song that is much bigger than we are.

The story of God is not a commodity.  The church is not a corporation.  The Gospel is not for sale.  The inspiration of the Holy Spirit does not carry a price tag.  And if we treat them as such (and boy, have we), we need to hang our heads and receive some ashes and repent.

 

Comments { 18 }
← Older posts Newer posts →