MC500 – day seven

One of the perplexing instances of the Reformation is the retrieval of the “Priesthood of All Believers” doctrine that Luther tied so much to the strong criticism of Roman Catholicism.  Certainly, his was a step away from the doctrine of ontological change within the clergy class, but by maintaining a clergy class the ontological change is assumed, or becomes presumed or even subsumed!  So while in principle the priesthood of all believers was promoted the function didn’t quite make it.  Is there a progressive revelation at work here or is an adaptation and contextualization within culture (theirs versus mine) that is at work?

MC500 – day five

Three particular items stood out to me from Friday’s class discussion.  First, the significant change from “church” as People of God to “church” as happening when Bishop is present.  I have to say I’m still a bit befuddled by this.  I can appreciate the need for increased organization and, even, some moderate buearcracy (hard to believe I just typed that), but such a core essence change is amazing.  Second, the growth of the church pre-Constantine from AD 100: 10,000 Christians to AD 300: 6,000,000 Christians is astounding and a bit convicting.  Third, the insight from Donald Miller (I want to get his book Reinventing American Protestantism: Christianity in the New Millennium) that whenever the church has grown it has been when the non-clergy, non-leaders become “fans” and bring their friends to faith/church.

MC500 – day four

As we talked about the changes and developments from Jesus and the Kingdom of God through the Early Church into the Pre-Constantinian Church (AD 100-300), I am struck by the obvious increasingly formalization and the devolution of leadership.  I understand that increasing complexity and diversity necessitated the need for more organization, but I can’t help but to grieve what was lost by the process.  I’m particularly interested in the ontological change that Bishops (diocesan, metropolitan, etc…) and later Priests assumed.  Why did they assume that there was such a change and what did that do to the gathered body both practically and theologically?

MC500 – day two

In this second day of class we dove into the church worksheet, which I find very helpful as a schema to look at church and its accumulated trappings.  Thinking of Jesus and the Kingdom of God in this context was particularly illuminating.  Specifically, viewing Jesus as being counter-cultural and redefining “family”, in some cases scandalously – men and women living together.  Going further the structure of the “organization” was clearly anti-patriarchy/hierarchy.  These Jesus-cells were characterized by forgiveness and reciprocity.  This sets up by a whole new authority structure where women were not seen as property, but were equal members in the “new family” and the early church.

Thinking about Modalities and Sodalities

(PDF link)

The harmony between the modality and the sodality achieved by the Roman Church is perhaps the most significant characteristic of this phase of the world Christian movement …

The first structure in the New Testament scene is thus what is often called the New Testament Church. It was essentially built along Jewish synagogue lines, embracing the community of the faithful in any given place. The defining characteristic of this structure is that it included old and young, male and female. Note, too, that Paul was willing to build such fellowships out of former Jews as well as non-Jewish Greeks. …

Thus, on the one hand, the structure we call the New Testament church is a prototype of all subsequent Christian fellowships where old and young, male and female are gathered together as normal biological families in aggregate. On the other hand, Paul’s missionary band can be considered a prototype of all subsequent missionary endeavors organized out of committed, experienced workers who affiliated themselves as a second decision beyond membership in the first structure.

Note well the additional commitment. Note also that the structure that resulted was something definitely more than the extended outreach of the Antioch church. No matter what we think the structure was, we know that it was not simply the Antioch church operating at a distance from its home base. It
was something else, something different. We will consider the missionary band the second of the two redemptive structures in New Testament times.

From The Two Structures by Ralph D. Winter

Wesley, Asbury, and Apostolicity

From Wesley to Asbury: Studies in Early American Methodism
by Frank Baker
Durham, N.C: Duke University Press, 1976
ISBN 0822303590, 978-0822303596

“Asbury’s apologia pro vita sua was contained in ‘A Valedictory Address’ to Bishop William McKendree, dated August 5, 1813.  In this he used two important adjectives to describe Methodism as he envisioned it:  ‘apostolical’ and ‘missionary.’  He claimed that contrary to popular opinion it was still possible for Methodism to retain ’such doctrines, such discipline, such convictions, such conversions, such witnesses of sanctification, and such holy men, ‘ as ‘in former apostolical days.’  But only if they remained a missionary church, if their preachers, bishops and elders alike, itinerated, as did Paul, Timothy, and titus, thus maintaining ‘the traveling apostolic order and ministry that is found in our very constitution.’”  (these later quotes are from Asbury’s Journal, III, 475-92, especially pp. 475-6, 491-2) p. 139

The Radical Wesley: Pattern for Church Renewal
By Howard Snyder
Published by Zondervan, 1987
ISBN 0310444713, 9780310444718

“Wesley, the master organizer, never built a great evangelistic organization.  He simply went everywhere preaching, and he sent out other preachers in similar pattern.  Wesley’s gift for organization was bent toward the one objective of forming a genuine people of God within the institutional church.  He concentrated not on the efforts leading up to decision but on the time after decision.  His system had little to do with publicity or public image but everything to do with building the community of God’s people.  From the beginning of Wesley’s great ministry in 1738, the secret of his radicality lay in his forming little bands of God-seekers who joined together in earnest quest to be Jesus’ disciples.  He ‘organized to beat the devil’ — not to make converts but to turn converts into saints.  Wesley would have nothing of ’solitary religion,’ secret Christians or faith without works.” p. 2

The Bish

I met the new Bishop of The Kentucky Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church today at a clergy pow-wow. Lindsey Davis is his name.  Here are some notes from the gathering:

Pastoral Effectiveness evaluated by:
- number of professions of faith (making disciples)
- worship attendance increase

Expectations
- Godly character
- To be a spiritual leader
- Practice the disciplines of our faith
- pray
- scripture study for the feeding of your soul
- worship
- acts of mercy – daily contact with the poor, an advocate for the most     vulnerable among us (children, the addicted, the prisoner)
- Uphold and actively teach the doctrine and theology of the UMC
- Accept the authority of those who supervise your ministry
- Itineracy
- Be an evangelist (Luke 10.2)
- Work hard, take care of your health
- Take care of your family
- Don’t take yourself too seriously (take the work you are called to do seriously, but not yourself.  It’s not about you!  It’s about the Kingdom!)
- Use good pastoral judgement
- Finish the race

152,000 members of the UMC in Kentucky
300,000 people of Kentucky say they are a member or affiliated with the UMC

- We are a Sent Ministry (we need to learn to go and learn to let go)

3 areas of focus:
- Planting new churches (650 churches planted this quadrivium, 3 per year in KY)
- Leadership Development (of clergy and laity)
- Extraordinary Mission Outreach (local and global)

Primary task of a local church is to make disciples
Primary task of the conference is to develop leaders for the task

Only 6 elders under age 35 in KY conference
Inquire:

- What is the average retirement age of Pastors in the KY conference?
- What are the age ranges of Pastors in the KY conference?

NOT a Zero-Sum Game

From Chris Marshall:

Ordinary Community: Being Ready
It is the sense of entitlement that I am speaking against when it comes to vocational roles in ministry. I am not against the idea of being paid, I am against the assumption that its the way it always has been and always will be. God does not owe us anything! Not a job, not a title of honor, not an air-conditioned office nor full time hours a week to be a spiritual leader. Now his provision may [embody] all of that for you, but we have to be okay if it doesn’t.

I think this is so important.  This weekend, as I reflected on this issue, I found myself being often drawn back to the idea that this thing (the transition, the economics of what it means to be the people of God in the early 21C) is NOT a Zero-Sum Game. “In game theory and economic theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant’s gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s).”

This is not about one “model” of church being more “right” than the other.  It is not even about being more biblical, though I think that is an intriguing question.  It is about the Kingdom of God continuing to break in and how we are going to respond.  It is not about older, traditional church folks losing and young, hip, emerging Jesus-followers winning.  That is NOT the point.  It is about the Mission of God in our time and place.  It has always been about God’s Mission, we’ve just tended toward co-opting it to our own ends (and I’m as guilty as anyone on that matter).

I had a couple offline (i.e. real life!) conversations this weekend with 2 friends (Russell and Bethany) who read my (and others’) post about this topic.  A prevailing concern was that of older, traditional church and the older, traditional adults in them.  Does this move to a new form of ministry and church leave them in the dust?  What about inter- and multi-generational ministry?  What about all those presently paid clergy and staff, are they all doing it “wrong”?  Again, I don’t think this is a Zero-Sum Game.  Transition times are inherently liminal spaces and as a society (and as a global church) we’ll surely have a period of both/and-ness.  We’ll have traditional, institutional expressions of church who are honestly and sincerely seeking to follow in the Way of Jesus… right along side organic, emerging, experimental communities of faith also seeking to follow in the Way of Jesus.  We’ll have paid clergy who instigate Kingdom work partnering with bi-occupational pastors and missional leaders (Russell Smith is a great example of this!).

I think one of the points of this whole conversation is that many see that this transition is coming (and has in significant ways already arrived).  These deep cultural shifts aren’t going away.  The church has always and will continue to adapt to the cultural situation in which it finds itself.  My take on these (blog) writings of church leaders from around the country is that we’re seeing similar adaptations across the USofA.  These adaptations look less and less like the churches of our parents and grandparents (not necessarily less and less like Jesus – though every experiment will have the errant petri dish…).

So, during this transitional time we may have to work extra hard to facilitate inter-generational ministries.  We are by our nature cultural beings who feel most comfortable in what is familiar to us.  But, and I think this point is very important, we are not bound by our culture.  We have the ability to cross cultures and even be countercultural.  As a church our main identifier should never be the comfy cultural confines of me and mine.  This is equally pertinent for the postmodern-embedded college student and the retirement-home octogenarian – both (and all of us in between) must seek first the Kingdom.  We find our common cause in the cause of Christ.  Of course we’ll have disagreements and points of contention, but that is important too for the refining process.  Our unity is in Christ.  Working out the way we live as a people of God in a particular place and culture… well that takes time and an openness to the Spirit that cannot happen if we are tight-fisted about our way (which we always think is the “right way”) of doing things.

Mark Van Steenwyk’s comment on his blog in this conversation is helpful in this strain.  In response to what traditional (local churches, denominations, seminaries) churches can do, he says…

You can be helpful by doing what you’re doing…leveraging what resources you have at your disposal to think with a kingdom mindset, rather than with an Institutional one.

At some point, all of us tied into the status quo need to make a choice. We have to choose whether it is better to work hard to secure what we have…or work hard to secure the future. In other words, are we going to leverage everything to try to make sure that the Mennonite Church USA and Canada have a place in the future? Are we going to leverage everything to try to make sure Bethel Seminary and Mars Hill Grad school have a place in the future? OR are we going to leverage everything that MCUSA and MC Canda and Bethel and Mars Hill has to advance the kingdom where we see it breaking in, with a lesser concern for the role they will keep for themselves in that inbreaking future?

To say it another way: Maybe our educational institutions shouldn’t ask how they can survive the transition. Maybe they should ask, how can we risk our resources on our students so that they can thrive in the transition? Clearly there is a tension here. It doesn’t need to be an either/or. But the way most institution are operating (from the lofty philosophical level to the banal logistical level), I am seeing a stronger desire to maintain market share…to survive…than a desire to help create the necessary future.

The distribution and use of resources is a HUGE issue with all this.  Who has what resources and how are they being used is an important part of the process of how any ministry works.  It also says a lot about our lived theology and priorities… follow the money.  Figuring out how to leverage resources (money, time, property, etc…) for the Kingdom is essential.

May the Kingdom Come…

Pondering yourself…

 From blog one another. Which of these describe you best?

Entrepreneur
- Pioneer, Strategist, Innovator, Visionary
- Groundbreaker who initiates an organization’s mission

Questioner
- Disturber, Agitator
- Upsets the status quo, challenging an organization to move in new directions

Recruiter
- Passionate communicator of organizational message
- Recruits to the cause

Humanizer
- Carer, Social cement
- Provides organization glue by caring for the individuals in it

Systematizer
- Philosopher, Translator
- Organizes the various parts into a working unit and articulates that structure to the other members

Session 2 – Eddy Aleman on Leadership Development

Jesus is the first generation of leadership.

The church is responsible to train its leaders (not seminaries or others).

Question:  “How did the New Testament Church train its leaders?”

It is simple/basic – the church is responsible to train leaders to lead the church.

The harvest is ready – don’t have time to send folks away (to seminary) for 4 years.

Find your “Timothys” and pour into them.  Then tell them to do the same.

This is really “normal Christianity” – every believer reproducing believers, every church reproducing churches.