Op/Ed

Yesterday was the first time church was canceled due to snow since starting my pastorate. Our church certainly wasn’t the only one, but it still feels weird – canceling church?

I don’t recall it happening for me before. The church I grew up in was on a major road that was treated rather quickly in a snow emergency. Attendance may have dwindled on snow days, but I don’t recall cancellations. In college, a snow day actually helped church attendance – it was a minuscule town and the two churches were about the only places you could get to on a snowy Sunday. And then my seminary years were spent in sunny southern California – no breaks for the preacher between December and April out there.

Don’t hear me wrong – there was certainly good reason to cancel yesterday. This is a rural area and those mountain roads were horrible.

But, what does it mean to cancel church? Church cancellations were displayed on the local news channel and I couldn’t help but notice a few of them were worded “so-and-so church: morning worship canceled.” Worship is canceled? Could you imagine a town, state, or entire region in which God is not worshiped on a given Sunday morning? Or what about on a given day? Good thing it didn’t snow when Jesus died for our sins.

Let’s not mistakenly say that worship is canceled. It is at the very least a work-from-home situation. God must be worshiped – and not only on Sundays, but every day of our lives. It is our job as Christians, and God deserves it! I wonder how many Christians from yesterday’s canceled churches worshiped God at home versus how many thought they had the day off.

The physical gathering of the people of God may be impossible due to the weather; but our union as the Body of Christ is never hindered. The next time it snows on a Sunday remember that the gathering called “church” may not happen, but worship is never canceled.

Recently I shared a story about a boy who was sent to undergo psychological evaluations for drawing a crucifix to fulfill the assignment “draw something that reminds you of Christmas.” The boy’s family took him to The National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette to view a Christmas display. In addition to the Christmas display were several crucifixes throughout the shrine. School administrators were concerned when the boy put his name above the Jesus figure. When asked about the drawing, the boy said the person on the cross was himself. He was sent for psychological evaluations which determined that the boy is not a threat to himself or others.

This boy may understand what many older and wiser people fail to see their whole lives. That Jesus died for our sins. The ten cent theological word for this is atonement. The idea that Jesus took punishment in our place is substitutionary atonement, an idea made popular in Western Christianity by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. It is also interesting that when thinking of Christmas, the boy immediately went to the cross. That Christ’s primary work on earth was his passion.

I think the school administration is right, it is crazy: That God became man in order to die for our sins. In the church we call this the mystery of Christ. It is a mystery many will spend a life time attempting to grasp.

For further reading:

The question of homosexuality has sparked great controversy in the church over recent years. This past summer the ELCA dropped a rule forbidding the ordination of sexually active homosexuals. In 2005 the United Church of Christ became the first Christian denomination to endorse same-sex marriage at a national level. In 2003 the Episcopal Church (USA) elected Gene Robinson as the first openly gay bishop in the communion. Last week, the Los Angeles Diocese of the Episcopal Church has followed suit by electing a lesbian bishop who has been in a committed relationship for over 20 years.

These moves have had, and continue to have church splitting consequences. Liberal Christians invoke the name of social justice, equality, and point to Jesus’ interaction with other “undesirables.” Conservative Christians point to the Biblical condemnation of homosexual acts, and invoke the idea of “traditional marriage.” All the while groups on either side, and the middle, of the issue seemingly refuse to speak to one another. Both work hardily at their agenda – Liberals working within the church systems; Conservatives withdrawing from those systems and establishing entirely new ones. Given the already divided nature of the church, can a resolution to such an emotionally charged issue ever be reached? I simply don’t know. I hesitate to jump in the the debate by saying “this is right” or “this is wrong.” I want to try and take a step back and approach two foundational issues which I believe many are skipping right over.

As I observe the debates and news developments I can’t help but notice two underlying assumptions within this debate. That 1) Sex is morally neutral and that 2) Humans are entitled to sex. Both assumptions I believe are flawed.

To rephrase the first observation in the form of a question: Can sex be morally good or bad? Why is this question absent from this debate within the church? It seems to me the many Christians assume that yes, sex is morally neutral (though not in so many words).

The underlying assumption that sexuality is morally neutral: Sex is neither good nor bad, it is just another biological function like a bowel movement. I believe this perceived moral neutrality stems from the fact the sex is a private matter. In American society we assume a right to privacy, and along with that privacy comes an assumption of moral neutrality of all things private. If it doesn’t hurt anyone or if no one finds out, then it cannot be wrong/bad/evil/immoral. No harm, no foul. “Get the church out of my bedroom!”

As I read the Gospels, some of Jesus’ most condemning pronouncements were about things internal, and most private. Matthew 5 “You have heard it said ‘Do not kill’ but I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother is guilty;” “You have heard it said ‘Do not commit adultery’ but I tell you that if you look at a woman with lust then you are guilty.” You have heard it said that sex is morally neutral, but I tell you that sex has moral consequences…

Sex is not morally neutral. It is full of moral decisions. Sex makes two one. How it is done, with whom and in what context does matter. See 1 Cor 6. Christians do not have a right to privacy from Christ. Just because something isn’t public doesn’t mean it is morally neutral.

I observe a second underlying assumption: that sex is an entitlement. That everyone some how deserves to have sex. It is this entitlement mentality that blurs the area between sexual orientation and sexual action. If you are straight you deserve to have straight sex; if you are gay then gay sex; if you are a teenager or young adult then promiscuous pre-marital sex…so long as you are “safe.” According to sitcoms you should expect sex by at least the 7th date. The Pill lets you have sex all the time without “risking” a pregnancy. A little blue pills helps little old men to continue to get-it-on. Sex is not an entitlement, it is a gift. Some Christian traditions even understand it as a vocation – one to which not everyone is called.

I don’t propose that I have any answers here, but I am suggesting that these two key question are absent from an already absent dialog between Christian in response to homosexuality. That is where we need to begin this debate…if we are ever to have one. As I see it people on both sides of the political-church agenda have already made up their minds and refuse to talk to one another as they advance their respective agendas.

What do you think? Are there other items missing from the discussion? What is your view on moral neutrality and sexual entitlement?

Headlines read that the archdiocese of Washington will end charitable support in the District of Columbia unless the same-sex marriage bill is voted down on December 1. This is an extreme misunderstanding of the situation. I encourage everyone to read the archbishop’s op-ed piece in the Washington Post which clarifies his position.

For clarification, Catholic Charities will not stop services in the district. However, if this bill passes in its present form they will have far less resources with which to accomplish their work because D.C. will refuse to extend contracts to the diocese. The denial of service will come from the district, not the other way around. This is because the district requires groups which receive grant money to certify that they comply with city laws – something the diocese will be unable to affirm because there is no religious exemption in the bill. For example, in order to receive city dollars, Catholic Charities would be required to offer adoption services to same-sex couples, a move which is against the church’s deeply held convictions.

Homosexuality is not the issue here, it is only the context. This law could be about any other issue which is at odds with the church and the same problems would surface. For example a bill which required all hospitals to perform abortions, or a bill that required all schools to distribute condoms to students – without religious exemptions.

Or to be completely ludicrous, imagine a bill which required every citizen to bow down and pray to a golden statue of Rutherford B. Hayes, the 19th president of the United States. The city would tell churches “If you cannot comply with this law then we will not give you money for charity work.” What is the church to do? Compromise on its convictions and pray to that obscure golden leader? Or remain true to its deeply held convictions, turn their back on the golden idol, and lose a large portion of financial support for charities? This is the tight spot that the Archdiocese of Washington faces. There are many who would say “Good rittance, the church shouldn’t be getting government money anyway.” And that is the primary issue here.

Asking the right questions. Again, it is not a question about homosexuality; it is a question of church and state cooperation. Let’s ask the right questions in this particular context.

• How should the church and state cooperate on social issues such as serving the poor?
• What issues arise when money is involved in church/state cooperation?
• What happens when church and state have contradictory beliefs? Who trumps whom?
• What provisions should the state make to the church in order to allow it to maintain its convictions?
• Has the cooperation between D.C. and Catholic Charities been a good thing up to this point?
• Should there be a limit to religious exemptions to discrimination?
• When (if ever) should the church compromise on its convictions in order to serve the poor?
• To what extent should the state be able to force the church’s actions?

The Archdiocese of Washington is not blackmailing the city or throwing a tantrum to get their way. They are saying “I can see we disagree on this issue and that’s fine; we still want to partner with the city to help the poor. But, where is the respect for the church’s beliefs and our right to disagree?”

Please leave a comment if you can answer any of these questions, if you have a different opinion, or have anything to add to the discussion.

Finally gamers no longer have to put down their controllers in order to read the Bible. A Bible reader now exists for the Xbox 360. Now when you are finished killing Nazis, insurgents, zombies, aliens, or drug dealers you can crack open the letters of John (which are often called the love books in the Bible). See for yourself:

The Christian radio station here offers free advertising to local churches. A pastor gets about a minute to tell about their church and invite newcomers to attend. One local church ended their ad with “This ain’t your grandma’s church.” Googling the phrase showed that it is a fairly popular advertising campaign among churches these days.

I can completely understand how this might appeal to youth culture: “Woah, look dude! That church is totally dope. They speak my language by using the word aint, I am totally going to check out that joint and give my life to Jesus!”

But what gives with hating on grandma? What has she ever done to the church besides attend faithfully over the years, offer brownies at every bake sale, and sing every hymn even when others were too afraid to sing? Grandma doesn’t turn away the young folk. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard an elderly lady tell me “it is so wonderful to see young people in church these days.” So why are these churches saying grandma ain’t welcome here?

Okay, okay. I’m sure that’s not what they are saying. I’m sure The Ain’t Grandma’s Church wouldn’t turn away old folk at the door – but don’t think you are going to come in here and make us sing hymns (from hymnals and with an organ!), sit in pews, or wear choir robes! No ma’am! That’s, well that’s just…old.

Don’t down play the old people. An inter-generational Bible study played a significant role in the development of my calling to Christian ministry. I was 15 at the time. There were also young adults, working parents, and retired people more than 4 times my age. I am eternally grateful for their wisdom and guidance that old folk have offered me personally and the church as a whole. The counsel of scripture is clear that the elderly are a vital part of the church and ought to be honored.

Old church folk are full of wisdom. They will be the first ones to say “What does the Bible say about this? Maybe Oreos and milk are NOT proper elements for communion. No, you cannot play soccer in the sanctuary. Stop texting, you are in church! Speak up pastor, don’t you know I’m old?”

This Sunday give grandma a hug at church and tell her that she is most welcome here – that it sure is nice to see old folk in the church these days. The Church teaches that Christianity is universal. That is, it extends through all of time and is for all peoples; regardless of race, gender, or age. I’m tired of the church continuing to segment itself, especially by age. If this ain’t grandma’s church, I’m not so sure it can be called a church at all.

Do you belong to an Ain’t Grandma’s Church? How does your church honor it’s elders?

Jesus-o-latern

At church this morning it looked like a few kids were showing off their Halloween costumes from the night before. My wife pointed out that they were dressed as saints. I thought for a moment “Wow, those are some really conservative parents – making their kids wear saint costumes for Halloween.” But on the other hand there is some very scary stuff in those saint stories.

Well, it turns out that the kids were dressing up for All Saints Day. The kids pick a saint, do a bit of research, and then dress up in commemoration of their chosen saint.

What a wonderful way for the church to interact with our modern culture! (Unlike the poor example of interacting with cutlure pictured above) There is the obvious connection to dressing up in costumes this time of year. But there is also the concept of heroes for children. Just think of all the comic books turned into movies in recent years: Spider Man, Batman, Iron Man, The Fantastic Four, X-Men, G.I. Joe, and the rest. Also all of the sports and pop-star heroes who children admire. We have no shortage of these heroes and role models within the faith. We call them saints.

Instead of fighting culture this is one example in which the church is able to teach our faith and history in a culturally engaging way. Did children in your church dress up for All Saints Day? What are some other ways the church has successfully interacted with modern culture?

Christianity Today published an article yesterday (Oct. 29) highlighting a church controversy which is getting special treatment in the modern day – the theology of justification. In simple terms, how do you answer to the question “how are sins forgiven, and how do you get into heaven?”

The article highlights the actions of an evangelical Christian group, InterVarsity, in their attempts to bar Roman Catholics from leadership positions.

My synopsis:

The article talks about how the statement of faith for InterVarsity simply stated in 1960 that “justification is by faith alone.” In 2000 the statement was revised to “justification is by God’s grace to all who repent and put their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.”

Catholics could not sign the first statement (it is condemned by Trent) but they could sign the second because the church has always taught that salvation is through Christ alone.

Now InterVarsity folks want to undo the 2000 statement and go back to “by faith alone” and not allow anyone on leadership who cannot affirm this.

….where have I heard this kind of anti-Catholicism before?

Chick Tract

My comment:

It’s interesting to note the focus and source of justification for each of the two statements. “justification by faith alone” makes the one who believes their own redeemer whereas “…faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation” makes Christ unequivocally the author of salvation. I am lost in attempting to understand why one would want to remove Christ from a statement on justification! On top of that, the move is done explicitly for the purposes of excluding Roman Catholics. Doesn’t the second present a more full, accurate, biblical, and ecumenical approach to justification?

As a Protestant Christian (even evangelical!) I could not, in good conscience, sign that first statement. I think InterVarsity is excluding more than just our Catholic brethren here.

For further reading:

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification – signed between the Vatican and the Lutheran Church in 1999. It lifts the anathemas of the council of Trent (see 41), and explains more fully what Protestants really mean when we say “salvation is by faith alone.”

Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision – Haven’t read this yet, but I love just about everything from N.T. Wright. This work is mentioned in the Christianity Today article.

There has been a great deal in the news about the Vatican announcement concerning efforts to welcome groups of Anglicans into full communion. Read the official press release from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith here.

CNN is completely misleading with its headline Vatican Welcomes Anglicans into the Catholic Church. This reads like Anglicans and Catholics have now been unified – church unity has been achieved! This is not the case. The Catholic Church has announced that a document will soon be published which will create a structure which would allow Anglicans to [leave their communion and] enter the Catholic Church.

I will refrain from full comment until the document has been publish. I find a bit of discomfort with this move. I do not view it as ecumenical at all, but it is more so divisive. The Catholic Church is making it easier for Anglicans who are against certain beliefs to polarize the church and become Catholic. The ordination of women and the Anglican communion’s stance on homosexuality are the primary motivators here. In essence, this move is more defined by what a particular group is against rather than what they are for. Could this also be a move by the church to attempt to strengthen the conservative base among its ranks?

Does this run the risk of unity in name only? It sounds like an easy path for some Anglicans to enter into full communion without fully addressing the divisions between Canterbury and Rome those many centuries ago. Can the deeper wounds be healed in this way? Conversely, will this move cause deeper wounds between the Catholic Church and Anglicans who do not enter into communion? It circumvents one of the primary goals of the ecumenical movement – mutual recognition of ministry. The new structure will require re-ordinations of the former Anglican clergy, thus saying the first ordination was invalid and perpetuating the idea that all churches outside of Rome and invalid. I believe this element will be interpreted as triumphalist within the Catholic Church and hurt relations with other Protestant Communions.

But at the same time, there are a great number of Anglicans leaving the communion to enter the Catholic Church anyway. This move will simply be a stream-lining of the massive number of requests for full communion.

It will be interesting to see what the document will actually say, and more importantly to see its implementation in the real world.

For further reading, here are a few blogs I’ve found which have addressed this news:

• End of Anglican Communion? Liturgy Blog, Bosco Peters (Anglican)
• First Thoughts on Anglican Ordinariate In Light of The Law, Edward Peters (Catholic canon lawyer)
• Anglo-Vatican announcement has important American/African dimension American Papists (Catholic)

What are your first thoughts on this news?

It's the Great Communion, Charlie Brown

thanks Selina B Campbell via twitter for the image idea.

As stated in a previous post, Great Communion will be celebrated this Sunday October 4, 2009 within some Restoration Churches in honor of the bicentennial of Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address [paraphrase]. We also recall a similar Great Communion celebration for the 100 year anniversary of its publication in 1909.

The most well remembered portion of the document is the 13 propositions, nearly half-way in. The first of which is often quoted in its entirety:

“That the Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all
those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else; as none else can be truly and properly called Christians.”

The scope of D&A is the Church universal, the focus is Christ. Thomas Campbell constantly points beyond himself, and beyond any movement he is given credit for founding. The document is by no means a “constitution” for the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) nor for any other of the Restoration Churches. Quite explicitly, Campbell again points beyond himself and beyond the present document calling the New Testament, not the Declaration and Address, the constitution for the church (prop 4).

Rev. Ken Collins puts it quite well in a recent email. “Our denominational name contains ‘Christ’ not once, but twice. We have taken His name. Twice. Have we taken it in vain?…We are the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), not the Campbell Church (Disciples of Stone).”

Celebrating The Declaration and Address undoes it; celebrating the man who wrote it dishonors his intent. It is interesting to note that the first Great Communion was celebrated in the context of the schisms which split the Restoration Movement in the first place – in 1906 the United States religious census listed the Churches of Christ as a separate entity. What might be the result of this second Great Communion celebration? Hopefully there will be no desire for a tricentennial celebration for Campbell’s Declaration & Address, that perhaps his hope will be attained – that we will “Sink into the universal church”[Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery]  and Christ’s prayer will be answered “That they may be one.” (John 17:11)

In the meantime, let us avoid the contradiction of celebrating a document that was not meant to establish a new denomination and a man who would rather have us focus on Christ.

[CORRECTION: I wrongly attributed The Declaration and Address to Alexander Campbell. It was written by Thomas Campbell. I made the corrections in this post.]