Well, I am nearing the end of another hectic week that was birthed out of the last hectic week I had. This past weekend was a rousing success by all accounts. Saturday morning I gave a short seminar at a very contemporary United Methodist church in the area on "Entering the Presence of God." It was very well received and made me want to do more of this type of thing, you know, teaching and exhorting. I'm no preacher, but I could do things like this all day long. The wedding Saturday evening was probably the biggest I have seen at the church (and probably the biggest wedding I have ever been to). It was clear the couple was very special to a lot of people. Everyone enjoyed the music that we presented, but it got me to thinking about how much effort I actually put into preparing for these things. I guess I always have to have something to obsess about, so here goes.I wonder if I ever put all of myself into anything that I do. This will sound conceited, but it does not take much of me to present a very professional, polished product. I am thankful that God has blessed me with above average intelligence and talent so that I am able to perform above expectations even when I am not giving all of myself to a certain project. Now, granted, I am a busy person and have to divide my time between six musical ensembles, music department administration, my teaching load, and my family; but I guess I am concerned that I never feel that I have given all that I could. Is it okay to give only a portion of oneself if that is good enough for most people, or worse still, more than most would be willing to give. I guess only God knows (and I know to a certain extent) what my full mental, emotional, and spiritual capacity are at any given moment.
Maybe I should stop worrying about this, but it goes back to the core of my entrance into full-time church ministry last year. Is this something that can keep my attention and focus for the long haul, or is this just an intermission in an otherwise devoted life? It is a puzzlement.
I read an interesting summary of the 2007 State of the Church report for the United Methodist Church. It read: "Laity and clergy express a high level of desire to attract more young people, ages 18 to 30, to the church, but a much lower level of willingness to change practices and invest budgets to do so." I found this very telling. I think we really believe that if we give it enough time, people's hearts will change and they will want to go to a traditional church. Sometimes this happens. I am an example of this in many ways, having grown up in a Pentecostal church where we had little if anything written down by way of liturgy that even singing the Gloria Patri or Doxology is significant to my wife. I remember when we first became Methodists she would sing the Gloria Patri all the time. It was her favorite worship song. But we did grow up in church and could see the beauty in these "new" traditions. I am not so sure that someone who did not grow up in church would so readily make the same assessments. Maybe I am wrong.
I often hear folks talk about how we need to be careful that we "preach the Word" and take a strong stand against worldliness. We definitely do not want to cater to every whim of the world. How could they know what they need when they are a bunch of sinners. This was something that we talked about in the Assemblies of God as well, so it is not something that is new to me. But my concern goes back to the cliched what would Jesus do? Well, from my reading of the Scriptures, Jesus hung around with people that I would not necessarily like. I mean, he would spend a lot of time at the rescue mission. Have you seen those people? And he met their needs. He did not ask them if they had a well-considered theology of the Messianic prophecies or if they understood the facets of the Trinity or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. He just met their needs. He did forgive their sins, but often he did this in conjunction with meeting their more earthly needs. He fed them and healed them and often by doing so, initiated a way for them to become a part of the larger society again. And above all He was moved by compassion for them because they were like sheep without a shepherd.
The Church is meant to be that shepherd today. But if we close the gate to the pen before any of these wandering sheep can get in, or place the gate so far up the mountain, then what have we accomplished? If we place too many cultural barriers between the world and the ascended, risen Christ who just so happens to want a relationship with them, how much have we failed the world? Even worse, how much have we failed to be Christ to the world?
I love the Church. But I grow weary of fighting phantom battles. I want to fight the good fight, rather than putting out fires within the church. I fear it is possible to lose all ability to fight the right battles, because we can grow too tired from fighting the ones that never needed to be fought in the first place.
If you like the picture above, go here for more.
5 comments:
Dr. Keaton Wrote:
"He [Jesus] did not ask them if they had a well-considered theology of the Messianic prophecies or if they understood the facets of the Trinity or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. He just met their needs. "
Well, I don't know about the head of a pin thing. I'm sure it was in all the bookstores back in the 4th century. But, Jesus didn't overtly address these things... and when he did address things like them, it was not in a way that we would expect. Here is a thought though. We know what Jesus did or did not do from the Gospels (a genre that the writers of the Gospels didn't know they were writing). In the Gospels the writers did address certain issues (pin heads aside). They were writing narrative theology that was very aware of the world-view they wanted to put forth (yes, yes, as inspired by the Holy Spirit... as a good evangelical has to say). Matthew was all the time mentioning the prophecies though he didn't put the words in Jesus' mouth, they were in the narration. Mark was down to business and a little edgy I think. Luke provides a beautiful foreshadowing of Jesus' greatness in Chaps 1 and 2 which he then expounds in the rest of the text as a Greek writer would have foreshadowed the greatness of their epic heroes. John gives us the "in light of the resurrection" account of Jesus time on earth and admits that he has picked and chosen what to put in and leave out (see John 21:25).
What's the point? That stuff is all over the Gospels though not in the mouth of Jesus all the time. I think that in our work as Christ's ambassadors (or whatever). We go and meet the needs like Jesus did, but all the while have a keen awareness of what we stand for and the truth we are living for. At the right time, we should and must confess the agenda of the Gospel that is "turning the world upside down" (let's hope). I suppose I'm saying not to throw out the "talk" of Christendom... just know when to talk about it and when to shut up.
Is that what you were getting at? I think that is what I am hearing from your concern about meeting needs verses talking about theology instead of serving the present age.
Either way, I got my typing urge satisfied.
Peace,
Eric
I appreciate your comments and concerns. And, yes, I think you have gotten to the core of what I am getting at and I am glad your typing urge has been lifted.
I guess my biggest concern in all of this is that we do not lose sight of the big picture. Often I feel that we as traditional church-going folks are so afraid to lose our traditions that we will forsake the lost in order to keep what we think is God's way of doing something, when, in fact, it is just ours. There is nothing wrong with doing things in a way that we are comfortable doing them. I am just asking that we consider a new generation's idea of what comfortable is as well. And what is comfortable to me is not necessarily what is comfortable to someone who did not grow up in the second pew. I think Paul addresses this issue when he talk about eating meat with some and abstaining from eating meat with others. Paul was no hypocrite, he just knew his audience. Am I always aware of my audience's cultural biases or needs? Probably not, that is why I am asking these questions.
Each generation has looked at the Scriptures (and fortunately or unfortunately, the Gospels are all I have to go on to make a case for what I think Jesus believed/ taught) in light of their own biases and traditions. That's really all we can do, since we did not live then and experience the earthly Jesus. And just as you said, the Gospel writers were very aware of the worldview they wanted to put forth, I think we need to be all the more certain what that worldview is for today and how to dress it in a way that is easy for postmodern folks to understand. And we do often come out fighting over things that I think are negotiable. The fundamentals of the faith are non-negotiable to me (See any historical creed of your choice). But other things are, including worship style, place for worship, how we encounter God, and how we encourage others to encounter God. I guess I want to learn to be all things to all men so that I may win some.
How does one keep their love, compassion, and drive for Christian service within the confines of a local church while being frustrated with the apparent apathy of some?
Once I figure that one out, I will let you know. I think this is one of those things that frustrates me most about others and about myself because I have to deal with my own apathy all too often. Hopefully, we can learn to rely on God enough to avoid this pitfall.
I wonder if an Isaiah 6 encounter is needed...
Post a Comment