Category Archives: Christian Living

A Lament for the 2012 General Conference

06 Sunday May 2012

Posted by in Christian Living, Ministry

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

, ,

Confession: Sometimes I feel like one of the things that United Methodists are best at is shallow optimism. In looking at the events of our most recent General Conference, I am not sure I am willing to put a positive spin on things, or accept the attempts some made in the immediate aftermath of General Conference to put it in a positive light. While I can certainly understand why delegates would want to find meaning in the way that they have poured themselves out over the last two weeks, I’m not sure we have much to be proud of. I’m not sure anybody won. And I’m pretty sure The United Methodist Church lost. And yet I sense that people are already putting a positive spin on things. Something about the catharsis of a stressful ten day meeting ending seems to make people feel better about the meeting itself, even in the face of the apparent evidence.

For my part, I wish we could be honest: we are sick and we do not appear to have the necessary resources to heal ourselves.

There were many ways our inability to heal ourselves was illustrated during the meeting in Tampa, FL, but none display the communal brokenness more clearly than efforts around restructuring the church. Coming into this General Conference, there seemed to be widespread recognition that the denomination was at a crossroads. We are in serious decline and the time to act is now, lest it be too late to make meaningful change. I may have missed it, but I do not recall hearing or reading any arguments that suggested that everything is great and there is no reason to worry. So, people of good will and gifted ability invested countless hours and resources in trying to identify ways forward and make the case for the necessity of the agreed upon way forward. The results are before us and they give us no grounds for having hope in ourselves.

The General Administration committee was so divided that it voted down every single substantive proposal that was before it and did not bring anything to the floor of General Conference.

A heroic effort was made to bring a compromise plan directly to the floor of General Conference. A compromise was hammered out and brought to the full conference. It passed, though few seemed very enthusiastic about it. The general idea, among those who voted for it, was that something was better than nothing.

And then, halfway through the last day, Judicial Council announced that the plan was unconstitutional and unsalvageable.

During the dinner break, another heroic effort was made to find a way forward. The final proposal was tabled, never to be retrieved.

Look, I was not in Tampa. So I may be missing something. And I mean no disrespect whatsoever to those who poured themselves out for so many days. I believe that each person at General Conference took their job as a delegate with utmost seriousness and I am grateful for their work. I believe men and women were scratching and clawing, trying to find a way forward, trying to do something to turn this thing around. But it does not look like that happened.

I am almost embarrassed by how closely I followed this General Conference. I even made my students in all three undergraduate classes I am teaching this quarter watch part of a session live.

One of the things that continues to amaze me is how wide a disconnect their sometimes seemed to be between what actually happened as the result of a conference and what we act like happened.

At Methodist Conferences, I am often reminded of the children’s story with the emperor who has no clothes on. You know the one. It is pretty straightforward, the emperor has no clothes on, but everyone tries really hard not to notice. Sometimes we put so much effort into putting our best face on things that it feels like we are saying that decline is a sign of vitality, that spiritual malaise is a sign of holiness, and that mistrust and division are reasons for a hopeful future.

When I am the closest to Jesus, I am the most aware that I cannot do in myself what God in Christ wants to do in me. I have found that growth in my life is usually related to my awareness of my own brokenness and my need for salvation. I cannot save myself.

From where I sit, in sackcloth and ashes, it sure looks to me like what is happening in the church that I deeply love is not a new thing being done in the name of the Lord, but walking through the valley of the shadow of death. Does anyone really think that all is well in The United Methodist Church? Is this what spiritual vitality looks like? In our present state, do we resemble the Body of Christ? The harder we try to whip ourselves into a frenzy and pretend that everything is great and that God is doing a new thing in our midst, the more it feels to me like The United Methodist Church has no clothes on.

And from my perspective, the worst possible news would be that this is what health looks like!

When I look at The United Methodist Church, I do not know what God is up to. I am pretty sure that collectively, despite our best individual efforts, we are making a mess of things.

We cannot save ourselves. Based on the results of our best efforts, we have no basis for hope.

There is always hope in Christ, individually and for The Church. But I don’t know what God’s will is for our part of The Church. I hope that better days are coming. But I wonder if there is more of a role for lament, for weeping, and for repentance than we are currently making room for. I wonder if the most appropriate posture that we could have in the wake of General Conference is one of confession and repentance. I wonder if we need to be silent and weep instead of trying to wrap a pretty bow on what was a pretty disappointing meeting.

Early in this General Conference, someone said “If it’s going to be, it’s up to me.” If that is true, the 2012 General Conference should teach us that “it” isn’t going to be, because we can’t pull it off. If we learn nothing else, may God help us to turn away from self-reliance and self-confidence and turn toward the living God, who brings life after death.

God, help us! We cannot help ourselves.

Peter Cartwright on Class Meetings

10 Tuesday Apr 2012

Posted by in Accountability, Christian Living, Methodist History, Ministry

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

The following extended quote is from The Autobiography of Peter Cartwright. Cartwright was a nineteenth century Methodist and politician in Illinois. (He ran against Abraham Lincoln for a seat in the US Congress in 1846, and lost.) Towards the end of his autobiography, Cartwright reflected on the importance of the class meeting for American Methodism. His account reveals not only his sense of the significance of the class meeting for nineteenth century American Methodism, but also the key emphases of the class meeting.

Class-meetings have been owned and blessed of God in the Methodist Episcopal Church, and from more than fifty years’ experience, I doubt whether any one means of grace has proved as successful in building up the Methodist Church as this blessed privilege. For many years we kept them with closed doors, and suffered none to remain in class-meeting more than twice or thrice unless they signified a desire to join the Church. In these class-meetings the weak have been made strong; the bowed down have been raised up; the tempted have found delivering grace; the doubting mind has had all its doubts and fears removed, and the whole class have found that this was ‘none other than the house of God, and the gate of heaven.’ Here the hard heart has been tendered, the cold heart warmed with holy fire; here the dark mind, beclouded with trial and temptation, has had every cloud rolled away, and the sun of righteousness has risen with resplendent glory, ‘with healing in his wings;’ and in these class-meetings many seekers of religion have found them the spiritual birthplace of their souls into the heavenly family, and their dead souls made alive to God.

Every Christian that enjoys religion, and that desires to feel its mighty comforts, if he understands the nature of them really, loves them and wishes to attend them. But how sadly are these class-meetings neglected in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Are there not thousands of our members who habitually neglect to attend them, and is it any wonder that so many of our members grow cold and careless in religion, and finally backslide? Is it not for the want of enforcing our rules on class-meetings that their usefulness is destroyed? Are there not a great many worldly-minded, proud, fashionable members of our Church, who merely have the name of Methodist, that are constantly crying out and pleading that attendance on class-meetings should not be a test of membership in the Church? And now, before God, are not many of our preachers at fault in this matter? they neglect to meet the classes themselves, and they keep many class-leaders in office that will not attend to their duty; and is it not fearful to see our preachers so neglectful of their duty in dealing with the thousands of our delinquent members who stay away from class-meetings weeks, months, and for years? Just as sure as our preachers neglect their duty in enforcing the rules on class-meetings on our leaders and members, just so sure the power of religion will be lost in the Methodist Episcopal Church.O for faithful, holy preachers, and faithful, holy class-leaders! Then we shall have faithful, holy members. May the time never come when class-meetings shall be laid aside in the Methodist Episcopal Church, or when these class-meetings, or an attendance on them, shall cease to be a test of membership among us. I beg and beseech class-leaders to be punctual in attending their classes, and if any of their members stay away from any cause, hunt them up, find out the cause of their absence, pray with them and urge them to the all-important duty of regularly attending class-meeting. Much, very much, depends on faithful and religious class-leaders; and how will the unfaithful class-leader stand in the judgment of the great day, when by his neglect many of his members will have backslidden, and will be finally lost?

(Source: The Autobiography of Peter Cartwright. (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1857), 519-520)

The Class Meeting and Covenant Discipleship

02 Monday Apr 2012

Posted by in Accountability, Christian Living, Methodist History, Ministry, Wesley

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

,

As readers of this blog and other pieces I have written are aware, I see the early Methodist class meeting as not only an ancient relic of days or yore, but as a practice that can and should be reclaimed by Wesleyans (and so does the seminary where I teach, where all students participate in a class meeting during their first year). There is one piece of this that comes up frequently in conversations about reclaiming the class meeting that I have not yet directly addressed – the relationship between the early Methodist class meeting and Covenant Discipleship (CD). I believe that there are some important differences between the class meeting and CD. Yet, I have been hesitant to speak directly to the similarities and differences between the class meeting and CD for several reasons.

First, I am a big fan of David Lowes Watson’s work. In many ways, I am standing on his shoulders. The renewed interest in the class meeting is largely a product of the time and energy he has invested as a scholar and a churchman in describing the class meeting, and in seeking to find ways to help contemporary Wesleyans reclaim this practice. His Early Methodist Class Meeting remains the standard book on the class meeting in early Methodism. And his vision for CD groups remains the most constructive proposal for how people can be equipped to return to a form of accountable discipleship (Steve Manskar also has a great book by that name and is doing wonderful things to keep Wesleyan discipleship before the broader UMC). In countless conversations I have had about the class meeting, people have spoken of their participation in CD groups and the valuable role they have played in their lives.

I am also hesitant to critique CD, because I think it is valuable. I am not interested in being seen as someone who is an opponent of CD. The differences that I see between CD and the class meeting are not serious objections or major flaws to CD itself. In other words, I am glad that people participate in CD groups. Further, I don’t want to fall into the trap of doing nothing because it isn’t perfect or exactly the way that I would do it.

CD almost always comes up in conversations about reclaiming the class meeting, particularly in several recent conversations I have had. I do have some concerns about how easily people assume that the two are synonymous. Because of my interest in reclaiming the classing meeting, I have decided it is time to spell out my concerns about CD as a contemporary version of the class meeting. Nevertheless, I want to stress that I offer this as a sympathetic critique.

I attended Wesley Theological Seminary in from 2002 – 2005. During my first year as a student at Wesley, we were required to participate in a weekly CD group. We were also required to form a weekly CD group as a part of our field education/internship experience in our second and third years. These experiences were generally positive for me, particularly the group that I was a part of during my internship. However, as I began to study the class meeting in its own rite, I increasingly began to feel a sense of unease about the assumption that CD was the same thing as the class meeting.

My sense is that a major assumption that went into the development of CD was that the General Rules functioned as a clear structure or guideline for the time that was spent in the class meeting. In other words, the content of the class meeting looked something like each person in the meeting being asked whether they had avoided doing harm, had done all the good that they could, and had practiced the means of grace. If this were the primary activity of the class meeting, CD would be a fantastic translation of the class meeting that provides a practical acknowledgment that the contemporary UMC is so diverse theologically that there is no longer an agreed upon list of sins that should be avoided (i.e., we no longer agree on what should be included under the first General Rule). A major positive of CD is that it allows individual groups to create a customized list of General Rules. It helps groups to reclaim a rule of life. And this is a valuable thing to reclaim!

However, I do not believe that the General Rules provided the major structure for the early Methodist class meeting. My sense is that they were in the background and that people were clearly expected to keep them, and would be called out if they were clearly violating one of the General Rules. But I do not think the major activity of the class meeting was giving an account of how you had kept the General Rules in the past week, which I take to be the main function of CD. Rather, I think the major activity of the class meeting was answering the question that is listed in the General Rules itself, to talk about one’s experience of God, how one’s “soul prospers.”

The General Rules begin with a description of people who came to John Wesley “deeply convinced of sin” and “earnestly groaning for redemption.” As Wesley began to meet with this group, and it began to grow, the first “United Society” was formed in London. These societies consisted of people “having the form and seeking the power of godliness, united… that they may help each other to work out their salvation.”

The class meeting, according to Wesley in the General Rules, arose in order to “more easily” keep track of whether people in the societies “are indeed working out their own salvation.” And class leaders, again, according to the General Rules, were to meet with the people in their classes each week in order to do three key things:

“1. To inquire how their souls prosper.
2. To advise, reprove, comfort or exhort, as occasion may require.
3. To receive what they are willing to give toward the relief of the preachers, church, and poor.”

This list suggests to me that the primary activity of the class meeting was conversation about the state of each person’s life with God. Wesley’s narration of the beginnings of the United Societies is filled with language that points to the search for a direct experience of God being one of the key emphases of early Methodism in general, and of the class meeting in particular.

To put this differently, I think CD can much more plausibly be viewed as a contemporary adaptation of the Anglican Religious Societies for the 21st century, than the Methodist class meetings. The Religious Societies would come up with a list of rules that they would commit to keep and be accountable to, just as in CD. In the class meeting, one was accountable to the General Rules, but this was in the background and only came to the foreground if there was a pressing reason for this to happen (like someone violating one of the rules).

I became more convinced of the difference between CD and the early Methodist class meeting when I began formally studying the popular Methodist experience of communal formation as a PhD student. To the best of my memory, I do not recall ever reading an account of a class meeting that stated explicitly, or suggested that the rhythm of the class meeting was taking turns discussing the member’s faithfulness to the General Rules. There were examples of people being asked if they were keeping the means of grace, etc. However, these questions were part of a broader conversation that centered on the search for an experience of justification by faith and the witness of the Spirit of one’s adoption as a child of God. The overwhelming sense I had after reading popular Methodist accounts at the Methodist Archives was that people were desperately seeking an encounter with the living God.

Ultimately, I think there is a serious mistake that comes in equating CD with the class meeting. CD is focused on a covenant that you and the group are held accountable to. Unless my experience in these groups was a complete aberration, (and my reading of texts about CD was way off base), a person who is involved in a CD group will not necessarily ever be asked about how they are doing in their walk with God. Based on the way it is conceived, it would seem that CD itself could become yet another way of insulating ourselves from asking difficult questions about what is actually happening in our lives with God. (I’m not saying that this is what typically, or even frequently, actually happens in CD groups.) Based on the way CD is designed, it would seem to be possible to do all of the things in a CD covenant and not grow in your love and knowledge of God, or even have someone ask you about this vital aspect of your life.

Someone recently said to me that it is very difficult for many contemporary Methodists to know where to start in answering a question like, “How is it with your soul?” I think this person is right. We have largely lost the language for speaking of a living breathing relationship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It was suggested that CD could be a way of backing into these kinds of conversations. I think that is possible, and I know many people who would testify that their relationship with God is stronger because of their involvement in CD. However, I think most people avoid conversations that are uncomfortable or feel risky, rather than accidentally stumbling into them.

Ultimately, I think Covenant Discipleship does more work than is necessary. It is more complicated than it needs to be. I do not see a reason why the class meeting cannot be picked back up as it was generally left off (well, historians could do some needed quibbling here). There is no reason why people who want to be faithful Christians cannot begin to gather together in small groups to talk about how things are going in their lives as followers of Jesus Christ, to support each other and to encourage each other to grow in grace.

I think the best way to reclaim the language of a lived experience of God is by trying to speak it, even if by fits and starts. Ultimately, reclaiming the early Methodist class meeting may be scary and intimidating, but it does not need to be complicated.

What do you think?

On the Class Meeting

27 Tuesday Mar 2012

Posted by in Accountability, Christian Living, links, Methodist History, Ministry

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

,

I recently wrote a post for Seedbed on “How to Reclaim Wesleyan Class Meetings.” Check it out if you are interested.

For those of you who are finding your way to my blog for the first time because of the Seedbed article – Welcome!

A year and a half ago I wrote a series of posts on the Wesleyan Class Meeting for the 21st century that may be of interest to Seedbed readers who want to learn more. For convenience, here are the titles of the posts in that series:

1. The Origin and Development of the Class Meeting.
2. The Potential Contribution of the Class Meeting for 21st c. Wesleyans/Methodists.
3. The Target Audience of Class Meetings.
4. Top Ten Ways to Guarantee Your Class Meeting Will Fail (Intended to be humorous).
5. Is the Class Meeting too Judgmental and Exclusive?
6. The Role of the Class Leader.

A good friend of mine from Munger Place, a church plant from Highland Park UMC in east Dallas, described his experience being a contemporary class leader in an excellent and insightful series of posts that gives a valuable perspective into the lay experience of the class meeting. His posts can be found here:

1. My experience with classes and the role being in a small group has played in my faith journey.
2. The impact leading a class meeting has had on my Christian faith.
3. The impact of classes on my church.
4. The potential impact of class meetings on The UMC.

Finally, I have received questions in various online forums about the difference between the early Methodist class meeting and contemporary Covenant Discipleship groups. I am working on a post to describe the similarities and differences of these two groups as I see them.

As always, if you would like to subscribe to this blog and automatically receive future posts, you can subscribe by email by clicking here or in a reader by clicking here.

Love Feast

16 Friday Mar 2012

Posted by in Christian Living, Life, Methodist History, Wesley

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

,

On February 18, 1750 John Wesley wrote in his Journal:

“Today, likewise, wherever we assembled together, God caused his power to be known, but particularly at the love-feast. The honest simplicity with which several spoke, in declaring the manner of God’s dealings with them, set the hearts of others on fire, and the flame spread more and more, till, having stayed near an hour longer than usual, we were constrained to part.” (Works 20:321)

Recently, I have been experiencing the way that God does seem to cause his power to be known when people speak with “honest simplicity” about the ways they have experienced God’s work in their lives. Yesterday, I was able to be a part of a love feast with Seattle Pacific Seminary students. We took an hour and a half in the middle of finals to share some light food and talk about how we have experienced God over the past few months.

The best part was that Wesley’s testimony to the power of the love feast in the above account came to life for me in a new way. As we shared with each other, I gained an experiential understanding of what the early Methodists experienced at this love feast when the Holy Spirit “set the hearts of others on fire, and the flame spread more and more.” And I think all of us left feeling like we had been renewed by our encounter with the living God.

In fact, I have been experiencing God’s presence in my life in new ways over the last month or so. I have been blessed several times in the last month with a tangible experience of God’s presence as I have been a part of conversations where people spoke with honesty and simplicity about “the manner of God’s dealings with them.” I have left each of these conversations with a deeper awareness of God’s goodness and his steadfast love for me.

Through these conversations I have experienced my own brokenness more deeply than ever and my deep need for the healing that only God can bring. In one conversation, a dear friend reminded me of two qualities of God: gentle and jealous. I was reminded that God is gentle, that he is so tender and careful with us. God loves us deeply and perfectly at every single moment of our lives. He has never been disappointed in us.

And yet he is jealous. God wants all of us. He wants us to be wholly given to him and the purposes that he has for our lives.

This is why, as I tweeted a few days ago, I still believe entire sanctification is the grand depositum that God has given to the people called Methodist. The gospel is the good news of what God has done for us in Jesus Christ through the crucifixion and the resurrection. Christianity is the promise of salvation, of healing, of rescue to the broken, the hurting, the perishing. But just like the church cannot get to Easter Sunday without Good Friday, we cannot get to the hope for new life in Jesus Christ without recognizing our own brokenness. We cannot save ourselves, we need a savior. And thanks be to God, we are offered salvation through the person and work of Jesus.

I am convinced that the fullness of the gospel is not only hope for life after death. The fullness of the gospel is not a few strategies for improving your life at work or at home. And though I love The United Methodist Church and desperately want it to have a future that is filled with God’s presence, the fullness of the gospel is not survival.

The fullness of the gospel is that at every point of need in our lives God has already acted to meet the need. The fullness of the gospel is that salvation is freely offered to every single person. The fullness of the gospel is that sin is no longer necessary, because the Great Physician is ready to heal us of all that is not in accordance with his purposes. The fullness of the gospel is that we can experience forgiveness for all that we have done that we should not have done and that we can actually live the kind of life that God created us to live.

When I was in high school I read a quote by Henry David Thoreau that has haunted me every since I first read it, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” I think Thoreau is probably right. This would be very bad news, if this were all there news there is. But thanks be to God it isn’t. The good news is that we do not need to live lives of quiet desperation, it is not necessary or inevitable. We can live fully and obediently in God’s presence today!

As Paul says in a moving passage at the end of Romans 8, “I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom 8:38)

Anything contrary to God’s purposes in our lives is no longer necessary. Which is not to say that it no longer has a hold on our lives. We cannot release ourselves. But God can and thanks be to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit that he is both able and willing.

These are some of the ways my heart has been set on fire as I have heard others share God’s “manner of dealing with them.” Thanks be to God for love feasts!

On Being a First-Time Visitor

29 Monday Aug 2011

Posted by in Christian Living, Life, Ministry

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

Hello, my name is Kevin Watson. Welcome to deeply committed. I am the author of this blog and I am thrilled that you found your way here. (This seemingly random introduction will make more sense if you keep reading.)

One of the strangest parts of moving from Dallas, TX to Seattle, WA has been the experience of being a first-time visitor in church. For various reasons, I have not been in this position since seminary. And it was different even during seminary, because I was often visiting a church as an assignment or as part of my seminary training. The point of this post is to share a bit of my experience from the past two weeks in order to help church leaders view their churches through the eyes of a first-time visitor.

The first thing I would say about visiting a church for the first time is that it is hard! I like routines and the comfort of feeling like I know what is going on. None of that really applies when you are a first-time visitor at a church.

Here are a few, not necessarily connected, thoughts about the last two weeks:

Neither church was United Methodist. We visited these two churches in order to get a sense of the kinds of churches that my soon to be students at Seattle Pacific University will likely be attending and to get a feel for the types of churches that are generally in the area where we live. It was interesting to visit non-United Methodist Churches. A clear emphasis of both churches was on the importance of small groups, though neither of them appeared to have something I would consider a close analogy to a 21st century class meeting. Nevertheless, it was a humbling reminder than many parts of the Body of Christ are currently doing a better job of practicing Wesleyan communal Christian formation than United Methodism. In fact, the sermon at one of the two churches was on the importance of connecting and small groups were clearly highlighted both before and after the sermon as a vitally important part of the life of the particular community of faith. Without going too far, this church emphasized the importance of connecting through small groups, and providing an accessible and clear way to become involved in small groups as strongly as they could have.

My impression was that both churches that we visited were sincerely trying to be hospitable and welcoming to new visitors. I did not sense that either church was a closed group that would just assume that my family was not there. On the contrary, I think that both churches had successfully cultivated a culture where people wanted new life and would have been genuinely pleased if my family were to join the church. At one of the churches, as soon as someone realized we were new to the church, we were given a small gift bag with a book, pen, water, and breath mints (so much you could over-read into that!) in it.

The same church also had a nice set up of coffee, muffins, bagels, and other breakfast foods. There was no sign anywhere that there was any expectation that you would pay for these things. I think it is a mistake when churches put something next to food and drinks that makes it obvious you are supposed to pay for them. In my view, this severely undercuts the act of hospitality in having food and drink available. (Maybe I was just hungry and glad I could feel comfortable eating even though I didn’t have cash on hand…)

Here are a few things I noticed that would have made the experience more positive for my family:

We were a bit early to one church, and when we arrived in the Sunday School area no one was there. To be fair, someone showed up within thirty seconds of our arrival. But, it was a bit disconcerting to show up where we were told to take our daughter and find an empty room.

Andrew Forrest, the pastor at my family’s church home in Dallas, started doing two things in church that I appreciate after the past two weeks even more than I did before. The first time Andrew speaks in the worship service, he always introduces himself. He says something very concise and simple like, “Hi, I’m Andrew Forrest. I’m the pastor here at Munger Place. If you’re a first time visitor we are really glad you are here…” To people who attend every week, this may seem unnecessary. But what I have discovered the past two weeks is that if someone who is speaking in the worship service does not introduce themselves, and you are new to the church, you have no way of knowing who is talking to you. It isn’t the end of the world, but it is a bit confusing and a subtle way that a person can feel outside of what is going on in worship. (See, now the first sentence makes complete sense… right?)

The other thing Andrew started doing a few months before we moved was give an idea of how long the worship service was. To be honest, at first I thought this was a bit silly and unnecessary. However, the past two weeks have changed my mind. Both of the services we attended were different lenths, and they were both different from the typical length of the worship service at Munger Place. Again, it wasn’t a major issue, but because we have two little ones who are on schedules as far as when they eat and sleep, etc. Melissa and I did start to get a bit anxious when the service started to go beyond the time that we assumed it would be. It didn’t end up being an issue either week, but our minds would have been put at ease if someone had simply said something like “our worship service typically lasts x.” (Having said that, I think there needs to be room for the Holy Spirit in worship. The point is not to be legalistic, but just to give new visitors a sense of what is going to happen.)

Related to this, both churches gave us something when we entered the sanctuary. However, it was not an order of worship. I don’t really care if a church gives you a detailed scripting of what is going to happen. However, I do think when churches give you no sense of the layout of the worship service, it is all the more important to give verbal clues to the congregation of what is happening, what is next, etc. At one of the churches, the worship leader ended a song and then said, “Ok, we are going to take a break now. Make sure you say hi to someone” and then walked off stage. My wife and I had no idea what was happening, because we have never been to a church before where there is a break in the middle of the service. It would have helped if he had said a bit more, with new folks in mind.

One more positive: Both churches had thoughtful set ups for children. People knew where our kids could go (better still, at one church the greeter took us there and introduced us to the adults who would be with our kids). There was also a good sign-in system that gave us confidence that our kids would not be handed off to someone else at the end of the worship service. These are things I must admit I did not think about before having children. One of the reasons I mention this, then, is in case some of you who read this do not have children. It might be helpful to ask some parents of young children what would be important to them if they were to visit a new church, and if they attend your church they would be great people to ask how your church could be more welcoming to families with young children.

A final thought: I realized that a good website is essential for a church that wants to have new visitors. This is probably obvious to most of you who are reading this. However, even in writing this post I am realizing that we would probably not have even visited either church if the website had not made us comfortable that there would be a place for James that we would be comfortable with, etc. If you are in an urban setting and you don’t get many visitors, you may want to think about the quality of your website. If your website looks unprofessional, many people will not even visit the church. Another way of thinking about this is that in 2011 there are no true first-time visitors who come into your church. Rather, your first-time visitor is the person who visits your website and decides whether they want to come “back” by coming to an actual worship service.

There you have it, a few thoughts from a few weeks of being a genuine outside in two different churches. What would you add to what I’ve said? What do you think is important for the church to keep in mind when it thinks about new visitors?

Resurrection, Ginghamsburg and Younger Clergy

18 Wednesday May 2011

Posted by in Christian Living, Ministry

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

I have been thinking about the post I recently wrote on younger clergy and the conversation it has prompted. I can’t put my finger on it, but I am not satisfied with the post and my articulation of the importance of younger clergy. As I have been chewing on this, I had a thought I am not really sure what to do with:

Of the largest congregations in the UMC today, a significant portion were new church plants that were planted by a younger pastor who is still the senior pastor.

Last year Adam Hamilton listed the ten largest churches in the UMC on his blog. I am not familiar with all of the churches on the list, but I know that three of the top six churches were started by the same person who is currently the senior pastor, and two of the top six were not large churches when the current pastor was appointed to the church. And while I don’t know their ages, I am confident that they were “young” when they planted their churches.

These churches are: Church of the Resurrection (Adam Hamilton), Granger Community Church (Mark Beeson), and The Woodlands (Ed Robb, Jr.). Windsor Village (Kirbyjon Caldwell) and Ginghamsburg (Mike Slaughter) were smaller churches that became “mega” churches under the pastorates of Caldwell and Slaughter.

I am not sure what to do with this. On the one hand, none of these pastors were appointed to be the senior pastor of one of the largest congregations in their annual conference when they were young and relatively inexperienced. On the other hand, now they are the pastors of 5 of the 6 largest churches in the UMC. One obvious insight could be that entrepreneurial younger clergy should be given the opportunity to plant new churches. But is there something else that can be gleaned from this?

If Hamilton, Beeson, and Robb Jr. had not been given the chance to plant new churches, these churches likely would not exist.

Does this have anything meaningful to say to the conversation today about younger clergy? Does this tell us something less obvious than, “We should let younger pastors start new churches?” I wonder what thoughts these pastors would have about the importance of younger clergy and recruiting, supporting, and placing them?

What do you think? Do you see any meaningful connections?

Edit: Thanks to John Reasons who corrected the initial draft of this post where I incorrectly included Mike Slaughter as planting Ginghamsburg. I knew better, but definitely had it wrong in this post. I have revised the post to correct my error.

The Number One Call to Action

17 Tuesday May 2011

Posted by in Christian Living, Ministry

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

If I were in charge of the Call to Action, which I clearly am not, the number one priority would be aggressively recruiting younger clergy. Unfortunately, The United Methodist Church’s approach to ordination in many ways is almost the exact opposite of recruitment.

For too many people I hear from, the ordination process feel like a burden of endless obstacles in their path and hoops to jump through. To make things worse, prospective clergy are sometimes ignored or treated with indifference. I have heard many people from many different annual conferences say that they were told that it was their responsibility to keep track of their paperwork, not the DCoM or BOM.

As I have interacted with gifted younger people who feel called to local church ministry, I have had the thought that it feels like the church is almost daring them to go and do something else with their life. Sometimes, it feels like we are doing all that we can to be inhospitable and make them feel like their calling is an imposition on the church.

The irony is that the exact opposite is true. The church is desperate not just for younger clergy, but for gifted clergy who are passionate about being ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

If there is one thing that I think the church could do that would be the most likely to have a positive impact on the church, it would be pouring time, money, and resources into recruiting the most gifted spirit-filled younger clergy we can find.

Here’s one possibility: What if every Annual Conference made it a priority in the next quadrennium to find 10 women and men, who were 25 and younger and displayed unmistakable passion and giftedness for ministry, and then did everything that they could to make sure that these people progressed through the candidacy process as efficiently as possible (with integrity). And then they were put in positions where they were most likely to thrive. What if we treated them like they had something of urgent importance to offer to the church not in a few decades, but NOW? If a group of young leaders were encouraged, nurtured, supported, and empowered to fulfill their callings, I would be shocked if they didn’t have a huge impact on the church.

There might be a better way to do this, and there might be something that would be even more important. But if there were one thing that I could do that I would be most confident would pay dividends, I would search far and wide for the next generation of leaders that God is raising up and I would put them in positions to thrive today.

If you are a pastor and you are reading this, let me ask you: What are you doing to raise up, encourage, and support the next generation of leaders? Maybe the best way to ask this question is to ask you what you wish someone had done for you when you were preparing for full-time local church ministry?

I often hear seminary students talk about being disappointed by the feeling that they are abandoned by their annual conference while they are in seminary – that they feel invisible. How can you communicate to someone who is ready to make a difference for the kingdom of God that you believe in them and are willing to invest in them?

How are you investing in the future leadership of the church?

On Perfection

29 Friday Apr 2011

Posted by in Christian Living, Sermons, Wesley

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

,

The following is a filled out manuscript of the sermon I preached in chapel at Perkins School of Theology yesterday (April 28, 2011).

The Scripture passage for my sermon was 1 Peter 1:13-16: Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming. As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy.'”

My favorite part about eating Chinese food is by far the fortune cookie. No matter how great the food tastes, I can’t help but look forward to the moment when those plastic-wrapped brittle cookies arrive. On one occasion in particular, the waiter brought the cookies on a silver platter of promise. I was handed a cookie, ripped open the package, broke the cookie open and read: “You shall soon achieve…” Could this really be my fortune? I had to read the words again: “You shall soon achieve perfection.”

Now that is a fortune cookie! Since that day, I have wrestled with the meaning of “soon” since I received this fortune about a decade ago. Aside from my fortune cookie, it seems that we usually do not have positive association with the idea of perfection. People are often given the advice, “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.” And when we hear of a moral failure of a celebrity, politician, church leader, or friend or family member you will almost certainly hear someone say, “Nobody’s perfect.”

So what are we to do with the questions that The United Methodist Church asks those who will be ordained? Are you going on to perfection? Do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life? Are you earnestly striving after it? For many, these questions are embarrassingly naïve and we squirm in discomfort as the next generation of pastors answers the questions affirmatively. Or, as is often related, the body of ordained elders and deacons – who have already answered these questions – laughs nervously.

Why do we ask these questions? Nobody’s perfect, right?

What if our discomfort with the idea of being entirely sanctified, or being made perfect in love, is actually a reflection of our own preoccupation with ourselves and our unwillingness to be captivated by the grace of God? What if it reflects a realistic assessment of our own capabilities, but fails to recognize that God is in the picture too? What if what is at stake in whether we affirm, defend, and preach about the possibility of being cleansed from sin and actually becoming holy as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are holy has nothing to do with our ability? What if what is at stake is our faith in the power and sufficiency of God’s grace?

In our Scripture reading for today, the author of 1 Peter exhorts his audience to “set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming.” At a basic level, then, the instruction is to have hope because of the grace that is coming when Christ returns. As one scholar has paraphrased verse 13, “You have been born to a living hope; therefore hope. Live out your call.”

The content of the hope that verse 13 speaks of is further illuminated by verse 3: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” As Christians, we have hope because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The one who was crucified and died, that one, Jesus of Nazareth, he lives! Because of the resurrection, we have the right to have hope in the face of seeming hopelessness. On Good Friday, there was no hope. Jesus was dead. But just when the story seemed to have been concluded in the most final way possible, the period at the end of Jesus’ life exploded into the most amazing and wonderful news possible – Jesus lives! And among other things, for Christians this means that God’s grace is bigger than sin and death. God’s grace is more powerful than sin. Even in the face of death itself, because of the resurrection, we can say “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” The resurrection has implications for every part of life, and it is good news. And the world is desperate for this kind of hope.

1 Peter continues in verse 14, “As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance.” In the light of the hope that we have in the resurrection of Jesus, the writer seems to be imploring us – there is no necessity for sin. And yet, the resistance to the Wesleyan understanding of entire sanctification often sounds like we are making the case that sin is necessary, that no matter what has happened, sin exists and cannot be extinguished. Nobody is perfect. We can’t do that. We shouldn’t expect pastors to affirm that they expect to be made perfect in love in this life. But if holiness is about what God is able to accomplish in us by the power of God’s grace, then why wouldn’t we expect pastors and laity to affirm that they expect God to accomplish in us what God’s wants to accomplish?

Perhaps there is a deeper issue. Perhaps we are afraid or unwilling to be transformed in the ways that God wants to transform us, rather than it being the case that God is not able to operate in our lives in these ways. It may be that we continue to be attracted to sin in ways that we are unwilling to acknowledge or recognize. It may be that we are afraid at what complete freedom for obedience to God would do to our lives as they currently exist. But do we really want to argue that sin is necessary for those who have been forgiven and renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit?

What do we think Jesus meant when he said that the greatest commandment was “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.” I am convinced that by the grace of God, the children of God are truly able to keep these commandments. And expecting any less is not because we have accurately assessed God’s ability or God’s willingness to enable us to be faithful. Rather, it is a failure of our imaginations and our hope in the saving power of Christ. Or, it is another sin that God wants to free us from!

But someone will say, Is Christian perfection only about avoiding sin, or avoiding breaking a commandment or rule? Thanks be to God it is so much more! As our Scripture passage for today ends, “But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy.’” Christian perfection is about holiness. It is about being renewed in the image of God so that we actually love God and love our neighbors. And in this passage, it is not offered up as a polite suggestion or an option. It is an imperative, a command, “Be holy!” As one scholar has put it, “A holy God demands a holy people, just as a God of hope creates a hopeful people.” (NIB, 258) Thus, this passage suggests that a stubborn refusal to believe in the possibility of deep holiness is not a polite and proper modesty or humility on our part, rather it is a sinful refusal to respond to God’s grace.

I know not all of us are Methodists, but for those of us who are, this is of particular urgency! Holiness and entire sanctification are in our DNA! In fact, John Wesley, believed that Methodism was raised up by God to preach and spread the doctrine of entire sanctification, the possibility that God is able and willing to save us to the uttermost!

In the sermon “The Scripture Way of Salvation”, here is how Wesley himself made the case for entire sanctification: Before we say anything else, we have to be clear that the foundation of sanctification and entire sanctification is faith, just as justification or forgiveness is by faith. The faith that saves from sin and perfects us in love, then, is faith that God has promised this in the Scriptures. Secondly, it involves faith that God is able to deliver on God’s promises. Third, it is a faith that God is able and willing to do it now. And finally, it is faith that God actually does it. Wesley ended this sermon with a powerful plea:

By this token may you surely know whether you seek it by faith or by works. If by works, you want something to be done first, before you are sanctified. You think, ‘I must first be or do thus or thus.’ Then you are seeking it by works unto this day. If you seek it by faith, you may expect it as you are: and if as you are, then expect it now. It is of importance to observe that there is an inseparable connection between these three points – expect it by faith, expect it as you are, and expect it now! To deny one of them is to deny them all: to allow one is to allow them all. Do you believe we are sanctified by faith? Be true then to your principle, and look for this blessing just as you are, neither better, nor worse; as a poor sinner that has still nothing to pay, nothing to plead but ‘Christ died.’ And if you look for it as you are, then expect it now. Stay for nothing. Why should you? Christ is ready. And he is all you want. He is waiting for you. He is at the door! Let your inmost soul cry out,
Come in, come in, thou heavenly Guest!
Nor hence again remove:
But sup with me, and let the feast
Be everlasting love.

Is there something within you that is stirred by Wesley’s words? Could that be the Holy Spirit, inviting you to such faith, such hope in the amazing grace of God? 1 Peter calls us to “be holy in all we do because God is holy.” This holiness is rooted in the hope that we have in the grace that has drenched the world in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ is risen! Sin no longer reigns. Even in the face of the continued presence of sin, Christians can proclaim that there is no inevitability of sin. It is allowed to continue to the extent that we invite it into our lives, but God through Jesus is able and willing to free us from the power of sin and free us for joyful obedience.

When we pushback against this understanding of Christian perfection, I wonder if part of it is that we feel like this is just another idea that reminds us that we are not measuring up. That we are not good enough. That we are not focused enough, disciplined enough, or whatever enough. But, like the gospel itself, any understanding of Christian perfection that seems like it is bad news is either a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding. Christian perfection is not intended to be another item to add to our spiritual to do list. It is a blessing that God wants to freely give to us. The only catch is that God will not work without our assent. Grace makes us able to recognize the promptings of the Holy Spirit, but still allows us to decide whether we will respond.

On second thought, that was a pretty Wesleyan fortune cookie! And perhaps the questions that we ask ordinands are neither embarrassing or naïve. Are you going on to perfection? Do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life? Are you earnestly striving after it? Note that the second question is not, do you expect to make yourself perfect, or even become perfect in love in this life? No. The question is, do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life? The answer to each of these questions can be and should be, “Yes, by the grace of God!”

Holiness is about God’s grace, not our goodness or our works. But we worship an all powerful, all loving God who desires to renew the divine image within each one of us, so that our lives are no longer plagued by the stains of sin, and so that we are able to enter into full communion with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. May the Triune God give us each the faith to believe that grace is bigger, more powerful, and more capable of transforming our lives than anything else. May we be holy as God is holy, even today!

A Proposed Definition for “Small Groups”

21 Thursday Apr 2011

Posted by in Accountability, Christian Living, Ministry

≈ 15 Comments

Tags

In my previous post I discussed the term “small group” and how difficult it is to define and pin down what the term actually signifies. Is a small group a curriculum driven study? Is it a hard-core accountability group? Is it an affinity group with no obvious component geared toward Christian formation? In surveying the ways that the term is deployed, the answer would appear to be “yes.”

Figuring out what a small group is becomes even more difficult when we recognize that the boundaries between informational, transformational, and affinity groups are often blurred so that one group contains many aspects of each of these categories of small groups.

At the end of my last post, I suggested that it might be more helpful to skip the question “What is a small group?” and ask instead, “What should the definition of a small group be?” In this post, I am going to propose a definition for how the United Methodist Church should define small groups in the context of twenty-first century American Christianity.

Before offering my definition of how small groups ought to be understood, I want to clarify several assumptions that inform my defintion.

First, the church and people have limited time and resources. Church leaders need to be clear about what is most important for people to do in order to reliably expect to grow in their faith. When it comes to small groups, then, I think the church ought to decide which type of small group will be most helpful for the UMC’s stated mission of “making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world” and clearly prioritize those types of groups over others.

Second, United Methodist leaders cannot take biblical literacy for granted amongst its membership.

Third, despite there often being room for significant growth in knowledge of the Bible and its contents, a deeper problem for United Methodism than biblical illiteracy is that most United Methodists know more than they put into practice. For example, I am confident that most committed United Methodists could tell you that reading the Bible and praying are important Christian practices. I doubt most United Methodists do both of these things on a daily basis. (I hope I am wrong.)

Fourth, every Christian ought to be able to talk about their faith in light of the every day events of their lives. However, I do not think that every Christian is actually comfortable doing this. One of the reasons many Christians are not comfortable talking about how they are growing as followers of Jesus Christ is because you learn how to talk about your faith by talking about your faith, and this does not happen in focused ways in most small groups. However, I believe it is possible for every Christian to recognize God’s action in their lives and to give voice to experience of God’s presence or a lack of a sense of God’s presence.

Fifth, I assume that Jesus cares more about whether we are becoming the kind of people he wants us to be than whether we are becoming more knowledgeable. I do not think that these two things are mutually exclusive. However, if we have to pick between information or transformation, I think we should have a strong bias in favor of transformation.

Sixth, when the UMC talks about small groups, we should be able to take for granted that any small group would have a strong Christian emphasis. In other words, Christian small groups are not social clubs or activity groups that do not have any focus that is distinctly and easily recognizable as Christian.

I am sure that there are many more ways I could list criteria for how we should define what a small group is. What do you think I missed?

Based on the previous factors, I would say that the ideal understanding of a small group in a Christian context should be:

Small group – a group of people who gather together on a regular basis with the goal of becoming more faithful disciples of Jesus Christ, to attend to the ways that God is at work in their lives and the extent to which they are cooperating with God’s grace, and to watch over one another in love and mutually challenge, support, and encourage one another in the pursuit of deeply committed Christian discipleship.

This is very much a working definition that I pulled together for the purpose of this post. However, I think it has the advantage of being general enough to provide for flexibility and adaptability to various contexts and the needs of various groups of people. On the other hand, it is clearly and correctly weighted toward the transformational approach to small groups as opposed to informational groups or affinity groups. There are a variety of ways a group could be organized in order to meet this definition. And yet, any group that is not primarily focused on attentiveness to growth in discipleship would not count as a small group by this definition.

Finally, I think this definition is a start for providing much needed clarity for knowing what we mean when we say “small group.” I also believe that such an understanding of small groups compliments and strengthens United Methodism’s own understanding of its mission, “to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.”

This post is admittedly a thought experiment, and certainly not an attempt to try to say the last word about how we should understand small groups. What would you change or add to what I have said?