Musings: Math and Theology

About four years ago I attended a series of lectures given by Eugene Peterson on the topic of leadership in the church. Dr. Peterson is famous for his gritty and earthy “paraphrase” of the Bible called “THE MESSAGE”. In the first of four lectures he gave, he used a concept more commonly used in geometry class to made a rather bold assertion. It went something like this: There is in the church an “incongruence” in its witness that is undermining our ability to be faithful. He described this “incongruence” as being between what he calls the “truth” of Christ and the “way” of Christ.

He notes that the “truth” is the easy part. Most of us can identify, describe, and assert what we believe to be “true” about our Lord. We have no problem at all professing our faith in the “one triune God” or giving witness that Jesus is that holy child where God’s divine affections was, is, and always will be incarnated in him. We sing with great joy how he is our savior. We may have our disagreements about what these things might mean, but that is all right… we can tolerate different interpretations so long as the core truths are there… as John Wesley said, “In the essentials, unity; in everything else, charity.”

Peterson suggests that living the “way” is the hard part, the part where we as a people of faith are failing greatly. The examples he shared were painful: The Roman Church mired in a history of sacrificing the well-being of children to protect priests without boundaries; The Protestant Church’s eagerness to sacrifice the integrity of the covenant by immersing it’s witness in the values and practices of the marketplace; The abuse of leadership by many clergy; The willingness of many of the laity and clergy alike to morph the values of our faith into the ways of our consumer addicted, narcissistically driven, confrontationally charged and military-industrial “complexified” culture. (Now, that’s a mouth full).

It seems we are good at stating the “truth” of Christ but poor at living the “way” of Christ. Peterson went on to suggest that this “incongruence” or “dissonance” between “truth” and “way” is the heart of the church’s present day crisis, a crisis that had led to what Peterson has called, “the Great Stampede” of disaffected souls from the church. Even we at Trinity have struggled in the wake of this “stampede”. Since I moved here a year ago, I have met so many people who “use to go” to Trinity Church that I mused to my wife that if they had all stayed, we would have had to add additional worship services or knock out a few walls out to make our building bigger. In fact, one day in Panera bread, a stranger walked up to me and asked if I was the new pastor of Trinity Church. I said that I was. She responded “very tough place, I will pray for you.”

Peterson was equally critical of the contemporary church’s response to this “stampede.” He argued that changing worship styles, moving to modern or post-modern leadership patterns, and adding technology will not solve the problem. These things may create excitement, add some sizzle, and even attract a crowd, but in the end, they will only contribute to the stampede, if we as a church don’t address this incongruence between “truth” and “way”. The only way out, Peterson suggests, is for the church to confess the dissonance and begin to work toward cultivating a witness where the “truth” we believe about Christ is congruent with the “way” we live with Christ.

I am haunted by the simple and unvarnished truth of theses thought. Thirty years in pastoral ministry have left a myriad of scars and bruises. I have watched church people, clergy and lay alike, exact angry vengeance, pummel poor and unsuspecting souls with harsh and mean words, and employ dishonest or disingenuous techniques with the ruthless and manipulative demeanor of win-at-all-costs paid political consultants..

Then, of course, there is our culture. Now let’s be honest here. If we had to choose, and sometimes we must… what would be most important to us, our citizenship in the “Kingdom of God” or our citizenship in “the United States of America?” Are our opinions shaped more by our political affiliations or our faith connections? Is our consumer-driven life style congruent with the way our Lord would want us to live? Would Jesus drive a Hummer or a Prius? I know the last question sounds silly, but it does make a point. The fact that we, as a people, suffer such an addiction to oil that we have allowed ourselves to become hostage to a contentious part of the world might suggest we have a “congruency” problem..

Then of course, there is me. Here I am, a preacher of the gospel. Over the thirty years I have put a number of people to sleep with a series of proclamations that I believe in my heart to be true, but often do not live as if they are. For instance, I will tell you that God is trustworthy and true… and yet, I have episodes where I lay awake at night worrying about a myriad of issues, both personal and ecclesial. With the boldness of an Old Testament prophet, I will proclaim that Christ must be the center of our life… and yet, I must confess that I often prefer doing it Frank’s way, as in Sinatra’s classic hit “My Way.” In this age of unrepentant individualism, I clearly proclaim the communitarian nature of the gospel… while longing privately for a life “far from the maddening” crowd. I gladly tell you that the Baptismal Covenant frees us to be faithful, even if faithfulness leads to being unpopular… while at the same time I work so hard for your approval. Yes, your pastor is a fraud, and the only thing he has going for him is the only thing we all have going for us… we are loved by God.

How do we fix this problem? How do we wed “truth” with “way”? How do we find Peterson’s “congruency” in our lives? I have become convinced of this… we do not do it with promises of new visionary program initiatives and all the hype and spin that accompany them. I am more drawn to the notion that we must tone down the self-righteous and know-it-all rhetoric and become intentional about doing the “inner soul work” of our lives. Part of that work may in fact deal with the question of “truth.” But I am beginning to think that much of it has to do with our “temperament.” What do we mean by temperament? Let me put it this way… my dad was in retail management. One day, a high school senior who worked for him told him… “Mr. McGlade, you could tell someone to go to hell, and they wouldn’t mind going!” My dad taught me about temperament. It is not enough to know the truth, we must learn to live it.

Cultivating a “Christian” temperament may be, as a people, one of our greatest challenges. Any fool can live out of a series of laws, ordinances, and doctrines… but to take disciplines inspired by the teachings of our Lord and to live with them gently, kindly, and lovingly… to look to each other as a child of God and to look to God’s creation with a sense of awe and wonder… to strive to be just and fair in all of our actions… to be filled with gratitude while avoiding the temptation to feel entitled… to do these things joyfully and gladly, is the beginning of that life long journey of living into the “way” of Christ.

Congruency demand that we must learn to “watch” Jesus, not just listen to him. We must learn to use our imaginations to envision his ways of sharing, relating, and acting. We must pray for Christ to change us, not just the way we think or believe.

Peterson made one other suggestion in his lectures that is worth noting. He said that if we “know the TRUTH of Christ and struggle honestly to live the WAY of Christ, we discover the wonder of living the LIFE of Christ. The theological circle that Jesus carved into our faith tradition (John 14:6) is completed, and the human soul, as bruised and scarred as it can get is renewed with hope. It doesn’t get any better that this, does it? Peace always, Eric

Musings…
(this appears in the March, 2006 Issue of the TRINITY TELL, the Newsletter of Trinity United Methodist Church, Bowling Green, Ohio 43402

I am not an “orthodox” thinking Christian. My theological pedigree comes from a different part of Christian theological tradition. Thanks in part to the free-thinking character of my mother and the gentle quality of my father. Whenever dad got transferred to another town, we would eventually find ourselves worshipping in a United Methodist church that was shaped by that once grand theological movement historians call “liberal Protestantism.

As I grew older and began to flirt with different ideas and philosophies of life, (in college, I pondered converting to Roman Catholicism) I would eventually return to my “liberal protestant roots”. Even in seminary when I read Reinhold Niebuhr and learned of liberal Protestantism’s fatal flaw (naïveté), I would discover that I had, for better or for worst, for richer or for poorer, a liberal protestant soul.

I suppose, before I go any further, I should do some definitional work. First let me address the “L” word, dreaded in some circles of our culture. When we talk about liberalism in protestant thought, we are not talking about it in the same way it is discussed in political thought. Sure, many liberal Protestants are politically liberal, card-carrying Democrats. Former Senator George McGovern is a prime example. But many are also card-carrying Republicans, such as former Senator Bob Dole. Recently, these two put their political differences aside and celebrated their spiritual and theological commonality by writing a book together with a retired United Methodist seminary president on fighting world hunger. And of course, some liberal protestant thinkers are politically non-partisan and independent. So, I am not itching for a political fight here. (I will save that for another time). I am seeking to spread a little theological understanding.

The hallmarks of liberal Protestantism are numerous: disciplined liturgy, passion for missions, strong support of public education, bridge building between church and culture, church and science, and church and other Christian and non Christian expressions of faith.

Liberal Protestant spirituality is one of holding in creative tension the disciplines of personal piety (cultivating a healthy “inner” life) and the challenges of social justice (living an active “external” life on behalf of society’s forgotten and ignored.) As a result, liberal Protestants founded hospitals, established colleges and universities, staffed community centers that worked with the poor, oppressed, and marginalized, and formed organizations that have sought peaceful and non-violent solutions to community and global problems.

Historian E.J. Dionne has suggested that at the beginning of the twentieth century, it was the liberal protestant movement that forced the issue of humane working conditions in factories, demanded and received an end to child labor, and fought along side of the suffragettes to win the right to vote for women. It has been one of the abiding missions of the liberal protestant movement to work at putting a humane face on capitalism, to challenge governments to protect the poor and disenfranchised, and to work for civil and human rights.

While orthodox and evangelical thinkers have a tendency (I know that this is a generalization for which I will probably pay greatly) to fish the waters of the epistles, (this is because this is where much of the overt theology of the early church is done), most liberal protestants are more comfortable fishing the waters of the gospels. This is because the stories of our Lord are the foundation for doing Christian theology. When a fundamentalist tells me that St Paul would never permit a woman to preach in the church, I would encounter with a question, “In the gospel narratives, who was given the job of being the first “preacher” of the resurrection?” An of course, you know the answer to this question…. And if you don’t, you better head back to confirmation class!

In liberal Protestantism, the Bible is seldom interpreted literally, more often metaphorically and always in light of its historical context. Salvation is accepted as a freely given gift from God, not only to the individual, but to the whole people of God. In others words, while many fundamentalist types are eager to quote John 3:16, a liberal protestant would most likely add verse 17 to the quote (“Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”) Diversity of thought and culture is seen as a good thing and tolerance and hospitality are to be extended to all who seek peace with their neighbor and faith in God… regardless of their beliefs or lifestyle choices.

While many theological traditions do theology prescriptively, that is, define beliefs and prescribe them to the gathered community, Liberal Protestants have a tendency to do theology reflectively, that is, ponder holy mystery, attempt to make sense of it in light of the church’s many traditions and experiences, and encourage the gathered community to do the same. For liberal protestants, doctrine and beliefs always take a back seat to relationships… relationships with God, with Jesus, with each other, and of course, with creation. This is because liberal Protestants believe that beliefs and doctrines are transitory understandings created by the human desire to make sense of things. As human beings discover new scientific and cultural realities, doctrines and beliefs must be re-examined and re-interpreted. Healthy relationships, however, are bound together by the stuff of eternity: grace, love, and the “story” of our faith.

It is not that doctrines, teachings, and beliefs are not important to liberal Protestants, they are… but like scripture, they must be placed in context.. It is like Jesus’ teaching on the Sabbath when he says, “The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; (Mark 2:27).” In other words, our beliefs and doctrines are there to serve us, not the other way around.

If our doctrines and teachings cause us to become alienated from those we love, or place a wall between us and others in the human family, then there must be something wrong with the doctrines… or at least how they are being interpreted and applied.

Liberal Protestants value critical thought and generally have a quiet mistrust of feelings and emotions (at least, this liberal protestant has a quiet mistrust of feelings and emotions). The great Harry Emerson Fosdick hymn “God of Grace and God of Glory” captures the essence of this tradition better than anything I could say or write.

I believe congregations are, in many ways, like people… they have souls too. There are churches with “orthodox souls” and “fundamentalist souls” and “evangelical souls” and “catholic souls” and of course “liberal protestant souls.” I understand that congregations are seldom “pure” in these matters… more often than not a blending of a couple of these traditions, but generally, one is dominant. It has generally been my lot in life to be appointed to congregations that had “liberal protestant souls.” I have never felt the need to sit down and explain the affections of my soul, because I was sent to work with a people that for the most part, held similar affections.

This isn’t the case, here at Trinity. There is a small smattering of liberal protestant thought here, but for the most part; I would say that the soul of Trinity Church is predominately orthodox/evangelical in nature. Now there is nothing wrong this, any more than there is something wrong with me having a liberal protestant soul. We are what we are, I believe, in part because of our upbringing and in part because of our internal wiring. The challenge for you and I, when the so-called “honey moon” wears off, is to make this odd combination work. To that end, I have chosen to lay all my proverbial theological cards on the table. In the months to come, my MUSINGS will deal with how my liberal protestant soul processes its experience of God, Christ, The Holy Spirit, the life and work of the church, and the call to live in covenant with each other, creation, self, and of course, God. I hope and pray many of you feel comfortable to do the same with me.

You can do this in the old fashion way, stopping by for a chat. Or, if you are good at navigating cyberspace, you can do this on our brand new “blog” (thanks to Jim Augsburger). You can get there two ways, by going to our web site first and hitting the link, or by logging onto www.blogger.com and then type in “bgtrinity” under “blog name”.

In the end, I believe that our beliefs are not nearly as important to Christ as is our behavior. If you and I can exhibit a behavior that is hospitable and gentle, filled with integrity and grace, open to all regardless as to how each may process holy mystery, then I think we have done a good thing together… If this behavior is rooted in our heart, then all the better, God will be reflected in our life together. If we can’t, well, what is the old expression? “There will be some hell to pay…” If you are like me, I suspect you are growing weary of all the hell to pay in this world of ours.
Peace always, Eric

Over playing the "God Card"

Musings…
a monthly pastoral essay found in the TRINITY TELL, the newsletter of TRINITY CHURCH, United Methodist, Bowling Green, Ohio


I once was asked to critique a student’s Good Friday sermon. I listened to it. I even took notes. It wasn’t very good… and I am being charitable. The next day, Holy Saturday morning, she was in my office for my critique. Since I seem to have this need to soften the bad news, I began with outlining the few, albeit, very few strengths I found in her work. I then proceeded to outline the weaknesses, which, to paraphrase the Gospel of Mark were “legion”. After I was done, she looked up at me and said, “Well, I guess I can do it your way… or I can do it God’s way!” She then paused for a few seconds, looked me square in the eye, and then said, “I am going to continue to do it God’s way.” And with that declaration, she got up and left my office, no doubt feeling defiant and victorious since she had put me, the so-called seasoned veteran, in my place.

This was not the first time, nor would it be the last time when someone disgruntled with me, my work, or my positions would place, with great conviction, God on one side of the cosmos and me on the other side of the cosmos. Though, I am reasonably certain that there have been, are, and will be times when that observation about me is true, I often wonder what it is in the accuser that seems to see this so clearly and confidently. Do they know something that I don’t know? Do they have access to God’s Rolodex or filing system? Does God “gossip” with them about other members of the flock?

It seems that more people are comfortable playing this “I’m faithful, you’re not” God Card today. It is the clearest and quickest way to end an argument with people with whom they disagree. It is the easiest way to dismiss or write off someone they may not like. It ends, once and for all, any notion that life is filled with ambiguity, paradox or nuance. It ends the democratic and covenantal ideal that honest people can have honest disagreements.

The fact that some in the fold do it with such ease and certainty mystifies me. How do they know? How is it that so many know with absolute certainty that they are doing what God wants and that what you or I or who ever are not doing what God’s wants? How is it that Mayor Nagin is so certain that God sent Katrina to punish our country or Pat Robertson is so convicted that God is punishing Arial Sharon? (I guess Robertson capitulated when he got “uninvited” to Israel). How is it that someone can be so convinced on the eternal destiny of a neighbor’s soul or the rightness of a position in a morally ambiguous situation, like the Terry Schiavo tragedy? How is it I can be so easily condemned to homiletical hell because I told a ministerial candidate her sermon was lousy?

The “God card” has become the church’s nuclear option. The problem with the nuclear option is that it not only takes out the opposition… it takes out the whole church. It destroys any hope for healthy community and it trashes the historic concept that people are called to live in covenant with each other under the umbrella of a holy, mysterious, and loving God. It is tearing the social and covenantal fabric of our country apart. It is theological demagoguery at its worst.

And yet we are called by our faith to struggle with the will of God. I believe this is best done within the boundaries of one’s personal and community life. What I mean by that is that we need to be putting our own lives under the theological microscope… not that of our neighbors. We need to be putting our church’s life under the theological microscope… not someone else’s church. We need to be placing our country under the theological microscope, not some other country.

Since, we have a tendency to be more charitable to ourselves and our causes, we might tread a little more carefully around the use of the “God card.” We might even begin to discover those places where our passions and God’s passion chaff a little… or a lot, and then we might make some adjustments. We might even come to realize that sometimes we confuse what we want to do in life with God’s will… and then we might even do something that Jesus suggests is good for the soul: confess and repent. Then we might discover that God really doesn’t make a very good sledge hammer… a plowshare maybe, a knitter’s needle possibly, a quilter’s thread perhaps… but not a very good sledge hammer.

We need to remember this as we work together as a church to claim God’s vision for us. Faithfulness demands discernment, patience and gentleness: discernment so that we do not confuse our personal desires with those of God’s, patience so that we respect the fact that we are not all at the same place in our spiritual journey, and gentleness, so we might fight the temptation to whip out the God Card on someone with whom we disagree or dislike. A healthy and vital faith as well as a safe place to explore God’s presence in our lives requires these things.
Peace always,
Eric McGlade, pastor