on August 30 2010

The Welcoming and Mutually Transforming Community Among the LGBTQ: An Example and Some Questions

I’ve written enough on this subject already. But I sense a need to summarize some thoughts especially in light of this post by Craig Carter. I think Craig’s got me wrong and frankly inhabits a position that does not meet the demands of mission to a sexually broken society. I’ll respond to Craig’s post in next few days when I get a minute. For now, I’d like to put forward a summary of the whole thing by posting a comment from the last post. It’s by Jon Trott. Jon encapsulates the challenges, the practices and the shape of the “welcoming and mutually transforming community” as it seeks to incarnate the sexual redemption of Jesus Christ.

Living in an intentional community of very imperfect people, of which I am certainly one, I might add that sexuality within a Christian community ought to entail confession, transparency, and restoration. This could also be formulated as repentance / restoration, but that implies sexual failure, which is not always the case; one can be tempted without falling. But the need for others walking alongside — others who also transparently admit their own struggles sexually and otherwise — is one of the great lacks in the Church today. It startles me how dishonest we are individually and corporately about the near-universality of sexual temptation. How do we minister to one another? Living as I do, I have the amazing luxury of being able to walk down the hallway on most days to a friend’s room, pull him aside, and ask for prayer and/or counsel re being tempted sexually. These days, it is more often just “Five minutes to live by” — a quick confession of feeling weak or even entertaining sexual thoughts — followed by a prayer. Why do this? Why not just do it on my own? Because the act of becoming transparent before my brother also makes me accountable to him as a representative of Jesus. I know the difference — he’s not going to rescue me or condemn me. But looking into his eyes and telling the truth about myself sexually is a place to start facing my own struggles in a deeper way than I otherwise might.
There’s so much more to this… as someone who does believe in the work of mutability groups such as Exodus International (in part because I know people — see them daily — who have changed their orientation), I do bear witness to what the Scriptures say regarding homosexuality. But I don’t think homosexuality is where the conversation starts or ends. Rather, it is part of the human journey toward wholeness that Jesus uniquely enables us to walk into.

In this simple comment, Jon describes what I think gets at some the essential elements of a “welcoming and mutually transforming community” that I have tried to articulate in this long series of posts (you can read them all by clicking onto the Women/GLBTQ category).  Jon’s community (the JesusPeopleUSA Community of Chicago) manages to occupy the broken position thereby inviting everyone to see their brokeness not from a position of power (making public pronouncements). We’re all in this together. This hopefully becomes a place where we do not engage “the other” from platitudes which mean little in this age where the words “heterosexual,” “gay,”  “lesbian” mean any number of things. Jon’s community engages in regular concrete practices where the examination of one’s self, desires and the reshaping of those desires is all part of a communal language, liturgy and practice. Jon’s community appears to do all of this while continuing to live within the historical wisdom of the Christian tradition, that same sex unions and many other kinds of sexuality miss the purposes of God’s creation and His work for sexual redemption in our lives. I don’t know everything about JPUSA community in Chicago. I am sure there is some dirt here too. Yet Jon’s words give a little vision of what is possible through incarnationally inhabiting a context for the sexual redemption God has begun in Christ for the world.

My questions are: 1.) Is this possible in non-proximal intentional communities? say in “groups of three,” or other forms of redemptive community. 2.) Why does my brother Craig Carter have such a problem with this? If anything I expected more push back from the traditional Emergent folk who I consider my friends but have been largely silent on this particular approach I am pushing for. What’s going on here?

Filed under Incarnational,Neo-Anabaptist,Uncategorized,Women/GLBTQ 22 Comments

on August 26 2010

The Bad Habit of “Going to Church”: On Training Ourselves Out of The Bad Habit of Going to Church

What determines if people in your church make it to the gathering on Sunday? What do you think goes on in their hearts and minds as they get up out of bed on Sunday morning and attempt to make a decision as to whether they will “go” to church or not?

I think a key task in discipleship these days is leading people out of the bad habit of going to church – where such a decision even exists on a Sunday morning for people.

I think over the last forty years of American church, Christians have been habitualized into going to church for bad reasons. We have learned to ask the wrong questions as we consider “going to church.” These bad questions then shape us towards a certain disposition so that when we do go to church we are incapable of entering into the worship of God so as to be formed into His life and Mission. AS A RESULT, WE ARE AS A PEOPLE CUT OFF FROM ENTERING INTO THE LIFE OF GOD AND WHAT HE IS DOING – ironically by the ways we “go to church.”
Over the years, I have noticed some of these bad habits have been trained into people particularly well by mega churches (although believe me we all do it). Some of these bad habits/bad questions might be:

1.) The bad habit of asking “Who’s preaching this morning?” When we get up on Sunday morning (or for that matter whenever the time is for you that you consider whether to make it over to church), if we find ourselves asking this question, it is a signal that it is already too late. We have missed the point of the rhythm of the gathering. We do not go to church to hear a good sermon. We go to practice submitting to the Word and responding to it so that we can do the same throughout the week no matter what the form the coming of the Word might take.  Surely we need trained and gifted proclaimers of the Word. They help! Nonetheless, remembering that the greatest impact of the Word was made by a preacher who was a bad communicator (apostle Paul – see  for example 1 Cor 2:1-5), we should make the hearing of the Word on Sunday a discipline to train ourselves into for life. We should NOT practice being mesmerized by charms and wit of the motivational speaker.

2.) The bad habit of asking “Do I really need this morning?” When we get up on Sunday and ask this, it reveals that we are trying to live our lives in independence from God. We are in a sense asking whether I need this service to connect with God or, strangely, am I good on my own. Yes?  Any time we ask this question, I suggest, we are in essence missing the point. We are not going to the gathering in order make a connection to God in worship. We are going to submit, quiet ourselves, and practice with others living in the presence of God so that our sensibilities are properly trained to continue in His presence the rest of the week. It’s a spiritual discipline that continues into the rest of the week not a point of contact to live off of the rest of the week. The worst thing that can happen to us is to need or become dependent upon some emotionally induced high we get from a produced worship experience that cannot be part of our ongoing way of being the rest of the week.

3.) The bad habit of asking “Is so and so going to be there?” Of course we go to the gathering on Sundays to be with people. It’s corporate for a purpose. Together we become the people of God. I believe a rich kind of community develops out of our corporate worship together as well as many other social practices. Nonetheless, let’s guard against gathering purely and only for who we can connect with. Let the community develop out of our life in God. Let it be part of a wider rhythm Let’s understand that regular rhythm of seeing and being with people in worship feeds into fellowship in every other area including those who are not in Christ. If this is the only time you see Christians all week, this is another signal of a bad habit of going to church.

BOTTOM LINE
The bottom line is we are desperate in N America for training ourselves out of some bad habits for going to church. We all too often go to get something whether it be “lights out” preaching, “worship experience” or even connecting with someone I really need to talk to. Not surprisingly, busy suburban self-sufficient evangelicals miss church more than half the Sundays. 50% of all evangelical Christians only go to church twice a month. Sadly church is something we do, instead of part of a rhythm for life with God in His Mission. I contend we need to see the gathering as a sustaining part of a whole life rhythm for mission. Worship at the Sunday gathering should part of a whole life rhythm so that gathering on Sundays is the equivalent of eating, bathing and the other things we do to sustain our lives. It should be such a part of everyday life that indeed asking the question of whether to go or not on Sunday morning would seem rather strange, like the occurrence of an emergency or something.

Do you agree? Do you think I have just made the church gathering more important? What other bad habits of going to church can you think of?

Filed under Uncategorized 32 Comments

on August 18 2010

The Timeless Hauerwas: Some More Quotes and some of the things I continue to learn from “the man.”

As some people know, Stanley Hauerwas has had a significant influence on my life, thought, teaching and ministry. A while back I read Hauerwas’ memoirs entitled Hannah’s Child. As one might expect, there are many great quotes from the “quote-meister.” I just jotted a few of them down for those interested. In italics are my comments after each quote. Enjoy.
—————————

Page 86 “I write like I learned to lay brick. You do it because you have to get it done before it rains.”  Largely due to Hauerwas’ influence, I try to read and write for the first three hours of the day (after morning prayers). It is part of the work of being a pastor/professor.

Page 87 “I have come to believe that “believing in God” is not a description that helps us know much about what it means to be a Christian.” This is why we are always invited to ask each person more about what they might actually mean when they say it.

Page 95 “… there is no substitute for learning to be a Christian by being in the presence of significant lives made significant by being Christian. … Significance suggests importance… lives that make a difference and that demand acknowledgement. But the lives of significance I began to notice were not significant in any of those ways. Rather, they were lives of quiet serenity, capable of attending with love to the everyday without the need to be recognized as “making a difference.”” I continue to strive to nurture and live in communities where such lives exist.

Page 141 “(On moving the church to every Sunday Eucharist) The board discussed the motion quite favorably. John (the pastor) had worked for years to reach this moment. I (Hauerwas) suggested that we vote. At that moment, John, who had been quiet during our discussion, suddenly declared, “You will not vote on this issue.” I thought he had gone bonkers. … He explained, however, that the Eucharist is about the unity of the church. If a majority vote determined the matter, then the unity would be betrayed. He noted that some people in the church might not be ready to make this move. He would call a meeting, inviting those who might have reservations to come and express their worries … If they strongly dissented, we would have to wait.” I learned from Hauerwas never to describe what happens in church by the word “vote” and, in leading a community, always be ready to wait.

Page 202 “I asked her to marry me. She thought I was crazy. She pointed out that I had no idea who she was. I responded that of course I did not know who she was. But I knew she was a Christian. I loved and lusted after her. The rest we could work out.” There’s more theology here than meets the eye. Yet the simplicity here is worthy of note. It drives the way I do marriage counseling.

Page 231 “Dennis’s vision for the school, as far as I could tell, assumed the church’s primary role … was to support those who think they run the world. In contrast, I wanted a church capable of reminding those who think they rule the world that they are in the grip of a deep delusion.” Hauerwas has influenced the way I lead my church community when it comes to matters of state politics. My first impulse is to always help us realize that those who think they are in power are not and we should not be so ready to assume this is the way God works.

Page 235 “Writing is hard and difficult work because to write is to think. I do not have an idea and then find a way to express it. The expression is the idea. So I write because writing is the only way I know how to think.” Enough said :)

Page 235 “I write, moreover, because I have something to say.  That I have something to say is not a personal achievement. I have something to say because I am a Christian.” Again enough said :)

Page 247 “As theologians, we must say more than we can be in the hope that others will make us more than we are. What is crucial is that we not write to justify the limits of our lives.” I try to remember this every time I approach the pulpit.

Page 254 “I am not interested in what I believe. I am not even sure what I believe. I am much more interested in what the church believes.” I learned from Hauerwas that writing books and doing theology has little to do with me. For this I am grateful.

Page 255 “I do not trust prayer to spontaneity. Most “spontaneous prayers” turn out, upon analysis to be anything but spontaneous. Too often they conform to formulaic patterns that include ugly phrases such as, “Lord, we just ask you …” Such phrases are gestures of false humility, suggesting that God should give us what we want because what we want is not all that much. I pray that God will save us from that “just.”” I learned from Hauerwas the inescapability of liturgy in all of life period. We are all beings scripted (shaped and formed) by liturgies every day. The church must offer the world the liturgy of life in Christ for the sake of God’s Mission.

Filed under Stanley Hauerwas 9 Comments

on August 12 2010

The Witness of a Transforming Sexually Redemptive Community: Mission and GLBTQ Relations#3

In my last post on this subject, I said “One of evangelicalism’s biggest problems is we have no compelling sexual vision … We have little or no sexual ethic except the glorified desire of Hollywood lopped onto heterosexual monogamous marriage. We have no theology of desire formation. It is “lust,” and enjoy it, only do so while married to one person. We have no concept of the “ordering of desire.” This is why our witness is so vapid among the sexual brokenness of our day.” I said this is perhaps why we have nothing else to say to the GLBTQ peoples except “hetero-sexual sex is right” and “same-sex relations is wrong”.

It seems then that the first task of a “Welcoming and Mutually Transforming” missional community, ministering among the sexual brokenness of today’s society (whether GLBTQ or heterosexual or otherwise) is to recover a Christian vision of sexuality. There’s no way to describe what such a vision would look like in a blog post. Yet if I were to summarize the direction I think we need to go, it would be with the sentence, “human sexuality is a reflection of the Triune Relation that we are created to experience in the image of God.” But this really does not translate to those outside of Christian faith easily apart from a community living a sexuality in process of being redeemed. It would take a twenty page essay (or my sexual ethics class at Northern ?) to begin to describe this vision theologically.

So instead of that, I offer four ways God transforms our sexual desire and thereby our experience towards his created purposes. Then I make a comment on the practices we need for such a community to become this kind of place where we can be transformed by the Spirit. In describing these 4 areas for transformation (this is just a start) there’s almost a sense here, that if we allow ourselves to be shaped in these ways through confession, prayer, liturgy, truth telling etc. and thereby live them out, the GLBTQ issues will sort themselves out along with all the rest of the sexual issues the church is facing in today’s society (although I still recognize the necessity of articulating our sexual commitments internal to the Body of Christ).

FOUR AREAS FOR SEXUAL TRANSFORMATION

1.)    From “sex for me” to “sex towards Oneness.” Sex is dying to self in order to become one.  There is a reflection of the Triune God here. There is a reflection of the way of the cross here. “Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her …” Eph 5:25.  Sex is the act of our own self-giving to the other for the sake of becoming one. And yet, the sexual malformation of our society often does the exact opposite – turning the other into an object for sexual satisfaction. The attraction that is nurtured is primarily the fulfillment of libido “for me.” Anytime this happens, we are duped and in a trap. When having sex becomes about who I am, my “sexual identity,” my ego, “how many notches on my belt,” “he/she wanted me,” “I feel desired” and  any of the other numerous ways society perverts sex into self fulfillment, I suggest we’ve become trapped into objectifying and being objectified. Instead of oneness between two, there is now an awful distance. We’ve lost the formation that makes the deeper purposes of God’s creation possible. We therefore must gather into community (I suggest groups of threes) to confess and discern how we make others into objects in the way we think about them, sexualize them. (I’ve been in powerful men’s groups where this kind of therapy revolutionized men’s lives). We must examine, bring out into the light, confess, and be healed of these inordinate desires deep within the soul that seem so “natural” yet war against the purposes of God for our lives. Once released of these enslavements, our own desires are not only freed to be re-oriented, but also those who have been victimized by these sins can also be free from the way their desires have been shaped by these sins.

2.) From dominating the other to being with the other. Our society trains us to make others into a fantasy for me. This is where the patriarchal dominance of the male over the female is a reflection of sin. Christian sexual redemption however overcomes difference WITHOUT OBLITERATING IT. This is the mystery (Eph 5:28-33). The two very different persons “become one.” Anytime we obliterate difference, to avoid the difference, any dominance or control exhibited therein, is the manifestation of sin that will lead to addiction. As a reflection of the Triune three in one, God created sexual life for the bringing together of difference. In some respects, I contend this is where same-sex relations can only fall short of God’s purposes. We therefore must examine ourselves, submit ourselves to Christ for the ways we seek to avoid difference, dominate or control those who are different in our sexual lives, play off ways we have stereotyped the opposite sex.

3.) From pursuing pleasure as the first goal to seeking pleasure as the after effect of true union. I take it that in Eph 5 the love of agape (Eph 5:25 committed covenantal self-less love) is joined together with the love of eros (Eph 5:31 the love that seeks union).  Marcus Barth in his commentary of Ephesians says this is the only place in Greek literature where this happens. To me this says pleasure/attraction/the desire for union is not necessarily first, but often the afterwards development of a love that pursues the covenantal purposes of God in marriage. To seek pleasure as an end itself, to make the other an object for pleasure, to somehow take any short cut to pleasure by making it an end in itself, deforms one’s sexuality. It dissables the growing of our sexuality so that, over a life time monogamous relationship, sex becomes less and less about pure physical attraction and more about the pleasure of union. The pursuit of pleasure/attraction as an end in itself therefore must be confessed as sin. We must gather in some helpful way to submit ourselves to the disciplines (many of them liturgical within the rites of the church) that shape us for a lifetime of growing into One with the person God has given us for marriage.

4. From sex as personally generative to sex as procreative, extending beyond me into life and mission.  Of course, I understand that sex can and perhaps should be personally generative (giving life). But what the Catholic tradition has truly understood, is that personal generativity is only generated out of the giving of oneself over to the procreative act that is beyond me in Mission. As Bob Hyatt has said so well here, the first command in the Bible to have sex is “be fruitful and multiply.” That sex should be always tied to procreation is something beyond the social imaginary of our current society. Yet to say that sex is physically tied to the unselfish act of giving oneself over to the future, to being obligated to the out-of control act of giving birth to something beyond one’s self is to ultimately say that sex, in the Christian sense, is missional. Yes I said sex is missional. For to give birth to and raise children, not as idols to our selves but as a belief and commitment to God’s future, is missional. Tying sex and procreation together in this way changes the very experience of sex. To detach it from the giving one self over to creation (even if biologically having children is not possible) changes sex. This is why Catholics have said that once you have contraception you shape and discipline desire totally differently.  In this way then, we must allow our bodies to be shaped by God’s call to procreate biologically. Now there are obvious implications here for same sex relations as well as adoption. Don’t have time to expound here. In addition we must come to see celibacy as a discipline that orders our drives towards God’s mission in the world. We must see our singleness, whether short term or life time vow, as a time for the spiritual disciplining of our bodies for God’s mission.

THE HABITS OF A SEXUAL REDEMPTIVE COMMUNITY

In order for a missional community to offer sexual transformation in Christ, it must offer a place where spiritual disciplines can be practiced for the shaping of desire into Christ. Admittedly, the received standard view is that desire is natural/given tied to biology. And of course, desire is tied to the body in some ways. Genetics have something to do with it. And yet so much of sexual formation is developmental. The reshaping of desire is inconceivable in our society because of the modern construct of desire.  Yet the contradictions inherent in saying desire is or cannot be shaped are so obvious it is hard to carry out this assumption in any meaningful way See Sarah Coakley’s can’t miss work on this here (HT Kinnon, Ben Myers)

In order for any of the above areas to be transformed, we need a regular practice of confession of sin, examination, space for the Spirit to shape imagination, healing prayer, liturgy and worship. (I recommend groups of three). We must have places where we can study Scriptures, talk openly and cast a vision for what God has created in sexuality. We must practice the renouncing of certain negative habits sexually (think of how we have renounced the domination of women in patriarchal patterns), how we look at each other, how we practice friendship, how we nurture our teenagers towards sexual fidelity. We allow the Holy Spirit to train ourselves into new habits that will often be at odds with society. Yet they are a profound witness to the sexual redemption God is bringing to the world in Jesus Christ.

Has anyone experienced such a sexually redemptive community? In my attempt to boil this down into a (long) blog post, what elements have I missed that are essential for such a transformative community?

Filed under Incarnational,Missional,Uncategorized,Women/GLBTQ 30 Comments

on August 4 2010

On Why Neo-Reformed Theology is Not a Third Way: Deep Church by Jim Belcher

I have had a strange reaction to Jim Belcher and his book Deep Church. I know, I’m almost a year late on this (I can explain later). I think the book is written well, the narrative style keeps it moving. Jim’s a good writer. I think Jim is a smart dude, able to summarize the issues well. He isolates truth, evangelism, gospel, worship, preaching, ecclesiology and culture as the key issues of this kind of post-evangelical territory of the emerging churches versus what he calls the traditional churches. He nicely describes the ideas that animate the two sides. I learned from this book. It’s irenic. It delivers on these levels. I don’t know Jim, but I think if Jim and I met, we could enjoy a good friendship.

But Jim is a Reformed thinker, pastor. It’s obvious eh? And because of these theological commitments, for me, it is questionable whether he comes up with a “third way beyond emerging and traditional.” To me the formulations of Deep Church amount to a revision of the Reformed evangelical theology that got evangelicalism into trouble in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong, I am an evangelical. (I could be described as a Neo Anabaptist Missional-Holiness Church- Evangelical -Baptist Seminary -professor person). I am painfully aware that there has been a creeping malaise in this country over the sons and daughters of evangelicals for the last fifteen-twenty years. Thus came the emerging church. Over in the more protestant mainline world the Gospel and Our Culture Network was responding to a different problem. That work gave birth to the Missional church which later spread to evangelicalism. In reaction to the perceived inadequacies of these movements, but also appreciating the very real issues being posed by them, people like Tim Keller advanced a version of Reformed church (what some have called Neo Puritan) that sought the renewal of the gospel and its engagement with culture. The impact of his Redeemer church in NY and beyond has, in some respects, been breathtaking. A lot of good has come forth.

But this is not a third way.

In forthcoming posts, I want to outline why the Neo-Reformed movement of the Gospel Coalition, Tim Keller & the Redeemer churches, leaves me asking for more. I have learned much from people like Tim Keller and Jim Belcher. But there are profound limits to this “brand” of theology. This is not a third way.

In order that I might maintain the readership on this blog, I offer the following salvo that should give you an indication of where I am going in my contention that the Neo-Reformed Missionals are not a third way.
Neo-Reformed Theology is built on the same logic as evangelical theology. In fact this is also the same logic as the protestant mainline theology and for that matter the Emergent theologies. They all rely on the cultural foundations of the West and in particular the Enlightenment. And, for me, this means all of these movements will eventually fail to engage the new and changing cultures of Post-Christendom in the West for the gospel, they will fail at resisting the consumerist forces of modern American society, they will fail at tranfromational engagment (eventually). They will all end up repeating the fate of evangelicalism – i.e. being successful at harvesting those who are already in some way culturally inclined towards Christianity but not capable of inhabiting the new post Christendom cultures of the West for the gospel. THIS IS WHY WE NEED A THIRD WAY!! Of course, this doesn’t mean that Neo-Reformed thought won’t be immensely successful at gathering in Christians and ministering to the Christendom populations that still exist in the US (and they are many). But the surging post Christendom populations shall continue to be unreached (and grow). This is the reason why I think we need to continue to talk about a third way (although we may want to think about forgetting “the third way” logic).

I know I have just aggravated even the best of my friends and so I ask for a little grace as I try to expound on just what the heck I just said in forthcoming posts.  In the meantime, do you think we need a third way? Should we get rid of this logic entirely? Is it helpful?

BTW I’m going to try to pull my brother Bob Hyatt into this one. I’m hoping to convert him to Neo-Anabaptist Holiness (He needs to get saved :) ). I can’t promise anything.

Filed under Neo-Reformed,Uncategorized 20 Comments

Webfonts HTML & CSS provided by FontsForWeb.com - free fonts download. See this Wordpress fonts(webfonts) plugin here