“Here’s a great question: if your church ceased to exist, would anyone in your community, outside of those who already attend, know or care?” (Bob Farr, “Renovate or Die: Ten Ways to Focus Your Church on Mission”, page 27)
That question was posted to our Face Book page last week, stirring considerable discussion. Part of the discussion centered around the notion that groups like the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts would certainly miss us if we ceased to exist. East Ottawa Special Ministries would miss us if we ceased to exist. Of course, many of us who attend Georgetown United Methodist Church would miss each other if we ceased to exist. But notice how Farr poses the question. He says, “… outside of those who already attend…” I am not sure if that part was stated clearly on Face Book. That is really the important part of his question, though.
Obviously, people who come to our church would miss each other. Groups that we allow to use our building would miss being able to use it. The question is aimed at helping any congregation discern its mission in the community. (Ironically, he goes on to talk about context being important for ministry. People who don’t have the book wouldn’t have the context for his question!) What Farr is actually pushing for with his question is this: what is the one thing that any church can offer to its community that no other church can offer? Discerning the answer to that question can help a congregation clarify its mission in the context of its community. If people outside the church wouldn’t miss us then we are probably too inwardly focused. If only those on the inside would miss us then we don’t have significant presence or identity in the community. Another way to put this might just be to ask, what do people outside our congregation know about us?
Last summer I wrote a letter to the editor of our local paper in response to two others who were critical of the decision to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” I wrote as a veteran and as an ordained minister. I even quoted scripture. I used a little humor to keep things light. Later I heard from church members who said friends questioned them about attending a church where the pastor is “soft on homosexuality.” Later, in the fall, our church hosted a Jesus Seminar on the Road. The Seminar is known for its use of critical historical scholarly investigation into Jesus and the gospels. After the event a man called to verify that we had indeed been the church which held that event. Once that was confirmed he said, “I used to think you were a good church. Now I know you are not a good church.” (Some Christians think scholarship and the Bible are mutually exclusive.)
Now, I don’t really want to be known as the pastor of a “bad church.” On the other hand, I would like to be known as the pastor of a church that is welcoming to all, regardless of their orientation. I would like to be known as the pastor of a church that encourages thoughtful, critical and serious approaches to understanding the Bible. I am willing to be known as pastor to a congregation made up of conservatives, moderates, liberals and progressive Christians who take each other seriously, love each other dearly and understand that our diversity makes our faith life rich and deep. I wouldn’t mind being known as the church in the community that is different, especially if different is defined that way.
Harry Emerson Fosdick may be familiar to you as the author of the hymn, “God of Grace and God of Glory”. He was also pastor at Riverside Church in New York from 1926 – 1940. In 1922 he gave one of his most famous sermons, “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” In 1922 Fundamentalism was a rising movement in North American Christianity. Fosdick believed then that liberal protestant Christianity had something important to offer in the face of rising fundamentalism. Ninety years later that sermon is still relevant.
In a community where conservative Christianity predominates, we can be a breath of fresh air. Sometimes I don’t think we do enough to claim our identity as the church that is different. Obviously, there are conservative Christians in our church. And there are moderates, liberals and progressives. In the interest of avoiding conflict and maintaining respectability we may let our greatest asset go unclaimed. We are a diverse and tolerant congregation that encourages a thoughtful approach to Christian faith. That is really something good. I would like to be known as that kind of church in our community. I would like to think that if our church ever ceased to exist people in our community would say, “We will really miss them. They were radically welcoming, open-minded, thoughtful, caring, tolerant and committed to following Christ.” There’s nothing wrong with that.
Posted by William Bills on February 19, 2012 at 8:43 pm
Here is a link to “Shall the Fundamentalists Win” by Fosdick
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5070/
Posted by Lynette Cole on February 20, 2012 at 8:54 am
I agree, Bill. And also, that way of being known as radically welcoming, open minded, thoughtful, caring, tolerant, and committed to following Christ lines perfectly with the UMC’ s latest slogan, “Open hearts, open minds, open doors” It is not like we would be straying far from mainline Methodism in claiming that difference in this particular community.
Posted by William Bills on February 20, 2012 at 12:27 pm
I just had a conversation with some people who were telling me how open and accepting their adult Sunday school class is. I know it is and I affirm that. Two points, though: It doesn’t help folks outside the church who might be looking for such a church if we keep that to ourselves. Don’t be afraid to openly own who you are.
Second point: I think some might worry that if some become vocal about being more “liberal” (for lack of a better term), that it could set off conflict in the church. Well, I think people already know that we are a diverse group here. I also think that we get along well and try to understand one another, even as we acknowledge our differences. I don’t know that anyone here really stresses conformity here to the point that we would ask someone to leave our church. That is something to own as well. Many churches do stress conformity in doctrinal beliefs and practice. To quote John Wesley: “In matters that don’t strike at the root of the faith, we think and let think.”
Posted by Lynette Cole on February 20, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Think and let think is one of the quotes I first heard here at GUM many years ago. What I wonder is, what do we do when we disagree on what would be considered a matter that was at the root of the faith?
Posted by William Bills on February 21, 2012 at 12:43 am
Wesley would have some very basic doctrinal minimums in mind for matters that are at the root of the faith. Our doctrinal standards are not propositional or based on creeds or confession of faith. For example, Wesley might say the virgin birth in an essential, meaning that it is a necessary part of the Christian faith. I think there is room for discussion as to whether it is about a biological truth or a theological truth. Clearly, though, the gospels attest to a virgin birth. They don’t explain precisely what it means. In that sense, one is bound to say that Christians did make claim to virgin birth for Jesus as a matter of faith. How it happened or what it means may be matters of interpretation or understanding.
Sometimes I use the example of the prodigal son or the good Samaritan. There can be no disputing that Jesus told the stories (or something very similar to what is in the gospels). The meaning of either story isn’t fixed. It may mean something a little different for people in different times and places. The events may never have happened nor the people ever existed. Nonetheless, the stories are true and are essential to our understanding of Jesus. If someone said, “There never was a Jesus and he never told such stories and besides the stories are made up and thus meaningless” we would say that person is choosing to stand outside Christianity. That would be their choice rather than a Christian putting them outside the church.
I think you could say the same for things like the crucifixion and the resurrection. They are essential to the faith. What exactly happened may not exactly be known. The meaning of the events may vary for various people. To say they never happened or they don’t mean anything isn’t so much a matter of an assault on Christianity as it is saying that the person making those statements chooses to stand outside the most basic boundaries which define Christian church.
That may be a long way of saying we don’t have to do anything when we disagree, except to say, “this is where I have chosen to stand.”
Matters that are at the root of that faith are essentials and not really up for debate. Crucifixion and Resurrection are essentials. How they happened or what they mean may be variable. Someone at our church once told me that they didn’t think that there ever was an actual “person, Jesus,” instead saying Jesus was a amalgamation of various ancient religious mythological figures. I simply disagreed and said there is enough historical evidence to state definitively that there was a man from Nazareth who was Jewish and a wandering teacher. He criticized the temple religion and was crucified by the Romans. I don’t know if I was convincing and I didn’t start a heresy trial for that person. I just spoke clearly to what is an essential matter of the faith. Jesus really lived, taught and was crucified. It is enough to just say that. I don’t know that more needs to be done.
Posted by Lynette Cole on February 21, 2012 at 8:14 am
I agree when you say,
“How it happened or what it means may be matters of interpretation or understanding.”. My concern is for when something like the Jesus seminar comes up, and we have the opportunity to look further into understanding, but we have people who say those subjects are at the root of faith. The bible says this. That is the way it is. Period. Any other interpretation is wrong and strikes at the root of our faith. Therefore we cannot allow such “thinking.” I can reply with, “this is where I have chosen to stand and would like to learn more.”. Do we then just not let ourselves be concerned about the anger and fear this stirs up in some?
Posted by William Bills on February 21, 2012 at 10:19 am
Lynette, this might be place where we have to learn our identity as United Methodist Christians. Wesley was not a Biblical literalist and we are not called to be such, either. Wesley said to start “with the plain literal meaning of scripture first.” But he also knew that one cannot always simply take the Bible literally. Of course, much of it is poetry, parable and metaphor. Paul treats scripture allegorically in his letters. Therefore, United Methodist Christian, while taking the Bible utterly seriously, do not have to take it literally. For example, the virgin birth as a miraculous event doesn’t only describe a biological event. It is to be contrasted with other divine births, both in the Bible and in other ancient literature. The miracle might be that is happened among the poor and not the powerful. The Bible clearly speaks to the virgin birth. Just as clearly, Mark and John ignore it, while Paul says that Jesus became son of God at his resurrection. Therefore, the virgin birth is an essential but its interpretation may be varied. Christians who claim to be literalists ultimately fall upon hard times and their literalism will become selective.
If this kind of theological and Biblical thinking stirs up anger and fear in someone then all we can do is engage them to the extent that they are willing to be engaged. If they insist on their literalism then so be it. That has nothing to do with me. If they choose to live out of a faith which requires them to fear critical thinking and react angrily to people who acknowledge that both life and scripture are not black and white then that is their choice. I will welcome them into our church but I will not compromise my beliefs, values or hermeneutic simply to avoid conflict or make them happy. Fundamentalism and Biblical literalism are modern phenomenon. If Paul and others interpret scripture allegorically or symbolically, or if Jesus speaks in parable, metaphor and aphorism, then the church can, too.
You are correct, though, that many take a faith stance that is often based in fear and anger. The irony, though, is that not only is such a faith stance not necessary, it isn’t Biblical, historical or traditional. At the most basic level, though, in order to avoid conflict or maintain peace with such people, many Christians will not say what they truly believe. That is wrong. Nobody should allow themselves to be steam rolled by a Biblical literalist. Jesus freely disagreed with those who considered themselves religious authorities. Also, we are commanded to be disciples, not doormats. Just because a literalist gets worked up about a disagreement that doesn’t mean a moderate, liberal or progressive Christian has to accept abuse just for the sake of being nice or keeping peace. Someone with the opposite perspective can clearly define their faith and then “think and let think.” Think and let think doesn’t require anger, put downs, etc.
Posted by William Bills on February 21, 2012 at 10:26 am
Lynette, now I am chuckling as I remember a man at Shelbyville UMC who introduced himself as a visitor. He said, “I am vacationing at Gun Lake for a few weeks so I came to visit your church. That was a pretty good sermon, pastor, but I am a Fundamentalist.” I just smiled, shook his hand and said, “that’s too bad.”
Posted by Peter Rienstra on February 21, 2012 at 3:51 pm
I do no agree with the doctrines of Calvin so I do not attend their churches .
I also do not condemn the people who do go there but I do look for ways that I can
do the Lord’s Work with them . I am not educated enough to persuade them to be like me so I try to follow what Jesus has taught me thru His Word and let my actions say what i am , Yes I would miss the Church activities that go on here
and the friends also . I have New Church connections over the internet where I
can enjoy Music and talks but being with and shaking hands with fellow Christians
is important to me so I bring What I have learned and try to contribute what I
have to offer and exchange it for what others also bring to this church this is what I think Jesus wants us to do.
Posted by Holly D on February 22, 2012 at 9:34 am
I think it is important to point out that “conservative” and “liberal” are used to describe both political leanings as well as theological interpretations.
It’s easy to assume that when people say our church is “liberal” that it is referring to a political stance when I suspect that statement is more of a theological statement.
Posted by William Bills on February 22, 2012 at 10:04 am
I want to respond to Lynette again. Really, there is no such thing as “The Faith.” I think that people tend to confuse doctrine and dogma with faith. Doctrine and dogma are human thought systems put to paper. They may or may not be widely agreed upon. Faith, or better faithfulness, is something that is dynamic, alive, growing, changing, evolving, etc. People who say that critical inquiry into scripture, history, etc, violate “The Faith” only mean that they have subscribed to a particular system of dogma and or doctrine which they believe is propositional in nature and can be limited to some kind of written text. At the most basic level, such and attitude is not ‘living by faith” but is an attempt at insuring security. Such a need for security is born out of fear. It may be fear of life, fear of death or fear of divine punishment, but the need for religious certainty speaks to fear. Fear can be very healthy and life preserving and fear can be altogether irrational. It is possible to react to a fundamentalist with compassion because ultimately, they are driven by fear. On the other hand, after a time it can be hard to continue to interact with such a person because the tend not to offer the same kind of compassion and openness toward others. Fundamentalists tend to react strongly against other viewpoints simply because any possibility of the other viewpoint being reasonable, acceptable, etc, means that their belief system may potentially be flawed. That inability to tolerate any ambiguity whatsoever in their belief system, or that of others, speaks directly to the depth of anxiety which ultimately drives fundamentalism.
I have some relationships with people who are a lot more conservative than I am. (That is just about everyone I know.) I cannot control how they react when I state my beliefs. If that makes them afraid or angry I just let that be. I don’t immediately disengage them. If I can maintain a connection, then, over time, some of them have come to see that my beliefs are often Biblical and thoughtful, as are theirs. That tends not to happen with people who are strict fundamentalists, though. Conservatives can tolerate nuance and ambiguity. Fundamentalists tend to just reject anything that doesn’t fit what for them is a fairly black and white belief system.
At the end of the day, though, each one is simply called to be faithful. None of us are called to be right. We are only called to be faithful. That is a personal response to God borne out in daily living. It isn’t a matter of signing onto a particular creed or printed confession of faith. It is something of a fallacy to think that everyone will ever agree or that in a church (or any other system) everyone will live in peace and harmony. Even monks and nuns deal with conflict in the cloister. The need to agree and live in harmony can serve to make us open and accepting toward others and their difference. The need to live in peace and harmony, taken to extreme, though, can be pathological in that it will cause people to suppress genuine beliefs and opinions in favor of “group think”.
Posted by William Bills on February 22, 2012 at 10:16 am
Holly, the terms conservative and liberal are conveniences. Some people today prefer things like traditional and progressive. In fact, they are labels, and often gross generalizations. In “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” Fosdick points out that while all Fundamentalists are conservative, not all conservatives are Fundamentalists. When I use the term “liberal” I am sure to be misunderstood. I use the term to mean “open” and “generous”. That openness and generosity does have bearing on my politics and my religious beliefs. I am more concerned with faithfulness as living after the example of Jesus than I am with political positions or social issues. By that I mean that I have gotten to a point that I really don’t care what any politician has to say on any matter because by nature, they are politicians and they are speaking politically. They live and act in the political realm. While they may be religiously faithful (however they understand that) the primary place where they have chosen to live their life is the political arena. Politics are primarily about power and the maintenance of social order. In any given social order, there may may be a multitude of religions and within any religion there will be varieties of belief and expression. A politician with religious beliefs is ultimately a politician. I am growing increasingly apolitical as I realize that no matter who, or what party, holds power, I am always called first and foremost to be faithful to God. That doesn’t require being a democrat or a republican. It can’t involve being a libertarian. And it can’t involve being an independent. (The latter two call for too much freedom and independence to meet the basic criteria for Biblical Christianity.)
Posted by Lynette Cole on February 22, 2012 at 5:58 pm
I have had that understanding of fear being behind a lot of thinking for a while now. I always wonder how best to respond to that. You have addressed some possibilities. and it’s like Fosdick said, “all fundamentalists are conservative but not all conservatives are fundamentalists.”. I can have relationships with thoughtful and compassionate conservatives. I know a whole bunch of them in this area! It is just hard sometimes to not get upset with the way some fundamentalists treat others, as if they had no worth. It shouldn’t bother me that anyone would call me unChristian because of my liberal thoughts and lack of dogma, but some days it just does, and other days, I am fine. I do wish it was easier to have kind and open discussions, without anyone getting defensive. The world would be a much better place if we could get past having to be right. And as far as the fear goes, that is how I usually base my decisions about what I think is of God and what decision might be my own ego coming into play. If anything seems based in fear, it probably is not the right decision. If the thing to do is based on loved, then I figure it is probably God’s leading.
Posted by William Bills on February 23, 2012 at 7:55 am
Can one stay fully engaged and keep an open mind? That is where I have problems. When I encounter someone who doesn’t seem to have an open mind I am more inclined to move on that to stay engaged.
Posted by Lynette Cole on February 23, 2012 at 3:14 pm
One of my biggest challenges is not being judgmental against those who are judgmental. I do not know that I will ever overcome that! And it is hard for me to move on. Maybe I can remove myself physically, but my mind stews over close minded comments and actions. That is something I am working at…letting go of those things and people I have no control over and bringing my mind to a place of peace. I am much better than a few years ago, but always a work in progress!
Posted by William Bills on February 23, 2012 at 3:25 pm
It is a paradox: How does one not be judgmental of those who are judgmental? I do think that Jesus, when he said, “Judge not, lest you be judged…” did actually then go on to offer some guidance in how to make judgements. Basically, he said to do it in ways that are mutually helpful after examining oneself.
On another note, I have read in various places that of the many people in the entire world who claim to be adherents of any religion, something on the order of one percent seriously practice any kind of spiritual disciplines. After thirty some years of being a Christian now I have decided that most of religion is about two things: wisdom and compassion.
Posted by Peter Rienstra on February 23, 2012 at 3:39 pm
I am neither liberal or conservative as far as I know . Faith is believing in some one or something . I believe that Jesus Christ came into our world to show us the way
to be with Him in His Kingdom of Heaven so that is where my faith is also .
I really do not know about Lutherans, Prespetairians . but I know that I do not like
Calvin’s dogmas and rules . I am interested in learning and discussing what is said in the Bible and especially what Jesus is saying while being up lifted with
the music . . I think heaven will have many areas where music will be heard.
And I do not think a person has to belong to a certain church to be in heaven .
Posted by Deb Burg on February 24, 2012 at 12:19 am
Bill and Lynette, your conversation makes me think of Matthew 10, where Jesus sent out the 12 disciples to tell the good news of the Kingdom of God. I think his charge to the disciples works for us as well: “Don’t begin by traveling to some far-off place to convert unbelievers. And don’t try to be dramatic by tackling some public enemy. Go to the lost, confused people right here in the neighborhood. Tell them that the kingdom is here. Bring health to the sick. Raise the dead. Touch the untouchables. Kick out the demons. You have been treated generously, so live generously” (verses 5-8).
“When you knock on a door, be courteous in your greeting. If they welcome you, be gentle in your conversation. If they don’t welcome you, quietly withdraw. Don’t make a scene. Shrug your shoulders and be on your way.” (verses 12-14, The Message).
I see two parts to the message here: 1) There is so much work to be done. We should jump in and get started with the obvious needs all around us that are within our reach and doable. 2) Knocking on the door is a great metaphor. When we interact with others, we test the waters (knock on the door) and share at a level that the person is open to hearing. And if the door does not open, move along and minister elsewhere.
I don’t think we are called to convince and persuade (beat down the doors) but rather to enter the doors of opportunity that open to us.