While we have time, therefore, let us do good to all -- especially to those of the household of faith. The time for sowing, as we have said, is the present time, and in the life we now lead. In this life, we can sow what we will; but when this life is over, the time for works is at an end. Whence also, the Savior says, "Work while it is yet day; the night will come when none shall be able to work." -- St. Jerome
Do what you can, and then pray that God will give you the power to do what you cannot. -- St. Augustine
Do all the good you can,
by all the means you can,
in all the ways you can,
in all the places you can,
at all the times you can,
to all the people you can,
as long as ever you can. -- John Wesley
“Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. -- Jesus (in Mt. 7:21; NLT)
Monday, August 30, 2010
Sunday, August 29, 2010
A Lesser God for Sure
Just read an article in which the findings of the National Study of Youth and Religion revealed that Christian teenagers in America are becoming, well, a less Christian. In fact, the nationwide study of seven major denominations (including United Methodists) found that American teens—regardless of denominational background—have developed an alternate faith that “gradually co-opts if not devours” established religious traditions and doctrines and replaces it with an entirely new and different faith!
According to the research team, the term given to this “new” faith is Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, or MTD for short. It sees God as non-offensive, not demanding and certainly not the Author and Finisher of our Salvation or the Judge of the Quick and the Dead, but rather, as “a Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist: he is always on call, takes care of any problems that arise, is never negative, but rather always uplifting and affirming, professionally helps people feel better about themselves, and does not become too personally involved in the process.”
Helped along by pop-culture and nurtured at home by nominally Christian parents, this new “faith” appears to be replacing historic Christianity at an alarming rate. An excellent article in the August 10th issue of The Christian Century entitled “Faith, Nice and Easy” listed some of its major points:
Sad though this is, it's not a surprise according to the Bible. In 2 Timothy 4:3-4 for instance, there is this: “For the time is coming when people will not tolerate sound instruction, but, having itching ears (for something pleasing and gratifying), they will gather to themselves one teacher after another to a considerable number, chosen to satisfy their own liking and to support the errors they uphold. And will turn aside from hearing the truth and wander off into myths and man-made fictions.”
The times, they are a-changing, and apparently so is the Christian faith. Unless, of course, pastors, youth pastors, Sunday School teachers, parents and the the rest of the church can stem the tide of this creeping, invasive threat – this myth and man-made fiction – known as MTD.
According to the research team, the term given to this “new” faith is Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, or MTD for short. It sees God as non-offensive, not demanding and certainly not the Author and Finisher of our Salvation or the Judge of the Quick and the Dead, but rather, as “a Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist: he is always on call, takes care of any problems that arise, is never negative, but rather always uplifting and affirming, professionally helps people feel better about themselves, and does not become too personally involved in the process.”
Helped along by pop-culture and nurtured at home by nominally Christian parents, this new “faith” appears to be replacing historic Christianity at an alarming rate. An excellent article in the August 10th issue of The Christian Century entitled “Faith, Nice and Easy” listed some of its major points:
- A god exists who created the world and watches over life on earth.
- God wants people to be good, nice and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
- The central goal in life is to be happy and feel good about yourself.
- God is not involved in my life except when I need God to solve a problem.
- Good people go to heaven when they die.
Based on this, teenagers are less likely to voluntarily “give themselves for others” and see no theological reason to engage in mission, evangelism, outreach, or other works of mercy, such as feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, rehabilitating prisoners, helping the poor and homeless, or working for peace, justice and equality in society as a whole. Equally as disturbing is the fact that, according to polling data by George Barna and others, these beliefs are held not only by teenagers but also by a growing number of people under 40.
Sad though this is, it's not a surprise according to the Bible. In 2 Timothy 4:3-4 for instance, there is this: “For the time is coming when people will not tolerate sound instruction, but, having itching ears (for something pleasing and gratifying), they will gather to themselves one teacher after another to a considerable number, chosen to satisfy their own liking and to support the errors they uphold. And will turn aside from hearing the truth and wander off into myths and man-made fictions.”
The times, they are a-changing, and apparently so is the Christian faith. Unless, of course, pastors, youth pastors, Sunday School teachers, parents and the the rest of the church can stem the tide of this creeping, invasive threat – this myth and man-made fiction – known as MTD.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Buns and Cider or Bread and Water?
Although The United Methodist Book of Worship contains a brief order of worship for the Love Feast (most often referred to as the "Moravian Love Feast"), I have never served a church in this Conference other than Main Street UMC in Greenwood that had a tradition of observing it.
What's more, a majority of the pastors I know tell me that they have never conducted a Love Feast or included it in their annual worship calendars. For my part, though, I have tried to “reintroduce” it (or introduce it, as the case may be) in the parishes I have served not only because of its beauty, but more importantly, because of its potential spiritual power. And despite the fact that a Love Feast calls far more preparation and work from a Worship Committee than Holy Communion (food, drink, candles, servers, etc.), it has generally been well received.
I have even had the opportunity to lead the Love Feast at Annual Conference on three separate occasions. In fact, I believe I am correct in saying that I am the last pastor to have done so before it was unceremoniously discontinued. Of course, there's always a part of me that will wonder if I'll go down in the annals of church history as the minister single handedly responsible for erasing the Love Feast from Methodism in South Carolina? (I also wonder if this is how the person who killed the last Carolina Parakeet felt?)
Curiously, I was never told why the Love Feast was discontinued at our Annual Conference, but I can't help but wonder wonder sometimes if it had anything to do with an argument I once had with a Conference official over the “elements”, or food and drink, used in the Love Feast?
I remember it like it was yesterday. “Bread and water is the traditional meal”, he said. “For who, I remember asking, prisoners?” “”No, no, no, was the reply. “Bread and water is what Wesley insisted on because that what the Moravians used!”
This, of course, came as news to me. “I will confess”, I said, “that while I may be as knowledgeable as any United Methodist pastor as to the Methodist-Moravian connection, I have never known why—or even if—Wesley used bread and water. But I do most certainly know this: the Moravians don't and never did.”
“That's not the case”, said the Conference official. “Show me, then, where it IS the case”, I asked. The Conference official seemed flustered because he could not produce anything other than the non-binding mention in the Book of Worship that indicates that water is the preferred beverage. Other than that, he offered nada. No obscure rubric, no statement from an ancient Discipline, not even a direct quote from Wesley.
Not satisfied with that answer, and knowing full-well that the Love Feast I most fondly remember—the one that prompted my love affair with the feast itself and with the Moravians from which it came—the one held every Christmas at Main Street UMC in Greenwood—never used bread and water, but rather, so-called Moravian buns and spiced apple cider.
So taking the initiative, I called Winston-Salem, to the Moravian headquarters and inquired of them what the proper “feast” portion of the Love Feast should be. I was connected to someone who seemed to know more about this little glitch in Methodist-Moravian relations than did my own Conference official. “Without a doubt,” said the Moravian official, “no Moravian church ever used bread and water. And while Wesley certainly attended Love Feasts, there is no evidence that anything other than cake and coffee were used in any of them. However, I have heard stories that the reason Wesley's version of the Love Feast used water is because his outreach was primarily to the poor, who would not have had such luxuries as coffee, cream and extra sugar.
But beyond that, I don't know if anyone knows for sure where Wesley got that idea. It certainly wasn't from us. In fact, throughout the history of the Love Feast among Moravians, our choice, as I said, has always been sugar cake or orange spiced buns and sweet coffee. Moravians in America sometimes opt for tea over coffee and some use lemonade in the summer. But if you know anything about the Moravian way of approaching matters such as these we think and let think.” “That's a very Methodist thing to say,” I replied. “No,” said the official, “that's a very Moravian thing to say. Something ELSE Wesley borrowed from us!”
Sometime after that conversation, I received a letter from another Moravian expert; this time, a bishop detailing for me the specifics of the Love Feast as it pertained to the “meal” itself. “The meal should be substantial, in that it is not merely a 'taste' of this and a 'sip' of that, although it should not be a banquet. It should remind worshipers of the early agape meals of our faith in which Christians joined together at mealtime and spoke freely of God's great love in Jesus Christ. Because it is a rite entirely different from Holy Communion, we take great measures to ensure that it cannot be confused with the Eucharist. For this reason, we do not use the element of plain bread, as Wesley himself did not do. In his own journal he records the fact that he used 'cake'.
As for the use of water, it is simply not our practice. It is believed that John Wesley's suggestion for using water came from his great desire to celebrate the Love Feast amongst the poor and his reluctance to make their humble provisions seem inadequate. Another possible explanation is that like the Moravians, Wesley viewed the Love Feast as a means of grace and encouraged it frequent use. As a result, it may not have been financially possible, even for those of greater means, to provide such rich foods as cream, sugar and coffee on a regular basis.
The following quote from Wesley, while not directly addressing this issue, is helpful as it clearly lists the food and drink used in early Methodist versions of Love Feasts: In order to increase in them (the persons in the early Methodist societies) a grateful sense of God's mercies, I desired that one evening in a quarter all men in the band, on a second all the women, would meet, and on a third, both men and women together, that we might together “eat bread” as the ancient Christians did, “with gladness and singleness of heart.” At these love-feasts (so we termed them, retaining the name as well as the thing which was in use from the beginning). Our food is only a little plain cake and water, but we seldom return from them without being fed not only with the “meat which perisheth” but “that which endureth to everlasting life.”
“Nevertheless,” wrote the bishop, “despite this entry from Wesley, if you were seeking the humble opinion of people who restored the Love Feast and who offered it to Methodism, we would suggest sharing the meal in our fashion by using a sweetened drink, such as coffee or tea and a sweetened bread, such as buns or cake. For remember, the sweetness of the food and drink are meant to remind us of the sweetness of God's eternal love in Christ Jesus.”
For the record, in the churches I have served (and at Annual Conference) we have eaten everything from actual Moravian buns, to hot-cross buns, ginger snaps, and sugar cookies, while spiced cider, tea, fruit punch and lemonade have all had turns at being the drink. To my knowledge, neither the essence nor the purpose of the Love Feast was lessened because bread and water were not used.
Certainly, when it comes to most matters of doctrine, worship and practice, I look to Wesley. But in this case, especially since this is something he learned from them, I think I'll bypass Father John and look to the Moravians. After all, it ain't called a Moravian Love Feast for nothing!
What's more, a majority of the pastors I know tell me that they have never conducted a Love Feast or included it in their annual worship calendars. For my part, though, I have tried to “reintroduce” it (or introduce it, as the case may be) in the parishes I have served not only because of its beauty, but more importantly, because of its potential spiritual power. And despite the fact that a Love Feast calls far more preparation and work from a Worship Committee than Holy Communion (food, drink, candles, servers, etc.), it has generally been well received.
I have even had the opportunity to lead the Love Feast at Annual Conference on three separate occasions. In fact, I believe I am correct in saying that I am the last pastor to have done so before it was unceremoniously discontinued. Of course, there's always a part of me that will wonder if I'll go down in the annals of church history as the minister single handedly responsible for erasing the Love Feast from Methodism in South Carolina? (I also wonder if this is how the person who killed the last Carolina Parakeet felt?)
Curiously, I was never told why the Love Feast was discontinued at our Annual Conference, but I can't help but wonder wonder sometimes if it had anything to do with an argument I once had with a Conference official over the “elements”, or food and drink, used in the Love Feast?
I remember it like it was yesterday. “Bread and water is the traditional meal”, he said. “For who, I remember asking, prisoners?” “”No, no, no, was the reply. “Bread and water is what Wesley insisted on because that what the Moravians used!”
This, of course, came as news to me. “I will confess”, I said, “that while I may be as knowledgeable as any United Methodist pastor as to the Methodist-Moravian connection, I have never known why—or even if—Wesley used bread and water. But I do most certainly know this: the Moravians don't and never did.”
“That's not the case”, said the Conference official. “Show me, then, where it IS the case”, I asked. The Conference official seemed flustered because he could not produce anything other than the non-binding mention in the Book of Worship that indicates that water is the preferred beverage. Other than that, he offered nada. No obscure rubric, no statement from an ancient Discipline, not even a direct quote from Wesley.
Not satisfied with that answer, and knowing full-well that the Love Feast I most fondly remember—the one that prompted my love affair with the feast itself and with the Moravians from which it came—the one held every Christmas at Main Street UMC in Greenwood—never used bread and water, but rather, so-called Moravian buns and spiced apple cider.
So taking the initiative, I called Winston-Salem, to the Moravian headquarters and inquired of them what the proper “feast” portion of the Love Feast should be. I was connected to someone who seemed to know more about this little glitch in Methodist-Moravian relations than did my own Conference official. “Without a doubt,” said the Moravian official, “no Moravian church ever used bread and water. And while Wesley certainly attended Love Feasts, there is no evidence that anything other than cake and coffee were used in any of them. However, I have heard stories that the reason Wesley's version of the Love Feast used water is because his outreach was primarily to the poor, who would not have had such luxuries as coffee, cream and extra sugar.
But beyond that, I don't know if anyone knows for sure where Wesley got that idea. It certainly wasn't from us. In fact, throughout the history of the Love Feast among Moravians, our choice, as I said, has always been sugar cake or orange spiced buns and sweet coffee. Moravians in America sometimes opt for tea over coffee and some use lemonade in the summer. But if you know anything about the Moravian way of approaching matters such as these we think and let think.” “That's a very Methodist thing to say,” I replied. “No,” said the official, “that's a very Moravian thing to say. Something ELSE Wesley borrowed from us!”
Sometime after that conversation, I received a letter from another Moravian expert; this time, a bishop detailing for me the specifics of the Love Feast as it pertained to the “meal” itself. “The meal should be substantial, in that it is not merely a 'taste' of this and a 'sip' of that, although it should not be a banquet. It should remind worshipers of the early agape meals of our faith in which Christians joined together at mealtime and spoke freely of God's great love in Jesus Christ. Because it is a rite entirely different from Holy Communion, we take great measures to ensure that it cannot be confused with the Eucharist. For this reason, we do not use the element of plain bread, as Wesley himself did not do. In his own journal he records the fact that he used 'cake'.
As for the use of water, it is simply not our practice. It is believed that John Wesley's suggestion for using water came from his great desire to celebrate the Love Feast amongst the poor and his reluctance to make their humble provisions seem inadequate. Another possible explanation is that like the Moravians, Wesley viewed the Love Feast as a means of grace and encouraged it frequent use. As a result, it may not have been financially possible, even for those of greater means, to provide such rich foods as cream, sugar and coffee on a regular basis.
The following quote from Wesley, while not directly addressing this issue, is helpful as it clearly lists the food and drink used in early Methodist versions of Love Feasts: In order to increase in them (the persons in the early Methodist societies) a grateful sense of God's mercies, I desired that one evening in a quarter all men in the band, on a second all the women, would meet, and on a third, both men and women together, that we might together “eat bread” as the ancient Christians did, “with gladness and singleness of heart.” At these love-feasts (so we termed them, retaining the name as well as the thing which was in use from the beginning). Our food is only a little plain cake and water, but we seldom return from them without being fed not only with the “meat which perisheth” but “that which endureth to everlasting life.”
“Nevertheless,” wrote the bishop, “despite this entry from Wesley, if you were seeking the humble opinion of people who restored the Love Feast and who offered it to Methodism, we would suggest sharing the meal in our fashion by using a sweetened drink, such as coffee or tea and a sweetened bread, such as buns or cake. For remember, the sweetness of the food and drink are meant to remind us of the sweetness of God's eternal love in Christ Jesus.”
For the record, in the churches I have served (and at Annual Conference) we have eaten everything from actual Moravian buns, to hot-cross buns, ginger snaps, and sugar cookies, while spiced cider, tea, fruit punch and lemonade have all had turns at being the drink. To my knowledge, neither the essence nor the purpose of the Love Feast was lessened because bread and water were not used.
Certainly, when it comes to most matters of doctrine, worship and practice, I look to Wesley. But in this case, especially since this is something he learned from them, I think I'll bypass Father John and look to the Moravians. After all, it ain't called a Moravian Love Feast for nothing!
Moravians and the Love Feast
As I said in an earlier blog, I spent most of this week at a conference on the “Missional Church”. During a free afternoon, I was given a guided tour of Old Salem Village and Home Moravian Church, which is sort of the “mother church” of their denomination in the U.S.
I was impressed by the simple beauty of the church (it actually looked more like a Presbyterian church than what I had envisioned), but as I stood in that historic sanctuary, I couldn't help but think of how intertwined the Moravians and the Methodists are.
Sadly, I'm convinced that not many Methodists realize this today, nor do many of them know who or what a Moravian is. This, I think, is largely fault of the clergy who either do not know this history themselves, or have disregarded it as irrelevant. Yet the truth is, our ties to the Moravians are overwhelming. From the broad-minded way of approaching theology, to singing our doctrine in our hymns, to our commitment to diversity of opinion when it comes to the non-essentials of the faith, to the our mutual concern for “holiness of heart and life”, we are linked in more ways than most realize.
Of course, it was on a hurricane-tossed ship filled with Moravians (off the SC/GA coast) that John Wesley witnessed in them a deep and abiding faith that he realized he did not have. Later, it was at a Moravian-led Bible study at Aldersgate Street that Wesley felt his “heart strangely warmed” by the assurance of God's love and found the faith he was missing.
But of all the things we Methodists share with the Moravians, I think there is none more beautiful or meaningful than the Love Feast. If you've never attended one, it is a very different sort of worship service based on the early agape meals of New Testament and Apostolic times at which Christians would gather to share food and fellowship as they sang, prayed and bore witness to the great love of God in Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, according to most authorities, the Love Feast was officially discontinued in the Western (Roman) church at the Council of Laodicea (363AD) although it continued in Eastern (Greek) churches.
In 1727, after having observed a Love Feast in one of the Eastern Orthodox churches, Count Zinzendorf and the Moravians “restored” it to the Western church. Ten years later, John Wesley attended a Moravian Love Feast in Savannah during his missionary journey to America. He was so moved by its power and beauty that he later adopted it for use in Methodist worship. He wrote in his journal, “After evening prayers, we joined with the Germans for one of their love-feasts. It was begun and ended with thanksgiving (hymns) and prayer, and celebrated in so decent and solemn a manner as a Christian of the Apostolic age would have allowed to be worthy of Christ.”
As Methodism began to sweep across Britain and America, the Love Feast became a vital part of the revival movement because it encouraged personal testimony and praise for what God was doing in a particular area. In many ways, not only was it a time to celebrate and give thanks for God's love, it was also a time to proclaim and bear witness to that love to everyone present. As a result, it became a powerful means of building up the faithful while simultaneously reaching out to the lost.
According to historian Frank Baker, the Love Feast was so poweful that “Wesley had originally introduced Love-Feasts on a monthly basis...” But as the Methodist revival movement slowly became a denominational “church” and, therefore, part of proper Establishment, the Love Feast once again began to fall into disuse because many Methodist leaders felt the kind of enthusiasm it encouraged did not lend itself to respectability! As Baker points out, although Wesley wanted Methodists to celebrate the Love Feast monthly, “...they then became quarterly features. By the mid-19th century they had become annual features and by the end of the 19th century were regarded as quaint relics of earlier days”... and since “the Love-Feast was a product of revivalism (and a mechanism for keeping such sentiments alive) – and as the 19th century developed, Methodism slipped into its comfortable middle class existence, and chapels became churches and the 'embarrassment' of revivalism put away, the spectacle of the Love Feast was rarely, if ever, seen again.”
Officially, several historically Methodist churches officially “allow” or encourage the use of the Love Feast, although rarely is it ever done.
Perhaps, though, if Methodism wants to recover some of the spiritual fire that once set Britain and America aflame, we might do well to take a fresh, new look at the Love Feast and re-re-introduce it to the church and the world.
I was impressed by the simple beauty of the church (it actually looked more like a Presbyterian church than what I had envisioned), but as I stood in that historic sanctuary, I couldn't help but think of how intertwined the Moravians and the Methodists are.
Sadly, I'm convinced that not many Methodists realize this today, nor do many of them know who or what a Moravian is. This, I think, is largely fault of the clergy who either do not know this history themselves, or have disregarded it as irrelevant. Yet the truth is, our ties to the Moravians are overwhelming. From the broad-minded way of approaching theology, to singing our doctrine in our hymns, to our commitment to diversity of opinion when it comes to the non-essentials of the faith, to the our mutual concern for “holiness of heart and life”, we are linked in more ways than most realize.
Of course, it was on a hurricane-tossed ship filled with Moravians (off the SC/GA coast) that John Wesley witnessed in them a deep and abiding faith that he realized he did not have. Later, it was at a Moravian-led Bible study at Aldersgate Street that Wesley felt his “heart strangely warmed” by the assurance of God's love and found the faith he was missing.
But of all the things we Methodists share with the Moravians, I think there is none more beautiful or meaningful than the Love Feast. If you've never attended one, it is a very different sort of worship service based on the early agape meals of New Testament and Apostolic times at which Christians would gather to share food and fellowship as they sang, prayed and bore witness to the great love of God in Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, according to most authorities, the Love Feast was officially discontinued in the Western (Roman) church at the Council of Laodicea (363AD) although it continued in Eastern (Greek) churches.
In 1727, after having observed a Love Feast in one of the Eastern Orthodox churches, Count Zinzendorf and the Moravians “restored” it to the Western church. Ten years later, John Wesley attended a Moravian Love Feast in Savannah during his missionary journey to America. He was so moved by its power and beauty that he later adopted it for use in Methodist worship. He wrote in his journal, “After evening prayers, we joined with the Germans for one of their love-feasts. It was begun and ended with thanksgiving (hymns) and prayer, and celebrated in so decent and solemn a manner as a Christian of the Apostolic age would have allowed to be worthy of Christ.”
As Methodism began to sweep across Britain and America, the Love Feast became a vital part of the revival movement because it encouraged personal testimony and praise for what God was doing in a particular area. In many ways, not only was it a time to celebrate and give thanks for God's love, it was also a time to proclaim and bear witness to that love to everyone present. As a result, it became a powerful means of building up the faithful while simultaneously reaching out to the lost.
According to historian Frank Baker, the Love Feast was so poweful that “Wesley had originally introduced Love-Feasts on a monthly basis...” But as the Methodist revival movement slowly became a denominational “church” and, therefore, part of proper Establishment, the Love Feast once again began to fall into disuse because many Methodist leaders felt the kind of enthusiasm it encouraged did not lend itself to respectability! As Baker points out, although Wesley wanted Methodists to celebrate the Love Feast monthly, “...they then became quarterly features. By the mid-19th century they had become annual features and by the end of the 19th century were regarded as quaint relics of earlier days”... and since “the Love-Feast was a product of revivalism (and a mechanism for keeping such sentiments alive) – and as the 19th century developed, Methodism slipped into its comfortable middle class existence, and chapels became churches and the 'embarrassment' of revivalism put away, the spectacle of the Love Feast was rarely, if ever, seen again.”
Officially, several historically Methodist churches officially “allow” or encourage the use of the Love Feast, although rarely is it ever done.
Perhaps, though, if Methodism wants to recover some of the spiritual fire that once set Britain and America aflame, we might do well to take a fresh, new look at the Love Feast and re-re-introduce it to the church and the world.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Episcopal Bishops and Missional Church
Once again, I have demonstrated that my discipline when it comes to blogging, is definitely not what it should be. On the other hand, I have a perfectly good excuse: I was without my computer from Sunday through Wednesday, although it pains me to tell you why: I simply forgot to it!
On Sunday, I drove to Winston-Salem for a conference at my good friend Fr. Steve Rice's church on what it means to be a “missional church”. Frankly, this concept is not so much a new idea or a new way of how to do ministry, or even another church growth scheme. Instead, it's a concept that has been employed through the ages whenever and wherever the Church has flourished and society has been impacted through taking the gospel into the world and living it out among the people.
As a United Methodist, it makes me proud when John Wesley and the Methodist movement are pointed to as prime examples of what “missional church” looks like. On the other hand, it saddens me when it is also pointed out (and I honestly acknowledge) that the People called Methodists aren't living up to their heritage today. Which is why I am so intrigued by this topic and why I went to the conference.
One of the presenters at the conference was the Rt. Rev. Hector Monterosso, the Episcopal bishop of Costa Rica. Aside from being an amazingly approachable, personable and genuinely kind person, he left us with perhaps the easiest and most succinct definition of what the term “missional church” means: “Instead of 'come and see', we should 'go and be.' This, of course, was the great genius of the Wesley brothers and the Methodist revival. They were concerned that the established church was not doing anything to reach out to the lost, the poor, the hungry, the oppressed, the marginalized or the troubled. The church, it seemed to them, only cared about the status quo and not about changing lives and changing society. It seemed to the Wesleys that the etablished church operated under the principle that, if folks wanted what the church had to offer, they should come to the church, but the church was not going to make any concerted effort to reach out to them. This concept, as the Wesleys knew well and as Bishop Monterosso pointed out, is fully contrary to the way Jesus “did business” and how he taught his disciples to “do business”.
Certainly, God's grace and love are found “in” and “at” church, when we use the term to describe the actual building or house of worship. But did not our Lord command us to “go out into the world” and take his grace with us? According to Bishop Monterosso and the early Methodists, he most certainly did. Which is why Wesley took the gospel to the fields, the mines, to the villages, and instructed his circuit-riding preachers to do the same as they "spread scriptural holiness" across the land.
“Jesus told us to go into all the world and be his ambassadors,” reads a great definition of 'missional church', “but many churches today have inadvertently changed the "go and be" command to a "come and see" appeal. We have grown attached to buildings, programs, staff and a wide variety of goods and services designed to attract and entertain people. 'Missional' is a helpful term used to describe what happens when you and I replace the "come to us" invitations with a "go to them" life. A life where "the way of Jesus" informs and radically transforms our existence to one wholly focused on sacrificially living for him and others and where we adopt a missionary stance in relation to our culture. It speaks of the very nature of the Jesus follower."
It's a great challenge. And it no doubt means doing things differently than we've done them for decades. But if we ever hope to see the church grow, the Kingdom come, (and, of course, scriptural holiness spread across the land), then its a challenge we must embrace.
On Sunday, I drove to Winston-Salem for a conference at my good friend Fr. Steve Rice's church on what it means to be a “missional church”. Frankly, this concept is not so much a new idea or a new way of how to do ministry, or even another church growth scheme. Instead, it's a concept that has been employed through the ages whenever and wherever the Church has flourished and society has been impacted through taking the gospel into the world and living it out among the people.
As a United Methodist, it makes me proud when John Wesley and the Methodist movement are pointed to as prime examples of what “missional church” looks like. On the other hand, it saddens me when it is also pointed out (and I honestly acknowledge) that the People called Methodists aren't living up to their heritage today. Which is why I am so intrigued by this topic and why I went to the conference.
One of the presenters at the conference was the Rt. Rev. Hector Monterosso, the Episcopal bishop of Costa Rica. Aside from being an amazingly approachable, personable and genuinely kind person, he left us with perhaps the easiest and most succinct definition of what the term “missional church” means: “Instead of 'come and see', we should 'go and be.' This, of course, was the great genius of the Wesley brothers and the Methodist revival. They were concerned that the established church was not doing anything to reach out to the lost, the poor, the hungry, the oppressed, the marginalized or the troubled. The church, it seemed to them, only cared about the status quo and not about changing lives and changing society. It seemed to the Wesleys that the etablished church operated under the principle that, if folks wanted what the church had to offer, they should come to the church, but the church was not going to make any concerted effort to reach out to them. This concept, as the Wesleys knew well and as Bishop Monterosso pointed out, is fully contrary to the way Jesus “did business” and how he taught his disciples to “do business”.
Certainly, God's grace and love are found “in” and “at” church, when we use the term to describe the actual building or house of worship. But did not our Lord command us to “go out into the world” and take his grace with us? According to Bishop Monterosso and the early Methodists, he most certainly did. Which is why Wesley took the gospel to the fields, the mines, to the villages, and instructed his circuit-riding preachers to do the same as they "spread scriptural holiness" across the land.
“Jesus told us to go into all the world and be his ambassadors,” reads a great definition of 'missional church', “but many churches today have inadvertently changed the "go and be" command to a "come and see" appeal. We have grown attached to buildings, programs, staff and a wide variety of goods and services designed to attract and entertain people. 'Missional' is a helpful term used to describe what happens when you and I replace the "come to us" invitations with a "go to them" life. A life where "the way of Jesus" informs and radically transforms our existence to one wholly focused on sacrificially living for him and others and where we adopt a missionary stance in relation to our culture. It speaks of the very nature of the Jesus follower."
It's a great challenge. And it no doubt means doing things differently than we've done them for decades. But if we ever hope to see the church grow, the Kingdom come, (and, of course, scriptural holiness spread across the land), then its a challenge we must embrace.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
The Wesley Brothers
We're in week three of a twelve week study of basic doctrine at St. Andrew's. I call it “Stuff Every Christian Should Know.” Highly intellectual title, huh? Despite that, we had almost 50 people show up tonight for the supper and the study that followed (although I'm sure the tasty fried chicken may have been the bigger attraction)!
Nevertheless, somewhere in the middle of our time together tonight, I pointed out that perhaps of all the things we Methodists emphasize, perhaps the greatest of these is love. Which is to say that we Wesleyan types are more apt to focus on God's love than any other aspect of God's nature or attributes or purposes toward us. As I said those words, I suddenly remembered once hearing a song called "The Wesley Brothers" whose chorus emphasizes this point: John would preach and Charles would sing, it was a most unusual thing; how the Wesley Brothers preached the love of God.
Written by the late Doris Akers, the talented African-American composer who gave us “Sweet, Sweet Spirit”, the song is ironically one that I doubt many Methodists--especially United Methodists--have ever heard. And yet in three short minutes, it helps us see that while learning basic doctrine is critically important for every Christian, we Methodists would do well to recover one of the great doctrinal emphases of our founders: the love of God.
Nevertheless, somewhere in the middle of our time together tonight, I pointed out that perhaps of all the things we Methodists emphasize, perhaps the greatest of these is love. Which is to say that we Wesleyan types are more apt to focus on God's love than any other aspect of God's nature or attributes or purposes toward us. As I said those words, I suddenly remembered once hearing a song called "The Wesley Brothers" whose chorus emphasizes this point: John would preach and Charles would sing, it was a most unusual thing; how the Wesley Brothers preached the love of God.
Written by the late Doris Akers, the talented African-American composer who gave us “Sweet, Sweet Spirit”, the song is ironically one that I doubt many Methodists--especially United Methodists--have ever heard. And yet in three short minutes, it helps us see that while learning basic doctrine is critically important for every Christian, we Methodists would do well to recover one of the great doctrinal emphases of our founders: the love of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)