What is Faith?

Faith is the graced decision to believe and act (trust) inspite of uncertainy, so as to risk one's way of life.

Thoughts?

What is a United Methodist?

Wilson longs to strengthen the Methodist presence at Duke. Phil somewhat wryly responds to Wilson's quest under my post, "Tale of a Great Blessing," "what is a Methodist?" I post that question here since it seems like a question to which those doing field education might usefully opine. I offer my two cents below.

I have catalogued my criticism of Methodists in emails and on the site and, in general, I believe those same criticisms can be applied to the so called liberal/moderate wings of the Episcopal church without unfairness. However, a strength in Wesleyanism that I have learned to value from simultaneously studying Hauwerwas and reading a biography of Cranmer is the priority of unity over orthodoxy/orthopraxy. I correlate that theme with what Hauerwas says on non-violence. A commitment to non-violence forces you to contemplate a politics that can imagine tactics other than division/violence. I believe that key Wesleyan idea has a heritage that goes back to Cranmer and is visible in the United Methodist Church in its retreat from a clearly articulated dogma or confession. See Wilson's repeated insistence that Methodists do not have a "doctrine" but only a "discipline." That strength is often received as weakness (as weak strength perhaps?) because it comes across at times as a refusal to stand for anything. And the idea "tolerance" sometimes is distorted into a relativistic apathy. But I believe that Methodism's traditional insistence on welcoming all and striving for unity with diversity is among its defining characteristics and its chief strengths. I think, for example, that's why we see the inclination, perhaps (I concede to Derrick and Wilson now) unwise, towards a radically open table. I also think the priority of unity explains why Methodists tend not to get caught up in rigorously defining/regulating the "how" of the sacraments and tolerate a broad range of liturgical scripts.

However, to that characteristic, I would add a second major trait: a historic emphasis on holiness. I think that is most famously caricatured in Steinmetz's joke about Hell, in which we find the Baptists who dance, the Methodists who drank, and the Episcopalians who used their salad fork with dessert. That emphasis on holiness of lifestyle is still in the Book of Discipline. Candidates for elder, like me, are discouraged from drinking, smoking, and sex outside of holy marriage. (It's our loving duty to help Methodist bachelors - like Wilson - remain celibate at seminary!).

I believe a third historic trait of Methodists that distinguishs them from many Anglicans and especially Episcopalians is an emphasis on evangelism. Methodists historically tend to emphasize "conversion" as a high priority over against other ecclesial goals, such as Christian formation. Note the qualifier, "historic." One thing I have learned in studying Anglicanism is that the reform movement that fostered the African Anglican churches - the one that was planted by British colonial efforts - paralleled the Methodist movement but had a distinctive emphasis on "christian formation" rather than "conversion." Hence the evangelical anglicanism that I have grown to appreciate has a relatively stronger tendency towards common worship and therefore more clear definition of liturgy and doctrine than its cousin, Methodism. I hope to reconnect those two strands in my ministry.

What Is A Christian?

A Christian is someone who has asked Jesus to forgive them and lead them.

Thoughts?

Further Thoughts on "Mission"

In the comments regarding Tony's post of the WNC Vision-Mission Document, we ran into some controversy and throat-clearing concerning diction. Wilson and I were averse to (unreflective) deployment of military language and metaphor. I suggested "mission" as an alternative to vision, being that it is rooted in a (the?) central motif of the New Testament (all scripture?); namely, the election (calling and sending) of God's people within the dramtic and revelatory structure of (the) covenant(s).

The Socratic King derisively suggested that "mission" is a throughgoingly martial term. Upon further lexical and etymological review, this is (as I suspected) not the case. "Mission" comes from the Latin mittere, which simply means "to send." "Mission" enters modern usage in the the 16th century specifically as a designation for "the sending of the Holy Spirit into the world." It is only later that its usage becomes associated with combat, and loosely interchangeable with sortie, raid, etc.

While this may at first seem a bit of lexical pedantry, I think it brings into view a larger issue concerning our language. First, we often simply use words without being fully cognizant of their connotations (and denotations) - cue (post)structuralist/deconstructionist critique. Secondly - and more importantly, Tom's not unsurprising reaction shows the depth at which martial-commercial modalities of thought have gripped us. A term whose entry into modern usage is theological and ecclesial has become immediately and exclusively with the military.

The question may remain as to whether or not mission can be recuperated and/or retrieved from its derivative meaning/usage. The larger question remains as to whether or not our thought-forms, speech, and actions can escape the gravitational force of military-industrial usage.

Tale of a Great Blessing

I write to share a joyous experience of mine from CPE. But first an assertion: this is a fabulous program here at the Duke Medical Center. There is a clear consensus here among my colleagues that the Duke CPE program is highly recommended because its intensity and structure focuses energy on the blind spots that may be obstacles in one’s ministry. All of us feel we are being formed in important ways by our CPE experience.

I am eager to report that I can finally answer positively to the first question my pastor, Michael Green, asked me when I called him up and asked him if I can could be his apprentice: “How many have you brought to Christ?” Yesterday morning Danielle Kosanovich (a fellow Dukie) asked me to handle a patient request for a chaplain visit on her floor because she was off-duty. I discovered a black youth, 20, with sickle cell anemia, filled with questions that bubbled out of the harsh life he lived on the streets of Durham. Imagine the pathos of one desperate for rescue from ‘the muck of pigs’ and you have the right idea. Our dialogue began with “Can I ask you a question?” and continued for two hours of “Just one more question?”

All this man knew of the gospel came from a ‘Left Behind Series’ movie he had seen and a portrait of a wrathful god painted by his mother as she watched him go astray. So he began with, “Is there really a Hell? Is the devil real? What about trials and tribulations? Can someone who has murdered somebody still get to heaven? If I believe in this Jesus, can I still get into the pearly gates of heaven?”

As we talked, I felt a bit of guilt about my own pride in my education. You see, this young, under-educated, street-tough, bright-eyed man quickly moved on to the tough questions with which I had struggled not too long ago. It made me realize I had unconsciously assumed that Origen’s “simple ones” included those who had walked in this man’s shoes. How foolish I was! “Was Jesus really God’s son? Was Mary really his mother? How did that happen? Did he forgive the people who killed him?” To this last, I stuttered an explanation of Jesus’ words on the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” (Luke 23:34 NKJV). Thinking I had knocked that softball out of the park, I relaxed, but then he quickly wanted to know, “So if Jesus is God, why was he praying to God? I thought he was God.” I stumbled through an explanation of the trinity somehow, without ever mentioning ‘trinity,’ ‘triune God,’ or Nicaea. That’s when I realized that the only way for me to make sense of the trinity is, relying on Gregory of Nyssa, to describe the triune God in terms of divine ‘operations.’

That explanation seemed to make a lot of sense to my new friend. But sense I had spoke of God as “Creator,” I provoked a whole new set of questions. “Was the earth really created in seven days? What about the dinosaurs? I know those are real but they are 250 million years old and God is only a few thousand years old, so how can the Bible be true?”

By this point, my friend had begun to ask about baptism. He wanted me to baptize him. That was totally unexpected. So I pulled out my handy pocket version of the Methodist Book of Worship (when you’re an ecclesial whore like I am, you can cherry pick liturgical resources without guilt!). I thought it would be handy to make sure he had an idea of what baptism meant. First I talked about the process itself. “How can you baptize me here? Don’t we have to do it in a pool to make sure it washes off all of my sin?” My low church genes kicked in. I began down the path those genes dictated, which was to suggest that the water isn’t magical, and the baptism was an outward sign of what God had already done and is doing in his heart (where did I get that? I couldn’t remember). Two things occurred to me as I said these words. First, I realized I really believe them. Second, I realized that my thoughts on baptism are counter to official Methodist doctrine. Methodists and others see more Mystery in the sacrament itself than I felt at that moment. They may be right, but when faced with the repentant heart I sensed was before me, all I could think of was that it was blood that did the washing and water that did the signifying of our holy bath. But then I looked at the man before me and realized that I had to think more carefully about baptism for him. He’s a poor black from Durham and I am an affluent white from Raleigh. I understood then that baptism for someone we expect to live beyond the hospital really needs to be done in the context of a particular community of faith who will pledge to do for the baptized what I could not realistically do for my friend - support him as he begins his journey. And that meant, for me, that I had to deliver him for baptism to a particular community of faith in which I could envision him living the rest of his life. Because I only know one church in Durham like that, one community in which there were men I know well and trust who might nurture him, I realized I could not baptize him in the Methodist way, for I need to deliver him to a baptist church. And they would need to dunk him because that’s how they do such things. So I couldn’t baptize him myself in that moment, as much as I wanted to respond to his eagerness (and my own!).

So I focused on the questions in the baptismal covenant, thinking it wise to prepare him for the questions he must be asked. That unleashed a whole flood of questions. “What is sin? What does it mean to repent of evil? Is smoking a sin? How about wine or beer?” I knew he had a habit of cocaine and weed, so I tried to hit that one ‘head on.’ But the only thing that came to mind was that God wants us to live life abundantly, and to share his good news so that others can learn to live life abundantly. And as I said that, I realized how deeply I believe that. Or rather I realized how much I believe that is true about my God in contrast with the depiction of a God whose relationship to me is that of a publisher of a list of proscribed behaviors. Wesley’s dictum about shedding love abroad bubbled to my consciousness, and nothing seemed to resonate with my friend so much as the vision of his new life of holiness, in which he would shed love abroad and used his story to steer others on to the holy path. The look on his face as he imagined that made me realize in a flesh and bones way that this gospel entrusted to us is truly the intersection of hope and holiness. We don’t have to do much more than be brave enough to share it.

I have become tight with fellow Dukie, Greg Nash. I love that man. We are a team here at the hospital. Whenever the Holy Spirit places me in an encounter with a man from the streets, I try to introduce him to Greg, because Greg has walked in those shoes in a way I never can. I want to introduce them to a positive role model, an image of a man of God so they can visualize themselves transformed. So I called Greg, and he did his thing in his own way, which I believe made the promise of the journey ahead more concrete. Greg is amazingly gifted. He immediately understood that transportation and clothing might be real obstacles for this young man that his pride might hide (a way the 'enemy' wages spiritual warfare?), so he addressed these issues head-on. A van will pick him up and deliver him to the church next Sunday.

Greg and I hope to stand by our new friend when he gets baptized (or at least joins) at Mt. Level Missionary Baptist Church on 2 July. That is, of course, the home of Drs. WC Turner, Willie Jennings, and J. Cameron Carter. I can’t imagine anyone to whom I would rather entrust my new friend and brother.

So, on this day, I praise the Lord for allowing me to witness the truth of his promise that the Holy Spirit will guide us as we seek to fulfill the Great Commission. It is a glorious thing to witness another deciding to accept Christ as king of his life. I would love to do this for the rest of my life. What a blessing! Hallelujah!

Tony's Original Email

Socratics,

My original response to Tony's first email is below. I only responded to him as I didn't want to fill up email boxes with unwanted email. Some of us participate in these kind of conversations more than others. This is not to say that I think a mass email to introduce a topic or ask a question is bad. I think its great. But this Blog is probably a better place to continue the conversation past an intial email. So here's my frist response on 6-19-06...

Hey Tony,

I just went to the Virginia Annual Conference. Either ours was more exciting than yours or I'm wired differently than you are. Evangelism was a major point of discussion. 500+ churches in Virginia didn't have one profession of faith last year. Tons of time was spent around how to fix this problem. It was very cool.

At first glance of NC's vision, I'm greatly impressed. I didn't read it thoroughly but looked over the headings and dove in here and there were I was curious. I think its incredibly future oriented. Its focus is on evangelism and outreach. I like its beginning point of confession. It made me think about where I might need to confess for not being as evangelistic as I could be. It is bold and creative. I like the continual mention of "satellite" churches. I like the pairing of small under-functioning churches with larger functioning ones. I've always wondered why some of the small church pastors weren't on the staff of larger churches near by.

I don't know that I'll get to read it all, but at first glance it makes me want something like this for West Michigan Conference.

Hope that is helpful.

Peace and grace,

Tom

Continuing off of Tom's 10:35 comment

While the question of whether the sword of truth is offensive is an angels-pin hair I would like to split with you, I think the linguistic deluge we have just entered is very representative of what I would like to avoid.

I don't think reclaiming ecclesial language is a panacea for the churches ills. I am looking for a way to talk about congregational vitality in a theological manner that doesn't resort to the bickerings of semantics, as evidenced by many of the previous comments. I feel like it's so easy to criticize the megachurches/bill hybls/joel olsteen for their weak or absent theology, but I feel like so much theology has turned ecclesiology into an esoteric academic field as opposed to the workings of Lakeside UMC, anywhere america. And this isn’t a polemic for protestants to turn into crypto-catholics.

Phil gave me a line from Hütter about the postlibs that was like, they’ve been clearing their throats for about thirty years, it’s about time they start to say something. I feel like so much ecclesial coughing has been coming from the academy against everything from megachurches to contemporary music to ipods to TV to whatever else that it all melts into an ignorable milieu of You Can’t Do That on Television slime.

I don’t want to cough (and I'm not calling myself a postlib) but saying something is difficult, so I have to cough a little bit to get my nerves up. I consider the Socratic Club a little hanky that I can use so as to not spray mucus around the room.

The Socratic Formerly Known as Derek

Whereas his diligence in email communication through the summer has been scruplous.

Whereas his theological attention to detail has been above bored.

Whereas his time commitment to the Socratic Club has been allowed by his lusterous field education placement which has fed him well.

We do hereby confer upon the Socratic formerly known as Derek, the title of Prince.

Visioning and the Gospel

Those of you reading this probably got East T-Mor's email about annual conference. If not, here is the link to the Vision 2020 thing. I don't really want to comment on that, but on visioning within the Church.

Now I think I first need to make a quick qualification. The temptation to idealism within the academy is enormous, as is the temptation of judgment. This isn't to say that it's wrong, only that it's easy. I think all of us in field ed's or CPE's know there is a difference between Rutgers South and the parish and so that should be kept in mind.

But now to my idealistic judgment. Thinking big is a business strategy. Strategy is a war term and pulls us into a war metaphor. A lax use of language is a great deficiency in so much of the Church Universal and the Church particular, Macedonia UMC and High Rock Lake Summer Ministry no exception. I assume most of you have dealt with the arguments concerning the Church's appropriation of foreign tongues, so I will not go into it here.

Moving on...

The great challenge comes beyond the rhetoric of visioning, beyond the rhetoric of church growth, butts in the seats, money in the coffers, building committees, stewardship sunday, trustees arguments, parking difficulties, politics, and anything else that might get in the way. We need to bracket that off because an argument about language is not my concern. My concern is the church.

I don't have many answers, but there has to be a way that we can discuss the vitality of a congregation without falling into the pit of semantics. That is the discussion I want. Please respond with ideas, correctives, etc. In a few days I will try and write something substantive, but until then, consider this a prolegomena of sorts.

East T-Mor bringin it

The Right to Privacy is interesting in that neither the constitution or the Bill of Rights specifically states such a right. Yes the 1st, 4th & 5th are used by many to state that the right exists, but in reality, the right to privacy is always narrowly defined. Most of Privacy laws are state laws and are almost always relinquished for the "good of the state". Most of these laws deal with information and not an individuals right to privacy of life. This was actually and issue when Chief Justice Roberts of the Supreme Court was being grilled before congress. It wasn't until the Late 1800's that the issue was thought to be a valid constitutional argument. It has been a major issue with abortion, gun ownership, and most recently with convicted sex offenders who have served their sentences to completion. Not to mention everything concerning privacy and the war against terror. I know at the rural churches I serve many "patriotic" Americans could care less about their right to privacy, or they say. That scares me!

Craig mentioned culture to embracing laicism. I am for a narrowly defined laicism. When I say that I mean I don't want Pastor's telling congregations how to vote, or throwing people out of church because they voted a certain way. I don't believe it is the institutional church's responsibility to be involved in government, but that is not to say that it is not the church's responsibility to be involved. President Bush does not speak for the United Methodist Church as President, but we hope and pray that he speaks as a Christian and that his decision making process is prayerful and Spirit lead. I don't want the Pope, Pat Roberts, the President of the SBC or any Bishop, Presbyter or what or whoever is the leader of any religious institution symbolically or actually placing a crown or mantle of power on any leader's head. We live in a fallen world, evil happens when the power of the church and the power of politics are wrapped up in one package. As long as Christian can vote and hold public office, I am all for Laicism.

Tony Moreau

This is how you blog on this

Tangentially, this [provost's lecture series on privacy] is very interesting to me. Zizek has a line on the bill of rights being an anti ten commandments. It leads of with the right to privacy (the so-called penumbra of the whole list) as the right to do what you want in the privacy of your bedroom, e.g. commit adultery. It culminates with the right to freedom of religion being a right to adultery. His line on ethical violence also trades on this.

Hauerwas (et al) also have a bit to say about public/private stuff - both in terms of the fact/value distinction that drives political liberalism, and the more pedestrian personal sense of non-invasiveness.

The most immediate resonance for me with respect to field-ed is the issue of money, tithing, and giving. Half my cohort meets every week to talk about the Sunday lections, and whatever else suits us. Apparently Mormons send a financial analyst to you when you join up to plan how you can "afford" your level-best 10%. Also, the community/church Jeremy is serving this summer has some sort of financial disclosure protocol - non-binding; you just have to fess up. Tara and I have often toyed with this idea, but have never had the moral courage to take the plunge.

In short, this seems a rich and expansive topic with which much could/should be done. Ask for the line-up as soon as it comes out. I expect that someone or another will prove a particularly interesting interlocutor.

BTW - Jennifer Stallings is a Messiah grad; I'm trying to build my voting block within the Wheatiecentic universe in which I find myself.


DWL

If you wonder why Harnack ignored the french

"For other reasons I turn away from the French, whose sight a lover of religion can hardly bear, for in every act, in ever word, they all but trample on its most holy laws."
Schleiermacher, On Religion