The experiential is a dimension of almost every renewal movement in Christian history. And likewise there is a natural counter-progression in our history:
Charismatic=>Organized
Spirit-led=>Structure driven
Revelation (or reemphasis on previous revelation)=>Tradition
Equality in leadership roles=>Rigid roles and segregation
From time to time, we have to turn back, reexperience, renew, refresh. It's like a "retreat" for whole religious movements. Mountain-top experiences renew us, bring us into the presence of our Savior, call us to face our fears, our inadequacies, our priorities, so we can return to life in a new way. Many retreats climax at moments of spiritual "crisis," calling for one to make a decision and more forward in life a transformed creature. I find in my own life I need a healthy dose of these experiences to correct for spiritual drift in my own life.
But as with any mountain top experience, we can't stay there. Retreats and pilgrimages are but way stations on our journey, and then, having had the experience, we head back out, walking life's road until we start to dry-out, harden, calcify, and need out heart "strangely warmed" again.
I wonder if the Emerging Church Movement is a retreat for the global (or at least Western) church. For many churches and Christians are feeling dried out, drifting from their course, hardened and cold, and need the experience with Christ to restore their passion and heart. But then Emerging, like the mountain top, is a temporary experience. One which should change us, reset our course, renew our hearts, challenge our fears, inadequacies, failures, priorities. One which should re-introduce us to our Jesus, and call for a crisis, a decision point. Deconstruction is one such challenge, one that is often laid by reformers who see the current structure to be built with the wrong materials. Revisiting how God has worked in our collective past (a theme for many of my own personal retreats) is another. We can't stay on this mountain and pitch tents, as Peter wanted to. We have to come down, there are demon-possessed folks needing our help.
Retreat, return. Retreat, return. Whether Reformation or Great Awakening, we needed it in the past. Maybe God has provided yet another, if we are willing to journey with Him.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Experience as Retreat
Questioned by
David Mullins
at
8:29 PM
2
comments
Labels: emerging
Monday, June 30, 2008
What is Church? One...
What does it really mean to be the church? What defines us, as a movement, as a body, as a people? Historically, four characteristics, known as the "Marks of the Church," have defined the life of the Body. As laid out in the Nicene Creed, (UM Hymnal #880), "We believe in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church." (Emphasis mine) The church traditionally defined its faithfulness of its identity, and effectiveness in mission, by these benchmarks. Even during and after the Reformation, these traits were never questioned, by Catholics, Orthodox, or Protestants. But what do they mean for Callahan? I'd like to take the next few months to look at each of these characteristics, and what they mean for us today.
First, the church is called to be One. Paul writes in Ephesians 4, "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit-just as you were called to one hope when you were called-one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (vv 3-6) Out of all the characteristics of the church, this seems to be the most pertinent in our world today, as we are often divided by denomination, by skin tone, by ethnicity, by class, by worship style.
Yet the unity Paul is speaking of takes some interesting forms, it seems. In the very next breath, after calling for us to be united under one Lord, faith, and Baptism, Paul throws in a "however…" "However, he has given each one of us a special gift according to the generosity of Christ." (v7, NLT) Then Paul goes on to describe a variety of gifts and roles in the church, each with their own unique place in this unified Body. And if we look at the variety of churches that have passed down the tradition of the church being "one," we see many different peoples, many different forms, many different languages, musical instruments (or lack thereof). Each expressing its faith in unique and creative ways, each still united as one. We are one church, but we are one in diversity.
So what's the secret? Paul tells us. "…Hold to the truth in love, becoming more and more in every way like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church. Under His direction, the whole body is fitted perfectly together…" (vv 15-16a, NLT) As we focus on Christ, focus on becoming more like Him, and on reflecting His love to the world, He will bring us together as one. By focusing on styles, agendas, methods, our eyes are on ourselves. And if we are focused on ourselves, we'll only see each other's flaws. But if our focus, as individuals and as a body, is Christ, and on the mission He is calling us to, than we see only His holy love, and He will bring us together.
So how do we become one church? By acting in Christ-like love to one another, and to those outside these walls. By spending time with Christ, seeking His direction in all we do. By opening our hearts to His transforming Spirit, and letting Him make every part of us reflect His love. By laying aside our differences as things that divide us, and instead see them as divine gifts that can inform and enrich each other. Then, and only then, will we be one.
Questioned by
David Mullins
at
8:44 PM
0
comments
Labels: marks of the church
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
A Common Quest?
I've started reading a book called St Benedict on the Freeway this past week. Not sure what I think of it yet. It is intended to be a book on adapting the Benedictine pattern for life and prayer for 21st century people. An interesting read so far, but the author at one point began talking about how all religions seem to have a common goal, and includes in that the classic "all paths lead to God" illustration. I've yet to determine if this is the author's own viewpoint, or if there is some other point she is trying to make.
But it raises the question: Is there a common goal for all religions? In a sense, I would say yes, that all faiths are trying to fulfill the needs of the human soul. What are these needs? As best as I understand them, relationship with something/One beyond us, with the Divine if you will, and a way to deal with any distance between ourselves and that.
But the real question is, are all faiths able to provide a complete path to this goal? Yes, we're all trying to get to the same...or at least a similar...place, but do all roads really lead to Rome?
While our goals and methods may be similar, from Christian to Hindu to Muslim to Taoist, one thing I have learned is that no human effort can bridge that gap between us and the Divine. Which is why God 1st revealed Himself to the Jews, and then completed what work by bridging the gap (in Christian terms known as sin) in Jesus. Others may copy Christian methods, and we may borrow theres, but without Christ there is no possibility of bridging the gap or finding the Divine.
I don't think you can have a true Christianity without the atonement. Jesus was not just one more Rabbi. If He was, why is the Cross, according to the day a sign of His "defeat," the symbol for our faith? If we loose sight of the significance of the cross and the empty tomb, and what His death and resurrection did for us that no other could, then we are just adding one more religious text to the collected writings of humanity. Nice reading, but is we ignore the Cross, we might as well do our morning devotions with the Qur'an or the Upanishads.
Richard Niebhur once summed up this kind of faith in these terms: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross."
Many have used the illustration of multiple roads leading to the top of the same mountain to talk about religious "paths." And if we ignore the Cross, and what is distinctive about Christian faith and teaching, then we might come to that conclusion. But why would Jesus wrestle in the garden with His mission if there was an easier way?
The necessity of the Cross to His life tells us that humans aren't capable of reaching God without help. It's as if there is a lava filled canyon running through those mountain paths, one that is too wide for us to cross. Other faiths, and even some Cross-less versions of my own, try to jump the chasm, or perhaps even believe their quest is to fall into it. Christ says "I can make the jump with you on my back, if you're willing to leave your baggage behind and trust Me. You won't need that stuff, I've got better gear on the other side for the rest of the climb. Just trust me, and we'll go see Dad together."
All those who try to make the jump on their own, no matter how good their intentions or strong their legs, or pure their heart, will fall.
Yes, all religions probably have a common goal, one of seeking connection with the Divine. And maybe that's something we should celebrate at some level, rather than writing each other off as enemies. But all others are human attempts to jump the chasm, and no amount of cross-training can make us strong enough to succeed. Only a human savior could carry us like that, and only a divine savior could make the jump with all of us on His back.
The question is, will you continue the path on your own strength, your own wisdom, or trust in His? That choice s up to each of us. Will you accept?
Questioned by
David Mullins
at
7:54 AM
0
comments
Labels: other religions
Friday, April 25, 2008
A week off from preaching...
Well, with the youth leading worship this past Sunday, and my Wednesday night lessons already prepared, I had a chance to play catch-up last week. Keeping more than 3 things in my head at a time has never really worked for me, so I've had to do some investigating into organizational methods. I did the Palm Pilot thing for almost a decade, and did the Franklin Covey planner on and off alongside it. But those things were tools, not methods. And as a Methodist...well, I need methods! ;-)
It wasn't until a couple of years ago that I discovered the Getting Things Done (aka GTD) methodology, set out by David Allen in his book by the same name. The flow goes something like this:
- Collect-Get all of the thoughts out of your head, your email, your various post-its all around the office, and get them into one big bucket that you sort through on a consistent basis. For me, this entails use of my cell phone's voice recorder, and my handy-dandy Hipster PDA.
- Process-Ask some basic questions...Is this actionable or not? Is it a single action or a project? Is it for me or for someone else? Is it something I can do in 2 min right now, or do I need to do it later?
- Organize-Get them in the right places...in files, on project or task lists, on your calendar, etc
- Review-Go over your calendar and lists, and make decisions about what to do this week, today.
- Do-Ummm...do the thing!
It's been a long learning curve for me, and I've changed the system 10 million times in the last year or so, but it's been beneficial for me. Of course, once I get a good system, then I have to deal with the worries and fears in me that make me want to procrastinate all the things in these wonderful lists.
But that's for another day. Hope this is helpful to somebody!
Questioned by
David Mullins
at
1:51 PM
0
comments
Labels: off-topic
Why are we failing?
Just a short thought from the Episcopal address, taken from the UM News report:
"[Illinois Area Bishop Sharon Brown Christopher] attributed some of the membership decline in U.S. churches to 'ruptures in our United Methodist relationships. Left or right, conservative or liberal, we treat our baptized brothers and sisters as if they are our enemies' and seek to destroy those who have a different viewpoint or perspective, she said.
"'Our fervent pursuit of being right takes priority over right relationship,' she said. The disarray of the table, the fractured and ruptured United Methodist relationships, and 'carefully calculated formulas of theology' make church members unable to hear and listen to the cries of a neighbor. 'Our own need deafens us to the needs of others,' she said."
I don't think this is a disease contained only in our Methodist population. It seems to have infected most of Western (and maybe more) Christianity. Not the first time it's been said...but it needs to be repeated.
Questioned by
David Mullins
at
12:47 PM
0
comments
Labels: methodism


