Staying Home

Earlier this month Rachel Held Evans made news again by “departing” Evangelicalism for the Episcopal Church.[1]  This is hardly news, save for the influence that Evans has in the Evangelical blogosphere and twitterverse. However, her departure is apparently indicative of a broader trend among her (and my) generation of church-goers. Millennials are tending to leave the Evangelical churches of their youth and find a home in the Mainline traditions or no home at all.

I have served in Baptist congregations for a decade now, and in that time I’ve moved more and more toward liturgical practices in worship style and have found a passion for the Church Year. I’ve been called a “bathlic” by some congregants who disliked my following of the Lectionary or my introduction of the seasons of Lent and Advent into the life of my little Baptist churches. Even now, I am affiliated with what has been called a “bapti-palian” church that embraces a very high church style and is about as far from the Evangelical camp as can be and still be called Baptist.

During my Oral Defense last summer, my dear friend and mentor Todd Still asked a question of me that lingers with me still. My Project had addressed the possibility of using a type of catechesis in a Baptist congregation. In the research I had borrowed extensively from Catholic, Presbyterian, and Lutheran understandings of catechesis in hopes of finding a foundational platform from which to do adult catechetical discipleship. After discussing my findings, Dr. Still asked, “why not just go on all the way to Rome?”

His question addressed the natural conclusion of my work and predicted Evans’ departure to the Episcopal Church. My answer was that I was committed to the Baptist principals of the Priesthood of the Believer, the Autonomy of the Local Church, and Soul Competency. These things were so important to me that I had never even fathomed leaving my Baptist tradition for the Episcopal Church – I was trying to refine the discipleship practices of my own tradition rather than find an excuse to depart for something else.

I believe in the Baptist project. Theologically I have no need to adopt a practice of seven sacraments like Evans has; the ordinances of adult baptism and communion sustain me and serve, I believe, as the foundation for the community’s practice in the church.[2] I may add practices and traditions to these ordinances, but I do not need to abandon the carefully crafted Baptist ecclesiology to find a church home.

I do understand the temptation to find a church home that is a part of something that is deep and wide and rich, though. Evans, and those who have journeyed to Rome or Canterbury like her, is searching for a connection to something that is more global and more powerful than the shallow work, words, and worship that they commonly experience. I feel that pull, too. But my congregation and I are crafting a practical ecclesiology that embraces the deep and wide tradition of spirituality that is so appealing to my generation without leaving behind all the minds, hearts, and hands that have brought us to this place. Being Baptist is being flexible. It is not being beholden to a worship style any more than it is being beholden to a Bishop or Pope’s decree.

Why am I not “going on to Rome?” because I have a home that has formed me and now calls on me to form it in return. It is the house that has paneling and wallpaper over ancient walls that were crafted with precision and artistry. Our congregation is developing a practice that takes down the veneer and runs its hands over those ancient stones, polishing and painting what needs repair, and learning to live in the deep, wide, rich place that God has led us to.

We’re staying home.

---

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/10/rachel-held-evans-episcopalian-evangelical_n_6842872.html

[2] http://livingchurch.org/covenant/?p=5385

On Eastertide

I am still relatively new to the practice of observing the Church Year and worshipping in a congregation guided by the Revised Common Lectionary. As a Baptist of Southern Baptist heritage I was largely unaware that there were seasons through which the Church progressed each year; actually I was only aware of Advent, and that was because the Catholic church in town placed these massive oil candles in the churchyard during that time of year.

Ever since Dr. Terry York presented the tradition of the Church Year and the cycle of the Lectionary to me in his Christian Worship class, though, I’ve been increasingly convinced that such a rhythm of life and such a connection to the world-wide Christian communion is not only within the scope of my Baptist principles but also may help my generation of Baptist pastors move our congregation beyond the Fundamentalist/Moderate controversy on which we teethed.

My congregation’s practice of observing the Church Year has recently taken us into the wilderness of Lent with our Lord. During these six Sundays our congregation has taken great pains to concentrate on our need for God’s sustenance and provision. We have called out our sins and meditated on our sinfulness. We have concluded that we are in need of a Savior, for who can rescue us from this body of death? We journeyed, painstakingly, agonizingly, slowly toward the Cross.

We intentionally neglected the joy of Easter, a joy we know would come. We knew that the tomb would be empty, that the Lord would at last defeat death and open for us the path to eternal life. We ignored that as best we could, though, so as to know our need and our thirst for that Lord and for his Life. We seemed to be surrounded by death, by prayers of renewal and by songs of lament.

Easter came - oh Glory did it come! We sang; we SANG! We sang old Baptist hymns and Handel’s “Messiah.” We read John’s account of the resurrection and we prayed amidst the chirping of birds and the palpable new life of spring. We worshipped.

But then Easter ended.

I went home and scattered plastic eggs for my toddler to find; I ate lamb with my Greek family members; I napped. But after all of that I had to pack my bag and prepare for another week of reality. This time there was no Lenten restriction to help me hunger through the day - all was resurrected joy and consummation.

The Church Year calls this time “Eastertide.” The seven Sundays after Resurrection Day form a happy antithesis to the Lenten season: whereas Lent is denial and despondency, Eastertide is joy and astonishment and the heavy exhale of a people who no longer fear death. The Church Year makes Easter the hinge, the high-water-mark of the story of Jesus and of all Christian life. We have the tough, long slough to the Cross before and the downhill road back to Emmaus from the empty tomb.

The passages for Eastertide are the other side of the Easter story, too. Suddenly we find bold, testifying disciples where cowards had recently stood. We read of the Hebrew Scriptures being understood in light of a new revelation of God through Jesus Christ. We see the Church being born after preaching that this same miracle-working, Kingdom-proclaiming Jesus had been raised from the dead.

Easter did in fact end. The event that we celebrated last Sunday was one single moment in history. But the consequences, the fallout from that miraculous day take more than one sermon or Bible study to work out. Here, here is where we begin to “work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling.” Here, in Eastertide, is where we begin to understand our new, re-created, forgiven identities in Christ.

I think of this season of Eastertide as a return from exile. In the first chapters of Ezra we read of the return of the Babylonian captives to Jerusalem. Can you imagine the joy that spread throughout the community when word came down from Cyrus that they could return home? What a celebration! They were showered with gifts and money and good things with which to re-establish God’s Temple and their society. What a critical, hinge moment for the Exiles.

Ezra recounts that there was a great celebration once the Exiles returned. There were special offerings and festivals and sacrifices. Soon, though, people noticed that there was no foundation upon which to rebuild the Temple. The celebration had to be modulated and actual work had to begin. If the Exiles were to truly be reunited with their God, they would need to understand and address the consequences, the fallout of their return.

This is the season for Christians to address the cosmic, eternal, and ultimately personal meaning of Easter. This is the season to not only confess sin, but to deal with it. This is the season to no longer point out the rubble of former temples; this is the season to clear the land and build upon the One Foundation.

So, to borrow from the artist Bastille, “where to we begin? The rubble or our sins?” Let’s get to work. It’s Eastertide.

On the "Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act" of 2014

Sometimes politics is, well, just politics. In the American system of government there often come times when politicians need to make sure everyone sees them doing something, even if the something they accomplish is repetitive, moot, or pointless.

A wonderful case on point is the recently ratified “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” that Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant signed into law on April 3^rd. This law, which ostensibly protects the free exercise of religion in the State from undue burdens levied by the government, turns out to be nothing more than a copy of the Federal law signed by President Clinton in 1993.[1]

The text of the law passed in Mississippi is vague at best:

 5)  (a)  Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection.

       (b) Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:

                        (i) Is in the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(ii) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.[2]

The language of the bill (especially its early sections) is identical to the Federal law passed during the Clinton administration. Only the addition of “In God We Trust” to the State Seal of Mississippi makes this bill significantly different from what has been on the federal books for 20 years.

The Mississippi legislature passed a law that serves little purpose other than to gin up support for legislators from the already dominant conservative majority of the state. But this is what politicians do; they fight battles that make them seem like heroes to their supporters but that do little in the grand scheme of things for the state. I get that - it is the securing of political capital that can be spent on truly important issues and ideas in months to come.

So why all the angst over this bill? If the Act is merely a repeat of an already valid law, why are so many groups coming out in vocal support of or opposition to it?

This is a case of the clash between the political process in Mississippi (and everywhere else in America) and the evangelical-dominated church culture of the state. What was a symbolic action by the legislature was a “die on this hill” measure for some Christians, including a great many Baptists in the state.

The conflict came at the point in the bill’s life when it was introduced in the Mississippi Senate. In that young version of the Bill the term “burden” is defined as follows:

"Burden" means any action that directly or indirectly constrains, inhibits, curtails or denies the exercise of religion by any person or compels any action contrary to a person's exercise of religion.  "Burden" includes, but is not limited to, withholding benefits, assessing criminal, civil or administrative penalties or exclusion from governmental programs or access to governmental facilities.[3]

The troublesome clause is that anything that “compels any action contrary to a person’s exercise of religion” is considered a burden. This is certainly a bad definition, since it prohibits governmental recourse for anyone (which includes corporations since “corporations are people, my friend”) who denies services or refuses participation or work based upon their religion. It is this clause that deserved the ire of the LBGTQ community, the Jewish community, and any other group fearing discrimination by the overwhelmingly conservative Christian majority of Mississippi.

While this version of the Bill was being debated (it would be amended twice in its lifetime) the Mississippi Baptist Convention came out supporting it. Non-SBC pastors and Methodist ministers came out against this version of the Bill, too.[4] It is likely that these pressures to pass or kill the Bill did little to sway the legislature compared to the response from business leaders in Mississippi who removed their support for the measure so long as the controversial definition of “burden” was included.

Now that the Bill has passed in a form that is an uncontroversial as the Federal law already on the books, there is celebration from the SBC and pledges to repeal from the LBGTQ community.[5]^[6] But the thing they’re celebrating and demonizing ISN’T THE BILL THAT PASSED!

This is not a “we won, you lost” situation where the powers of Light and the advancement of the Kingdom of God defeated the hedonistic pagans of the darkness. Neither side won, neither side lost. This is just politics. But when the Christian community invests itself so heavily in the political process, a process that is designed to find common ground and to respond to the interests of the state, the outcome of this situation demand a celebration or a condemnation. We must chose sides and hold ground in such situations.

Unfortunately the Kingdom is the only thing not being advanced since Governor Bryant signed the Act. Instead we hear of Baptists crowing about “victory” as though anything was won or lost. Just like the politicians who have used Senate Bill 2681 as a prop in their campaigns to prove how conservative they are, the Baptists of our state are in great numbers claiming victory of some sort for truth or Jesus or something. A great many sermons will undoubtedly be preached on the great Kingdom win that the Act represents. Future campaigns to pass socially conservative legislation will remember this Bill as a victory and will use its success as momentum.

There is nothing to cheer about or mourn in the Act as it was signed, though. It is an empty statement that does not open the door to discrimination any more than the Federal law which it echoes. Any crowing or bemoaning at this point is purely political maneuvering.

In all of that, though, considering that the actual Act as signed into law is as harmless as Clinton’s 1993 Act, it seems that it’s all just politics; good-old Mississippi Baptist politics.

---

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21B

[2] http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2014/pdf/SB/2600-2699/SB2681SG.pdf

[3] http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2014/pdf/SB/2600-2699/SB2681IN.pdf

[4] http://www.abpnews.com/culture/social-issues/item/28425-miss-baptist-methodist-pastors-oppose-discrimination-based-on-religious-freedom

[5] http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/02/us-usa-mississippi-religion-idUSBREA311ZZ20140402

[6] http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/02/mississippi_passes_anti_gay_segregation_bill_will_it_be_struck_down.html

On the Baptist Church Committee System

I enjoy college football very much. I will watch any college football game on any day and often lose entire Saturdays to random games with inconsequential outcomes.[1] As all college football fans are aware, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) system that is currently used to “determine” the national champion is being replaced with a 4-team playoff. The selection of these four teams will be up to a 13-member committee.

One storyline coming out of the transition from the BCS to the playoff system has been the inclusion of Dr. Condoleezza Rice as one of the committee members. Some sports commentators have criticized Rice’s inclusion on such an important committee, claiming that Dr. Rice has no experience in the game of football and therefore shouldn’t be allowed to make judgments about which four teams are the best.[2] Rice responded to the criticism by saying that she is a “student of the game.”[3]

This committee is important to me as a college football fan. Rice’s inclusion will certainly influence the outcome of the college football season. Should a non-player be included? Should a woman be included? Many of the opinions on this issue have revealed sexist perspectives or, at the very least, the notion that a person cannot make informed decisions about something like college football without having actually played college football.

 The discussion of Rice’s inclusion in the committee got me thinking about the importance of committees in Baptist congregations and the decisions we make regarding who should serve on certain committees in our fellowships. We annually place people on committees that manage ministries and the administration of the church, but what are we requiring of the people who serve on those committees?

I am fortunate to be involved in two congregations that have excellent committee structures. Northminster Baptist Church is a committee-led congregation in the strongest sense of the word; the ministerial staff is beholden to the committees of the church and the committees take their responsibilities seriously. Madison Chapel has a strong tradition of whole-church decision-making (because of its small size). The ability to come together as an entire congregation to prayerfully decide congregational action is impractical in larger churches, but for our small fellowship it is a wonder to behold.

I have worked with churches that had relatively impotent committees, non-meeting committees, and too many committees. In one case the congregation decided to make a rule that a person could only serve on one committee per year, which necessitated the reduction of the number of committees by half!

The committee structure of Baptist churches is often at odds with other powers in the congregation, especially the deacon body or the pastor. There are certainly faithful Baptist churches that are led by strong elder or deacon groups that function as a board of directors. Similarly there are Baptist churches that function well with authoritarian CEO-style pastors who determine many of the church’s decisions.[4] There is certainly Biblical precedent for many types of church organization, so let us not be too hasty to either condemn or condone one form over another.

For Baptists, church organization and polity is based upon the principle of the Priesthood of the Believer.[5] Since we assume that the gift of salvation is offered to all and that the Spirit of God is pored out on all people who believe on Jesus Christ for salvation, the Church must be the collection of those people gathered together in the name of Jesus Christ to do the work of God’s Kingdom in a specific place and time. The Church is, therefore, an exercise in democracy: with Christ as the head of the congregation and the members rendered equal by the outpouring of the Spirit we gather to make decisions as peers.

Direct democracy is cumbersome and slow, though, and often impractical. Baptists have adopted the practice of forming committees to deal with certain aspects of congregational life, ranging from bereavement and ministerial visitation to figuring out who should mow the lawn. These committees are formed out of the congregation and are beholden (usually) to that congregation rather than to the pastor or the deacons.

So who serves on our committees? In a perfect church I suppose the committees would be made up of the wisest, most mature, most committed members of the congregation. What I have found, though, is that in many cases the committees are filled with the first people who agreed to serve. Further, in smaller churches people are required to serve on multiple committees because of a simple lack of numbers.

A fellow pastor told me a story over lunch recently about one experience he had with a committee in his church.[6] A group in his congregation had been tasked with the formulation of a statement of faith that was more appropriate and relevant to the congregation than the one presently in the church’s Constitution. After weeks of non-discussion and no action to revise or create that statement, the pastor commented to the committee that they “just don’t care.” He was right. Even on an issue as fundamental as the development of a statement of faith so little enthusiasm was mustered that the issue died on the committee floor.

Our committee structure is a good thing. As Baptists emphasize the Priesthood of the Believer we quickly emphasize congregational church governance. The two go hand-in-hand. What is also necessary to emphasize, though, is the essential nature of Christian discipleship in the Priesthood of the Believer and therefore in our Baptist church polity.

A Baptist church committee can only function in so far as its members have set themselves to the difficult process of maturation in Christian faith and life. There is a direct correlation between the effectiveness (I dare say relevance) of a committee and its members’ relative spiritual maturity. Yes, we could make the church finance committee be nothing but expert accountants and financial managers. But unless these individuals have committed themselves to following the Lord in ever-increasing knowledge and development, they will miss the true nature of a church’s mission and therefore miss the point entirely of serving on a congregational committee.

If a congregation’s committees are weak or ineffective, perhaps we should emphasize discipleship and the clear call to progressive maturity in faith demonstrated in the Scriptures.[7] Only through the spiritual maturity of the constituent members of a committee can that body truly serve the good of Christ’s church.

Further, let us take seriously the selection of committee members in our congregations. If these committees are important, then the selection of their membership should be important.[8] Not everyone who has balanced a checkbook is spiritually prepared to serve on the finance committee, and likewise a person should not be excluded if they don’t have a degree in finance. Our spiritual maturity as disciples should be the guiding principle in our selection committee members rather than our ability to find volunteers.

Cooler heads have prevailed in the case of Dr. Rice serving on the college football selection committee. Although she has defended her inclusion based upon her knowledge of the game, such excuses are irrelevant. Dr. Rice should be included in the decision making process because she has proven her maturity in making important, difficult decisions. She has demonstrated an ability to evaluate the facts and to make informed choices without being distracted by the passion that I would certainly have were I on that committee.[9]

We must seek maturity in our committee members because it is those who have been discipled by the church the most who are best equipped to make decisions on behalf of that church.

---

[1] However, Sic ‘Em Bears!

[2] http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9830542/condoleezza-rice-officially-college-football-playoff-committee.

[3] http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20131016/condoleezza-rice-college-football-playoff/. See also http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/16/college-football-playoff-committee-includes-condol/

[4] The Baptist Faith and Message (2000) has been interpreted in ways that contribute to the Pastor-as-CEO model of church governance. There is no language in that document concerning a committee structure in a congregation; such language and direction is usually present in a congregation’s Constitution and By-Laws.

[5] See Leonard, Bill J., Baptist Ways. Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 2003.

[6] It was at McAllister’s, and was very tasty.

[7] For more on this progression of discipleship, see me recently posted work on Catechesis as Discipleship.

[8] An argument can be made that serving on a committee is an act of discipleship whereby less mature members can be compelled to grow through their service. This is certainly true, but for growth to occur there needs to be a critical mass of relatively mature members on the committee to disciple the less mature members throughout the year.

[9] Again, Sic ‘Em Bears!