Divine Plan

I have always found it personally irritating and professionally troubling that persons in the church seem to be so enamored with the notion that all things happen as a part of God's divine plan for each of us. Facebook is filled with daily posts that decry the troubling aspects of life as some passing occurrence, as "God's will." If we believe in and trust God, the posts seem to suggest, then we will tolerate the turmoil and chaos of life as part of that plan. If bad things happen...God's plan. If good things happen...God's plan. People of faith have only to live out their lives as part of God's plan.

 

Now, I have read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Faith. I find the concepts challenging and internally cohesive, yet flawed by the notion of a personal God, like a human. This deity "decides" who is cursed and blessed, who is fated for eternal salvation and who is doomed. The Reformed Church movement still holds to some of these basic notions, but I find the idea of a God who arbitrarily decides the fate of human salvation troubling at best.

 

Firstly, believing that salvation is fated limits the possibility of God's Holy Spirit being at work in each and every one of us. Secondly, the concept allows persons who are fortunate to believe that their advantages are of divine origin. The corollary, of course, is that those who are unfortunate also find themselves suffering at God's will. It is God's will, therefore, that some suffer while others take advantage. In the system that upholds a divine plan as the course of human events, the fortunate should be fortunate, by divine will,  and the unfortunate should be left unfortunate. Human beings should morally do nothing about the situation because "it is God's will." Moreover, human beings can do nothing about configurations of what might be construed as God's will because God is more powerful than humans.

 

I am aware that most who simply post Facebook phrases and pictures do not tend to think through the extended theological ramifications of a "divine plan." I am just concerned that it seems to large a part of our cultural and theological mantra. The mantra can be especially troubling when it is meant as comfort. I have heard it twice recently. The first occasion was the death of a person that I know in the community. A person passed at the visitation that preceded the memorial service. A well-intentioned person said, "I know it's hard, name-of-person, but it is all part of God's plan. You will see your husband again." The other was an on-line discussion of social equality. The person with whom I was discussing the need for social justice had just called me a "socialist," and added, "Did you ever think that the way things are is part of God's plan?"

 

Ummmm, no, I certainly have not. Nor will I. Ever.

 

So, what do you think? Is there a "divine plan," and does it mean that human will is negligible at best and meaningless in reality? 

Emergent Church Movement

On Sunday, I was handed a news release entitled, "Emergent church movement comes to Sandpoint." The article was written by David Gunter, who is a feature correspondent for the Bonner County Daily.

 

The article is announcement of a new church start, I suppose in Sandpoint, located somewhere in Bonner County. It compares the present situation of the Church of Jesus Christ with that of the Great Reformation and even the human history of Jesus. Quoting the new start Pastor, Bob Evans, the article suggests that the Catholic Church at the time of Martin Luther failed to appreciate the radical actions and demands of the movement that resulted from Luther's theological disagreement with the Church. In the same vein, the Temple and synagogue at the time of Jesus failed to embrace his challenge to their traditional faith practices.

 

Evan's argument is that the Church today resides amid the chaos of such change. Like the 500 year cycle of seismic shifts that are suggested in Phyllis Tickle's "The Great Emergence," today's cultural changes demand that the Church of Jesus Christ change radically. If the Church is to survive, if it is to remain relevant to and within the newly developing culture, that Church will need to recapture a form of faith that precedes Pauline Christianity. That is, we need to recover the faith formation and spirituality of the "Historical Jesus." 

 

There is nothing new here for those who have been striving for decades to understand the cultural changes that necessitate spiritual evolution. Shiloh Church has been laboring for years to become the "Emergent Church" in a traditional setting. The questions raised by the article are important, but perhaps for a much different reason that the author or the Pastor intended.

 

The question is not whether or not a new church start can be the Emergent Church. The question is whether existing congregations, some traditional and historical, can change to become the Emergent Church. Is it possible for existing congregations to retool, both theologically and practically, to represent the faith and spirituality of Jesus? Is it necessary for existing congregations to go out of existence and new church starts to replace them? Can the Church be reformed?

 

The evidence remains mixed, even at Shiloh. Can the congregation represent emergent thinking and theology? Can it free itself enough from trappings of traditional and historical Christianity that it becomes relevant once again in a newly developing culture? Can a church population, traditionally and historically trained, change its thinking and behavior, or will everyone leave? 

 

Shiloh is, in many ways, a test case for the Emerging Church movement. Our time, talent, prayers and effort have, for more than a decade now, been dedicated to developing an emergent theology and practice from the traditional and historical foundations of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Shiloh relies upon the dedication, vision and focus of its members and friends to direct us toward cultural and social relevancy. We wish Sandpoint the very best in its new church start. We will pray for them. Perhaps they are the future of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

See You Sunday! 

Culture Shock

I have been invited to speak at quite a few events recently, some in the wider church realm and some in the educational community. Most of the invitations have come with the plea to speak on how changes in the culture are leading to changes in the Church of Jesus Christ. I have written on these issues fairly widely here in The Shiloh Insider. I encourage readers to look back through the posts to attain a clearer vision of just how culture is leading the way in a universal church spiritual evolution.

 

It is something of a surprise, then, when I speak before an audience of persons who have seemingly never heard of such cultural influence on the Church. For many, the news of a changing culture directly impacting the direction of the Church catches them like deer in headlights. The news is met with icy stares. Heads shake. Tongues wag. "How dare he say such things?"

 

The first series of books on the subject of a changing culture shaping the future of the Church, at least within my experience, were published by The Alban Institute in the mid-1990's. Almost twenty years have passed since "Congregational Megatrends" was published. Of course, the initial writing took place almost thirty years after the advent of cultural transition. By the time we reach Thomas Friedman,'s "The World is Flat," in 2005, cultural transitions had taken full hold on the future formation of the church universal.

 

This is not news to those in and around Shiloh Church. We are fully aware that the digital age has brought new means of communication and information sharing that have rendered the old-world religious institutions irrelevant and counter-intuitive. Increased individualism and a distinctly anti-institutional attitude have led persons to opt for spirituality instead of organized religion. While the numbers of those who consider themselves "spiritual" has held fairly constant, the number of those who belong to any religious institution has diminished by more than half.

 

It is shocking that people in churches and the academy seem unwilling to notice. They certainly seem unwilling to change. This next step in the spiritual evolution of religion necessitates that the church become a training ground for the spiritually equipped. The Church must begin to understand itself as a means of the salvation of the global family of God, not so much by coming out from the world but by investing in its systems. If we fail, we die. If we refuse, we cease to exist. If we do not know, our ignorance brings the Church to the brink of extinction.

 

This week's contribution to The Shiloh Insider is therefore a call to my colleagues, to middle judicatory personnel, to denominational representatives, to church members and all who have a stake in the future of religious institutions of any kind, be emboldened in declaring the next phase of our spiritual evolution. Embrace it fully. Then, plan with us to alter the religious institutions of our age. If we do not, out fate is already written. If we succeed in changing the religious institutions to be more about the developing spirituality of persons in and around the Church, then we have at least a chance of survival.

 

See You Sunday!

Installation

A friend and colleague invited me to preach at his installation service this past weekend. On Friday, Lisa, my wife, and I traveled to Evansville, Indiana, where we had served a congregation before coming to Dayton, Ohio in 2000. On Saturday, I had some discussion with some of the church staff members and leaders. On Sunday, I delivered the message at my friend's installation.

 

Several things arise from the experience. As a rule, I do not attend installation services. I find the liturgy pedantic and tedious. I find the robing of clergy an arrogant example of what is wrong with trying to help laypersons embrace their own empowerment, when there is clearly a division for those who are "called to ministry." As a rule, I find the entire process a painful reminder of precisely that which younger generations find to be stuffy and repugnant about church life.

 

I do not know if others feel this way, but lack of clergy support and low attendance at this past weekend's installation service seem to indicate that there is something here that is not functioning. There were very few clergy colleagues in attendance. There was little wider church support, outside of those who had an official role in the ceremonies. Clergy robed...or most of them did. Despite the fact that they were "set apart," there was scant involvement.

 

The congregation was only partially in attendance. Clearly, this was not a pivotal event in the life of the congregation. Despite the fact that it was the installation of the congregation's newly called Pastor, people from the congregation were simply not present. One might assume that such a pivotal event in the life of the church might be marked with wide involvement of those for whom the installation is taking place. Scant support from clergy colleagues and low congregational attendance indicate that there is something lacking in the process of installing UCC Pastors.

 

The service was a good one. Several people provided excellent charges. The music was plentiful and well thought out as part of the service. The Installed Pastor provided a very warm and engaging benediction. There was just no energy. There was no excitement. Persons under the age of 40 would have been bored and easily distracted. I imagine persons in any but the present age category, which may have averaged somewhere in the 60's or 70's, noting to not again attend a service of installation.

 

How can we breathe some excitement into the process of clergy installation? How can we make it less about the establishment and maintenance of a "clergy class" and more about the congregational calling and empowerment? How can we draw congregation members and clergy colleagues to be present, even if they are not directly involved?

 

These issues are, I think, rather important in how the church understands what it is doing, how it sees itself, and how it embodies the ministry and mission of Jesus Christ. It will certainly cause me to rethink installation services, and how they might be occasions for congregational joy and celebration.

 

What do you think?