Swimming against a Tide: Doctrine (part two)

14935553941_fa241953d9_z

Swimming against a Tide
Ways I’ve changed in my evangelical faith
Doctrine, part two: What doctrine can’t do

This week I want to push back against some articles written by others — not because I have a chip on my shoulder or animus toward any particular writers, but simply to try and express some of the ways I have changed paths in my own journey of faith.

• • •

The danger in all reading is that words can be twisted into propaganda or reduced to information, mere tools and data. We silence the living voice and reduce words to what we can use for convenience and profit.

• Eugene Peterson
Eat This Book

Today we continue to respond to Tim Challies’ recent blog post, “6 Great Reasons to Study Doctrine.”

As I said yesterday, this article reflects an approach with which I am familiar; indeed, one which I used regularly in earlier stages of my journey. But I’ve altered my course, and I’d like to push back against this post as a way of telling you how I’ve done that.

The six “great reasons” to study doctrine, which he urges us to consider are:

  1. Doctrine leads to love
  2. Doctrine leads to humility
  3. Doctrine leads to obedience
  4. Doctrine leads to unity
  5. Doctrine leads to worship
  6. Doctrine leads to safety

I think there is a fallacy here that undermines all six of these points. That fallacy is that more knowledge, more Bible knowledge, more theological knowledge, more knowledge about God inevitably leads to an increase in virtue.

The fact is that more knowledge may and can help in that process, but only if it is accompanied by other things. The practical reality is that it is easier to pass along a “body of knowledge” than it is those “other things,” and so the church has tended to focus on knowledge dispensing as a primary component of its ministry, thinking that this will lead to transformed lives.

However, could it be more self-evident that this kind of knowledge in and of itself is not sufficient? — “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Corinthians 8:1).

In fact, the stereotype of the unloving, proud, hypocritical, schismatic, idolatrous and insecure religious person (the very opposite of Challies’ doctrine-studying Christian) who knows much but practices little is so pervasive that, in my view, it takes a lot of courage for Tim Challies to write in such glowing terms about the unique value of studying doctrine. I won’t speak for him, but when I was teaching this way, I can only imagine that it was because I was so caught up in my own little religious world that I couldn’t see the facts about life as it is actually lived.

To his credit, he does insert a few caveats along the way, such as:

  • “. . . the study of doctrine cannot be the pursuit of dry facts, but facts that lead to living knowledge of God and growing love for God.”
  • “Again, theology is not a cold pursuit of facts, but a red-hot pursuit of the living God, and it works itself out all over life.”

But I am not convinced, having known as an evangelical Christian and pastor for many years the way this tends to work out in real life. On the ground, where the rubber meets the road, this translates into a fallacious approach that, if applied to other vocations, would be laughed at. No one, for example, learns to be a skilled musician by studying music in this way.

Knowing and appreciating and even loving Bach do not translate into being able to play Bach.

The problem with the “study doctrine” approach is that it does not go far enough. It substitutes the shell for the kernel. “Change your mind, and that will change your life” rarely works. Christianity is not about developing the right ideas, it is about being raised from the dead into new life.

The virtues Challies commends as growing out of deeper study actually spring organically out of being alive in Christ and develop as we grow from baby steps to maturity, as the Holy Spirit leads us through the experiences of life, especially the things that we suffer.

As Richard Rohr puts it, “We do not think ourselves into a new way of living, but we live ourselves into a new way of thinking.”

Let’s look at just one of the items on Tim Challies’ list. With regard to love, Challies writes, Your love for God is limited by your knowledge of him, so that you can really only love him as far as you know him. As the depth of your knowledge grows, so too does the depth of your love. This is why the study of doctrine cannot be the pursuit of dry facts, but facts that lead to living knowledge of God and growing love for God.”

Once again, the first problem with this is equating “knowing God” with the “study of doctrine.” When, in any kind of personal knowing, does pursuing facts about a person lead to a living knowledge of that person? We don’t know other persons by studying them. We know them by dealing with them personally. Whatever “facts” we learn don’t come from a book but from our personal interactions.

Tim Challies’ approach ignores an important lesson Jesus taught, recorded in Luke 7:36-50.

A Pharisee invited Jesus to dinner. The dinner was interrupted by a sinful woman, who burst in without shame or concern for propriety and anointed Jesus’ feet from an alabaster jar, bathing them with her tears and kissing them. The knowledgeable, religious, respectable Pharisee was appalled and objected. But Jesus said this to him, contrasting his righteous, well informed host with the unknowledgeable woman: “For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.”

Challies assumes that “knowledge of God” comes through doctrine, through learning a “body of knowledge,” from retaining certain facts about God that somehow get internalized and transformed into love. But consider this woman. She did not show great love because she learned certain facts about Jesus and meditated on that knowledge until it somehow got translated into her loving actions. Not at all. Whatever knowledge she had grew out of personal dealings with Jesus that set her free from sin and raised her up into new life. Love wasn’t knowledge she applied. It exploded from her. It couldn’t be contained.

New life begets love. Not more knowledge, even knowledge of God.

We usually don’t “learn our way into loving.” Studying doctrine can certainly be intellectually stimulating and it can teach us some things about God’s character and what may or may not be the right thing to do. It may lead us to invite Jesus to dinner so that we can consider these matters with him. And don’t we all look forward to such stimulating religious conversations?

We might even decide his word is true and good and try to do the right thing and so honor the God we’ve learned about.

But studying doctrine won’t wake me from the dead, make me abandon my pride, sacrifice my precious ointment, and fall down at Jesus’ feet in a hot mess of loving tears and outrageous abandon.

Go ahead, study the book. Only engaging the living Word personally can tear me apart like that.

Swimming against a Tide: Doctrine (part one)

14751705680_613ed16bbf_z

Swimming against a Tide
Ways I’ve changed in my evangelical faith
Doctrine, part one: Definitions

This week I want to push back against some articles written by others — not because I have a chip on my shoulder or animus toward any particular writers, but simply to try and express some of the ways I have changed paths in my own journey of faith.

• • •

Writing about the Christian life . . . is like trying to paint a picture of a bird in flight. The very nature of a subject in which everything is always in motion and the context is constantly changing — rhythm of wings, sun-tinted feathers, drift of clouds (and much more) — precludes precision. Which is why definitions and explanations for the most part miss the very thing that we are interested in. Stories and metaphors, poetry and prayer, and leisurely conversation are much more congenial to the subject, a conversation that necessarily also includes the Other.

• Eugene Peterson
Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places

We start this week with my response to a post by Tim Challies, called “6 Great Reasons to Study Doctrine.”

Tim’s post reflects a way I used to think and a method by which I tried to communicate the faith. Though it was perhaps helpful in some early stages of my journey (in fact, I’m sure it was), I don’t find it helpful or encouraging to my faith anymore, nor do I think it comes close to expressing the richness, especially the imaginative bountifulness of the Christian life.

Of course, Challies’ piece is just a blog post! And we all have to use shorthand sometimes. But the shorthand I used to use and the shorthand I now aspire to use are quite different.

As Eugene Peterson wisely says, “My concern is that we use God’s gift of language in consonance with the God who speaks.” He urges us to follow Emily Dickinson’s dictum: “Tell the truth, but tell it slant.” Like the Challies article I’m critiquing today, I used to tell it straight. I favored the clear, wide paths that enabled me, or so I thought, to make a beeline for the truth. I’ve come to treasure a more meandering way. It’s more like the Bible. It’s more like Jesus. It’s more like actual life.

Let’s start with definitions

Challies says, “Doctrine is simply the teaching of God or the teaching about God—the body of knowledge that he reveals to us through the Bible.”

This is the foundation of sand that many Christians build upon. They believe that the Bible reveals to us a “body of knowledge.” This body of knowledge can be analyzed, categorized, and systematized into neat “doctrinal statements” in brief and “systematic theologies” in longer form. I used to embrace that approach, but now I have come to think that it subjects the Bible to the modernist project and does not deal appropriately with the Bible we actually have in our hands. There is a reason the Jewish faith has no “systematic theologies.” Their sacred book — the Hebrew Bible, our Old Testament — doesn’t lend itself to that! Perhaps the New Testament, with its missional participation in Greco-Roman culture might appear to be more amenable to developing a body of “propositional truths,” but the fact remains that the New Testament is a collection of books that also resists such formulations.

This is not to say that we can’t say true things about God based on scripture. But we do so without the kind of precision or certainty that the “doctrine” approach promises. When we talk about the Bible, we are not talking about a “body of knowledge,” but rather a Story that is worked out in messy and mysterious ways. We are talking about a book containing a wide variety of types of literature, put together to give “wisdom,” which is not mathematics; indeed it is the very opposite of formulaic. We are talking about a canon that is designed to promote faith, hope, and love, not precise definitions of God. We are talking about an epic drama that leads, by way of many meandering paths, to the Story of its Hero, Jesus the Messiah of Israel and Lord of all creation.

We do not have a “body of knowledge” that enables us to know God. We have Jesus.

“No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known” (John 1:18).

Jesus did not make God known by giving his disciples a “body of knowledge” from which they could formulate doctrines. He did it partly by teaching, yes, but that teaching was the farthest thing from academic.

  • It was not “doctrinal,” but incorporated fully into daily life, experience, ministry — more like apprenticeship than classroom, more like field training than book study.
  • It was told “slant” — in ways that prompted curiosity, imagination, questions, even befuddlement and resistance in those who were privileged to receive it, not in easy to learn propositional summaries.
  • It was relational, the kind of “knowing” that is shared between persons, which cannot ever be systematized, despite our many efforts to produce “how to” books about such bonds as marriage, parenting, or friendship.

The Christian faith is simply not primarily a matter of doctrine — ideas, concepts, “truths.” It is about how God came to save us so that he might dwell in our midst forever.

Sundays with Michael Spencer: October 11, 2015

15564655215_aa9fbc3ed9_z

A debate is going on several places on the blogosphere around this question: “Are the doctrinally obsessed missing the heart of Jesus?”

My answer is a simply “yes,” and the reason is one word: obsessed.

You said it. Not me.

Obsessed isn’t doctrinally interested, doctrinally aware or doctrinally correct. Doctrinally obsessed isn’t someone who makes doctrine a priority or who even brings it up frequently. Obsession is….obsession. Single-mindedness. Idolatry. Loss of perspective.

I’m obsessed with vanilla oreos.

When we are two weeks into February, I’m obsessed with “pitchers and catchers report.”

I’m close to obsessed with a new Apple laptop.

I’m obsessed with my family’s safety.

If I were obsessed with doctrine, I would be perverting my experience of the heart of Jesus, because obsession with doctrine is against the teaching and example of Jesus himself. Love God with all your heart, etc. Don’t be obsessed with the outlines and definitions. Let them do their good work. See the Pharisees for more information and I Corinthians 13 for a good picture of what we’re going for.

Doctrine rightly placed and rightly valued clarifies and carries the Gospel of Jesus. It centers it and gives it language. Obsession with doctrine equates Jesus with a right view of justification.

If we don’t know the difference, our Christianity will become debate points and our discipleship nothing but promoting and publishing our favorite ideas.

Saturday Ramblings: October 10, 2015

1960 AMC Rambler Super 4-door Sedan
1960 AMC Rambler Super 4-door Sedan

Your Head Rambler is feeling a bit down this morning after the Cubs’ loss to the Cardinals last night, but I’m not going to let it keep me down. I prescribe . . . rambling!

So let’s get to it, okay?

john_kasich_ap_328

Ramblers-Logo36

Ooh, this should get the action going . . .

According to an article in the Christian Post, John Kasich wants to buy you a new Bible. That is, if you oppose the expansion of Medicaid in the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”). Kasich bases his support for expanding healthcare to the poor on his Christian faith. And if you don’t agree, he wants you to read the source where he says he got his position.

Kasich said that Medicaid expansion is a perfect example of politicians not leading in Washington and around the country and noted that he has been yelled at for supporting the measure, which is part of the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare.”

“Look at Medicaid expansion, you know how many people are yelling at me?” Kasich asked. “You know what I tell them, God bless them … there’s a book it’s got a new part and an old part, it’s a remarkable book.”

“If you don’t have one, I’ll buy you one, and it talks about how we treat the poor,” Kasich declared.

But one conservative blogger disagrees vehemently:

A post authored by Leon H. Wolf at the conservative blog Red State heavily criticized Kasich’s remarks Tuesday, going so far as to call the presidential candidate “a walking, talking joke.”

“Since John Kasich knows so much about the Bible, maybe he can point to the passage that says that being a Christian means that you should support the government forcibly confiscating the tax money of other people to help the poor,” wrote Wolf.

Oh, you mean like all those passages commanding the Israelites to pay their tithes (which were the taxes in their theocratic nation), leave the corners of their fields so that the poor could glean from them (cutting into their productivity and profits), and absolving all debts at various times, such as Jubilee? Sounds like, in at least one government in this world, God did want them to “forcibly confiscate the tax money of other people to help the poor.”

But that’s just how I read it. How about you?

Continue reading “Saturday Ramblings: October 10, 2015”

We all need a little “crazy” time

Sometimes you just gotta do something a little bit crazy.

FB Post

Gail is away on a retreat this week, giving me a little freedom to do some different things, and I’ve been feeling “blah” for as long as I remember. I thought it was time to get out of the doldrums by doing something to wake myself up. So I decided to drive to Pittsburgh to see the Cubs vs. the Pirates game.

This would be the first game of the playoffs, a one-game match to decide which team gets to play in the National League Divisional Series against the St. Louis Cardinals. So I left work and departed Indy about 12:15 pm, drove to Pittsburgh, watched the game, and drove back, arriving home at 5:00 am Thursday.

What a blast!

First of all, the drive time gave me a chance to decompress.

Second, Pittsburgh has a beautiful downtown lakefront area, and I got a chance to walk and enjoy the spectacular views.

Third, playoff baseball. Intense, especially when you are one of about 1000 Cubs fans in the midst of 40,000 Pirates fans!

Fourth, fantastic game. Cubs pitcher Jake Arrieta has set an all-time record for the best pitching performance in a season after the All Star Game. He has not allowed a run now in his last 31 innings (3 1/2 games). He shut the evil Bucs out. Kyle Schwarber, who played locally for Indiana University, hit the longest home run I’ve ever seen in competition. He hit the ball in the dang river, folks! It was breathtaking. When you add great plays in the field, a little drama with hit batsmen, and the excitement of watching the Cubs in a meaningful playoff game, well it all made this one a memorable contest.

Fifth, cell phones, social media and texting made this even more fun, as I did FaceTime calls before the game to show my grandkids where I was, and had “conversations” with family and friends throughout the game about what I was experiencing, complete with pictures and commentary.

Sixth, Cubs win! They beat the Pirates 4-0 and advance to the NLDS on Friday night to begin a best-of-5 series against the Cardinals.

Seventh, on to St. Louis? Maybe, if I’m feeling crazy enough. At least that’s a shorter drive.

Eighth, what’s this all about?

Seriously folks, this is not just about me being a crazy Cubs fan. Sometimes you have to break outside the box, jump start the old vitality, do something that will get your blood and childlike juices flowing again.

We wrote recently about “the joy of humans at play.”

I usually tend to think that play is optional, something you do when and if you get your work done. Kind of like dessert after eating your veggies. But I’m realizing that if I don’t incorporate some playfulness into my life regularly, I get sick and die — in my spirit, that is. Play is veggies, that’s how good it is for you.

And the angel said to Mike, “Don’t take yourself so damn seriously. Do something crazy once in awhile.”

I’m pretty sure that’s how the original Hebrew reads.

Open Forum: What are iMonks reading?

346

Note from CM: We are devoting this week to reviewing some recent books that have caught my interest and attention. Today will be an Open Forum day for you to share what you have been reading.

????

What have you been reading lately?

What has caught your interest and attention that you would like to share with the Internet Monk community and recommend to others?

Here’s what I’d like you to do:

  • Give us the name of the book, the author, and the publisher and date.
  • Give us a paragraph giving an overview of the book.
  • Give us another paragraph telling us why you found this book interesting.
  • Rinse and repeat if you want in another comment about another book.

Of course, all are free to respond to the book posts with comments.

Searching for Sunday: We make the way by walking

026

Note from CM: We are devoting this week to reviewing some recent books that have caught my interest and attention. Thursday will be an Open Forum day for you to share what you have been reading.

????

IM Book Week
Book Three: Searching for Sunday: Loving, Leaving, and Finding the Church, by Rachel Held Evans
We make the way by walking

• • •

It has become cliché to talk about faith as a journey, and yet the metaphor holds. Scripture doesn’t speak of people who found God. Scripture speaks of people who walked with God. This is a keep-moving, one-foot-in-front-of-the-other, who-knows-what’s-next deal, and you never exactly arrive.

• Rachel Held Evans

Rachel Held Evans has written a classic post-evangelical wilderness tale. It is a bit different from my story, or Michael Spencer’s, or from others of our generation. That’s because we built and operated the church she left.

She is our children — a megachurch millennial, a church growth child, a culture war kid. Whereas our evangelical/fundamentalist journey may have started in a mainline Protestant church or in a traditional Southern Baptist or Independent Baptist hymn-singing congregation, or perhaps in a Scofield Bible-toting group of doctrine lovers, Evans grew up when church had become cool, when evangelicals had gained a measure of power and public exposure. Her generation was taught to have a Christian worldview, to pray at the pole, vote Republican, acquire the fire, go on the annual mission trip, and worship with uplifted hands before praise band populated stages.

Rachel emerged from the program church, the church with more access to information, technology, and affluence than any in history. Yet the evangelical church world in which she grew up, though it became bigger and more prosperous, hipper and more slickly marketed, became the church many of our children decided they don’t want anymore.

I can’t provide the solutions church leaders are looking for, but I can articulate the questions that many in my generation are asking. I can translate some of their angst, some of their hope.

At least that’s what I tried to do when I was recently asked to explain to three thousand evangelical youth workers gathered together for a conference in Nashville, Tennessee, why millennials like me are leaving the church.

I told them we’re tired of the culture wars, tired of Christianity getting entangled with party politics and power. Millennials want to be know by what we’re for, I said, not just what we’re against. We don’t want to choose between science and religion or between our intellectual integrity and our faith. Instead, we long for our churches to be safe places to doubt, to ask questions, and to tell the truth, even when it’s uncomfortable. We want to talk about the tough stuff — biblical interpretation, religious pluralism, sexuality, racial reconciliation, and social justice — but without predetermined conclusions or simplistic answers. We want to bring our whole selves through the church doors, without leaving our hearts and minds behind, without wearing a mask.

I explained that when our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender friends aren’t welcome at the table, then we don’t feel welcome either, and that not every young adult gets married or has children, so we need to stop building our churches around categories and start building them around people. And I told them that, contrary to popular belief, we can’t be won back with hipper worship bands, fancy coffee shops, or pastors who wear skinny jeans. We millennials have been advertised to our entire lives, so we can smell b.s. from a mile away. The church is the last place we want to be sold another product, the last place we want to be entertained.

Millennials aren’t looking for a hipper Christianity, I said. We’re looking for a truer Christianity, a more authentic Christianity. Like every generation before ours and every generation after, we’re looking for Jesus — the same Jesus who can be found in the strange places he’s always been found: in bread, in wine, in baptism, in the Word, in suffering, in community, and among the least of these.

No coffee shops or fog machines required. (p. xiiif)

This book is about the ongoing search for that kind of faith and faith community, and not about finding the destination. Rachel Held Evans tells us plainly that she is still in the “adolescence” of her faith and that she is one of those who is still “hanging on by her fingernails,” not one who is holding up a sign and pointing the way to a clear “answer.” It’s about living in that time of day when we sense the possibility of dawn, though the light has not broken through yet. Though many of us are preparing spices to take to the church’s tomb, we are hopeful of a resurrection story to come.

Searching for Sunday is organized according to the seven sacraments: baptism, confession, holy orders, communion, confirmation, anointing of the sick, and marriage. Each sacrament forms an imaginative “world” in which she can talk about various parts of her journey in the church, leaving the church, and finding the church again. Like many of us who have ventured out of the church and into the wilderness, Evans has found in the sacraments that God is not absent from the ordinary. Indeed, “Christ plays in ten thousand places” (Hopkins).

The One we formerly thought confined to doctrine and Bible study guides and being “right” actually comes to people more indirectly, through the common “stuff” of life. She quotes Barbara Brown Taylor with approval: “In an age of information overload . . . the last thing any of us needs is more information about God. We need the practice of incarnation, by which God saves the lives of those whose intellectual assent has turned them dry as dust, who have run frighteningly low on the bread of life, who are dying to know more God in in their bodies. Not more about God. More God.”

The Holy One will not be confined to temples made with human hands — or doctrinal statements or church programs. By meditating on her journey through the lens of the sacraments, she finds wonderful ways of weaving meditations upon the simple things of earth — water, oil, bread, wine, wind — with biblical stories, tales from church history, experiences she has had among various Christian groups, and personal reflections on the journey she is taking.

That journey takes us from the church of her upbringing to various small groups of supportive friends and fellow seekers to readers on her blog to those she has met on her various travels and speaking trips. She, like many, became part of a new “church plant,” hoping to create an authentic Jesus-shaped community. She visits a Benedictine monastery. At times she returns to her evangelical roots and there are many Sunday mornings she pulls the covers back over her head.

In the end, it seems she’s found a place in an Episcopal congregation where the focus is on the story (as embodied in the creed) and the sacraments. At a confirmation service she attended Evans experienced a moment of resolution.

In the silence that followed, it was as if all the amorphous vagaries of my faith coalesced into a single, tangible call: Repent. Break bread. Seek justice. Love neighbor. Christianity seemed at once the simplest and most impossible thing in the world. It seemed to me confirmed, sealed as the story of my life — that thing I’ll never shake, that thing that I’ll always be. (p. 194)

However, she recognizes that this was only a moment on the way, a way that will go on.

Mine is a stubborn and recalcitrant faith. It’s all elbows and motion and kicked-up dust, like cartoon characters locked in a cloudy brawl. I’m still early in my journey, but I suspect it will go on like this for a while, perhaps until my last breath. The Episcopal Church is no less plagued by troubles than deny other, but for now, it has given me the room to wrestle and it has reminded what I’m wrestling for. And so, with God’s help, I keep showing up. (p. 194)

To be continued.

Like a pastor she quotes, Rachel Held Evans has learned at least this key bit of wilderness wisdom: this faith-church thing is a journey, the way is not always clear and is marked by fits and starts, and we make the way by walking.

“What you promise when you are confirmed,” the pastor told his doubting daughter, “is not that you will believe this forever. What you promise when you are confirmed is that this is the story you will wrestle with forever.”

• • •

Searching for Sunday: Loving, Leaving, and Finding the Church
Rachel Held Evans
Nelson Books
2015

Everlasting Is the Past: A pastor’s preparation and first church family

275

Note from CM: We are devoting this week to reviewing some recent books that have caught my interest and attention. Thursday will be an Open Forum day for you to share what you have been reading.

????

IM Book Week
Book Two: Everlasting Is the Past, by Walter Wangerin, Jr.
A pastor’s preparation and first church family

• • •

My past is so heavily present that I can scarcely bear it. But I am my past.

• Walter Wangerin, Jr.

I can testify that there is a special place in a minister’s heart for one’s first church. God bless those first call churches, who pastor us and teach us to take our first baby steps in pastoring! In my case it was a Baptist congregation tucked in the mountains of southern Vermont in a village of two hundred people. White clapboards, ringing bell, one-room schoolhouse attached to the back end for classroom space. Our parsonage stood across the road, a plain two-story white house with no heat upstairs to keep us warm in the Vermont winters and a dug cellar for the furnace that flooded each spring when the brook out back swelled with melting snow and rainfall. I walked the hills and gravel roads of that village to visit folks, walked to the post office each day to get our mail. I preached from the Bible, sang in my wife’s choir, made more than my share of youthful mistakes, doubted my calling constantly, and made lifelong friends.

Walter Wangerin, one of my generation’s best writers, tells his story in Everlasting Is the Past, a memoir of personal and pastoral formation. Winner of the National Book Award for his novel, The Book of the Dun Cow, Wangerin wanted to be a writer from the time he was a schoolboy. Son of several generations of Lutheran pastors and seemingly destined to follow in their footsteps, his college years were marked by depression and loss of faith. Walt was raised in a devout home and memorized his catechism diligently as an adolescent, but, as many of us do, began to question the vitality of his faith in his later teens.

Was this my own true faith? My own fearing and loving and trusting in the Almighty Father? Not really. It was the faith, that which I could deliver word for word. A static thing. I had learned about the commandments and the creed of the Church. I believed they were true — as I believed the stars are true. But I did not cling to this creed. Rather, I wore it like a badge. My father’s son on his way to fulfilling my father’s dreams.

…Finally, it was in the snows of Oxford, Ohio, when all the trappings and the external forms of faith no longer acted as the shape that shaped my soul, that I learned that to believe in something — as opposed to believing something about something — was not my truth after all. Not the truth of a personal trust. (p. 17f)

These years of studying and training to become a teacher were marked by loneliness and depression, homesickness, frustrations at trying to write poetry, indecision with regard to his educational path and personal identity, and many, many questions about God. Wangerin writes about these personally tumultuous days with a gentle honesty, weaving formative episodes from his childhood through the story of his young adult wilderness wanderings.

Near the end of this section he recalls a time reading the Bible that was of particular help to him on his journey. It was the story of the man born blind, healed by Jesus in John, chapter nine. He observed that the story gradually strips away all the connections that give the blind man identity until he is nothing. But he is free because Jesus healed him. Wangerin realized that he too had come to a place of nothingness.

But Jesus meets the man born blind (which means that he who lived in darkness is given light again. Jesus names himself, and the man falls down and worships him.

By this act alone is established a relationship between him and the Son of God. Christ raises him up with a fresh and everlasting identity. He is, as it were, born again.

That is what I prayed for. To be free. To be one sheep of the shepherd. to give over what tatters I had left to Christ. (p. 53f).

In the next part of his life, Walter Wangerin married, served as an assistant pastor in Lutheran congregation, and went through a process of determining that he was called to ministry. These were years of turmoil and schism in the Lutheran church, when conservative leaders at Concordia Seminary ousted those they considered too liberal, even heretical. Those who left founded Seminex (Concordia Seminary in Exile), and Wangerin got his degree from there and was ordained in the newly formed Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches. This caused problems for many young ministers as they sought placement in churches that were also in turmoil.

But he eventually found his first call congregation: an inner city black church called Grace Lutheran in Evansville, Indiana. They’d had white pastors before, and the children the Wangerins had adopted were African-American, but Walter’s early experiences there still forced him to confront the racism in his own heart and to deal with many cultural divides that both he and the church members had to bridge. He also learned, over the course of his ministry, that his own loss of faith in youth and the “resurrection” he experienced in Christ enabled him to sympathize with his congregation’s struggles.

The characters and stories that make up the second half of Everlasting Is the Past, are marvelous. We meet Odessa, a woman in the hospital for whom the children of the congregation sang Christmas carols. When she died soon after, Wangerin writes about the delicate task of shepherding his own young daughter through her first experience with death. We meet Arthur, a retired policeman who loved to fish and used to ask his pastor, “Reverend? You want to toss a line t’mornin’?” He introduces us to Allouise, a graduate of the Tuskegee Institute, who had to face losing her landmark home in a gentrification project.

We also watch as Rev. Wangerin learns to negotiate various aspects of ministry in the inner city: how to deal with needy folks, how he learned a storytelling style of preaching, how he dealt with an outbreak of gossip in the congregation, how he focused on counseling people, something few other ministers were doing, and how he had to learn to deal with domestic violence in homes. We learn about how the church developed a choral ministry and traveled around, not only to spread the gospel, but to help white congregations understand their black brethren better.

Walter Wangerin was the minister of Grace Lutheran Church from 1974 into the late 1980s.

I baptized their children and confirmed them. I confessed, communed, and married them. I preached weekly. Even the ones I had catechized grew up and had babies of their own.

. . . I visited the sick. I sat by their beds, touched their brows with the sign of the cross, sang soft hymns in unhearing ears. I shoveled the snow from the church porch and the walks that went down to the street. Kneeling at the rail in the chancel, I prayed for the souls of the people whom God was pleased to place into my care. I cried out against the Devil who sought to oppress them. At their gravesides I spoke the words they knew by heart:

“We brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. . . .”

And I followed their young men to the courtroom and into their prison cells. (p. 171f)

God, always give us faithful pastors like this. And grant them congregations that become their families to nurture and support them in your work. Amen.

• • •

Everlasting Is the Past
Walter Wangerin, Jr.
Rabbit Room Press
2015

Accidental Saints: A review and a review of a review

218

Note from CM: We will devote this week to reviewing some recent books that have caught my interest and attention. Thursday will be an Open Forum day for you to share what you have been reading.

????

IM Book Week
Book One: Accidental Saints, by Nadia Bolz-Weber
A review and a review of a review

• • •

This is why we have Christian community. So that we can stand together under the cross and point to the gospel. A gospel that Bonhoeffer said is “frankly hard for the pious to understand….”

• Nadia Bolz-Weber

This chick makes me want to be a real Lutheran.

I mean, a grace-alone, non-pietistic, beer drinking, Luther-tongued, damn the religious authorities, desperate for Word and sacraments kind of Lutheran, as down and dirty in my faith as the streets of 16th century Wittenberg.

This girl gets it — the gospel, that is.

And when I read self-righteous, ranting reviews of this book like the one Tim Challies wrote, it quite frankly ticks me off. He seems to mistake having proper manners for the resurrected life and dismiss the kind of rough-hewn faith and obedience that Nadia Bolz-Weber talks about.  So, I run straight to the Luther Insult Generator and say this to the likes of such critics: “You vulgar boor, blockhead, and lout, you ass to cap all asses, screaming your heehaws,” which was Luther’s nice way of saying, “You just don’t get it.”

But more about that later.

Nadia Bolz-Weber knows how to write about grace, raw, honest grace, and grace in the rawest of places. Which means in my heart and yours, as well as in the lives of those who, to some, may look like spiritual misfits and losers. She also curses, which bothers not a few people. To which I say, with all due respect, tough shit.

Seriously, her style is not mine. I don’t like cursing and consider it a bad habit I’d like to eradicate from my life. I despise tattoos. I’m not thrilled with a lot of progressive politics and the animus it generates in the name of inclusiveness and tolerance. But I hope the reality of Bolz-Weber’s rock solid Lutheran theology of grace and the poignancy with which she writes about real people with real problems (including real pastors) in a real world that is really messed up will never cease to move me.

This book moved me. Not just because Nadia Bolz-Weber is such a good storyteller, but because the stories she tells are gospel stories. These are true tales of death and resurrection, failure and forgiveness, brokenness and renewal. Jesus walks the streets of Denver!

And too many of us have forgotten that the gospel is for the pastor as well as the parishioner. For example, she tells about an excruciating experience in which she messed up her calendar and deeply disappointed a couple in her congregation for whom she was to officiate a wedding. When they graciously forgave her and freed her from the commitment, it made Nadia recognize what she really needs all the time as a minister:

And receiving grace is basically the best shitty feeling in the world. I don’t want to need it. Preferably I could just do it all and be it all and never mess up. That may be what I would prefer, but it is never what I need. I need to be broken apart and put back into a different shape by that merging of things human and divine, which is really screwing up and receiving grace and love and forgiveness rather than receiving what I really deserve. I need the very thing that I will do everything I can to avoid needing. (p. 179f)

Never trust a pastor who is unaware of his or her desperate need of God. If you ask me, that’s the standard.

As for the pious and how they react to such raw honesty, in Tim Challies’ scathing review of the book he pronounces judgment on Nadia Bolz-Weber in no uncertain terms:

Let me say it candidly: Bolz-Weber has no business being a pastor and, therefore, no business writing as a pastor. She proves this on nearly every page of her book. Time and again she shows that she is woefully lacking in godly character. Her stories, her word choice, her interactions with her parishioners, her temper, her endlessly foul mouth, her novel interpretations of Scripture—they lead to the alarming and disturbing picture of a person who does not take the office seriously enough to ask if she is qualified to it.

Apart from the appalling idea of casting this kind of judgment on someone from a safe and comfortable distance, I am really not sure what book Tim Challies read. What I see here is a woman who takes her office as seriously as life and death! She reaches out to people in neighborhoods where folks in many middle class evangelical churches would never step foot. Her book is saturated with scripture and worship and an understanding of the place of community that middle and upper class white evangelical churches regularly and consistently ignore, preferring individualistic routes of “discipleship.” These tend to produce moralistic, mannerly people, but few who would wash the feet of drug addicts or follow up a Good Friday service with a congregational march to a dark alley to lay flowers and pray where a woman had recently killed her children and then herself.

This is a book for the poor in spirit, the mourners, the meek, and those who hunger and thirst for God to make things right. It is not a book for the rich, the satisfied, the privileged and the moral guardians of polite society.

But we’ve lost the plot if we use religion as the place where we escape from difficult realities instead of as the place where those difficult realities are given meaning. It’s like if you were stuck in a subway tunnel during a sudden blackout. You can respond to the fear and darkness either by using the remaining battery on your cell phone to entertain yourself with Candy Crush or by using that phone as a light to see others around you, to see the contour of your environment, and maybe even to walk toward a light source more reliable and powerful than your own. Religion can be a way to hide, numb, or even entertain ourselves like a spiritual Candy Crush, either through the comforting blandness and predictability of mainline Protestantism or through the temporary lifting of our spirits and hands in Evangelical worship. Of course, there are many ways of pretending shit ain’t broke in ourselves and in the world, but escapist religion is a classic option, and churches have seemed to turn into places where we have endless opportunities to pretend everything is fine. (p. 75)

Many of Nadia’s stories have a kind of O. Henry quality to them. They’re full of surprising epiphanies and a kind of “karma” that speaks of God’s grace coming back on the unsuspecting pastor in ways she doesn’t always like.

The sting of grace is not unlike the sting of being loved well, because when we are loved well, it is inextricably linked to all the times we have not been loved well, all the times we ourselves have not love others well, and all the things we’ve done or not done that feel like evidence against our worthiness. Love and grace are such deceivingly soft words — but they both sting like hell and then go and change the shape of our hearts and make us into something we couldn’t create ourselves. (p. 180)

By telling these stories, mostly on herself and about the ways God “gets” her with lessons of grace and mercy, this book puts the lie to another of Challies’ charges in his review. He criticizes Accidental Saints for giving Christians a free pass on Christian growth, saying it is “…meant to appeal to those who want to bear the name of Christ but without becoming like Christ.” Basically, he is bringing out the old charge that Lutherans are “weak on sanctification,” saying, “Her God calls us to himself but then leaves us to be whoever and whatever we want to be.”

Really? Tim, you’re better than that.

But I guess Tim Challies couldn’t get beyond the tattoos and curse words to see the bigger picture. This is a story of a woman who by any measure of sanctification is growing leaps and bounds in Christ, who keeps going back to Jesus and to his Word and to the church community and to brutally honest confession and to the sacraments again and again and again in good times and bad. This is a story of the transformed life of an alcoholic and drug abuser, a person with a deeply dysfunctional and broken past. Now she’s leading worship, preaching the Word, building “truth in love” relationships in a congregation, reaching out to the poor, visiting the sick, and helping us all understand grace better through a book like this.

But the greatest evidence of her sanctification is that she knows she needs Jesus every minute or she’s a goner.

I’m sure if Pastor Nadia were here with me right now, she’d say, “Remember, Mike, Jesus also died for Tim Challies. You have a little anger problem there, huh?”

And then I’d probably start cursing too.

• • •

Accidental Saints: Finding God in All the Wrong People
Nadia Bolz-Weber
Convergent Books
2015

Sundays with Michael Spencer: October 4, 2015

neil-dead-poets-society-1061745_1259_709

Yesterday, I experienced the great part of being a teacher; one of those experiences that make all the others worth it.

It was in my advanced placement English IV class. Our brightest seniors. I’m fortunate to be able to work with them.

A few days before we’d taken our final exam, and with two days left in the quarter, I decided to show the 1989 Peter Weir movie, Dead Poet’s Society, featuring Robin Williams in one of his finest performances, and then write an essay.

It’s the late 1950s, and conformity is in the air at little Welton Academy, a college prepatory boarding school where Mr. Keating has been hired to teach senior English. Keating tosses the boys some high-grade existentialism and budding beat philosophy along with an adolescent love of romantic literature. The effect of Keating’s mentoring on his young charges is explosive, with results varying from the revelatory to the tragic.

If you haven’t seen the film in the last twenty years, then prepare for a spoiler. One of the boys, Neil Perry, has been ordered by his compulsively authoritarian father to become a doctor. Neil has little reason to resist until the acting bug bites and, against his father’s express wishes, he plays the part of Puck in a community production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. His father is furious and pulls Neil out of Welton with the intention of sending him to military school.

His first night home, Neil commits suicide.

I asked my students to write Neil a letter, assuming that he would read it before killing himself. I’ve done this assignment before, but this time I asked the students to read their letters before the class, with one student designated as a responder.

Predictably, all of the students advised Neil, among other things, to wait till he was 18, then do whatever he wanted to do, no matter what his father wanted for him. The point was getting out from under the authoritarian father and doing whatever you most wanted to do in life.

It was a good assignment and we had a good discussion. Then I asked Kim Kwan, one of my Korean students, to read his letter.

We have a lot of Korean students. They are, in the main, some of our hard-working and most successful students. I’m fascinated by the process they are part of as they bridge two cultures. This is particularly obvious on the subject of the value of education, as we were about to learn.

Kim very matter of factly told the class that Neil should obey his parents and become a doctor. Kim said that Neil’s parents had sacrificed for him and they loved him. His greatest happiness should be in doing what they wanted him to do in life.

My American students were stunned, to say the least.

Further, Kim said he related to Neil because he had wanted to be in the hotel industry, but his family wanted him to be a dentist. Without any of the expected bribery, his parents simply told him that he should be a dentist, and he changed his mind and vocational direction. His parents, he said, were willing to work hard and sacrifice so he could become a dentist, and he beleived their wisdom was best for him. He could make many persons’ lives better as a dentist, and he might even make enough money to buy a hotel. It might be difficult sometimes to make this choice, but it was the right decision and the way to the most happiness.

He trusted his parents, and he wanted to honor them.

The reaction of our students — and my own — was fairly predictable. We simply would never go this far. In fact, I have doubts, as a Christian, that anyone should go this far, though I have no problem with using as much influence as possible to keep a student in school and in a position to make a choice of careers based on a degree and an education.

But deciding for them? Like an arranged marriage? Believing that I know what my son or daughter should do with the rest of their lives? I’m not that competent. My own feelings about freedom are mixed in with my desire to be a good parent. In the end, I support my children’s decisions about vocation.

But I’m also an American. I’ve never believed that self-sacrifice was all that great an idea. My students and I are hard-wired to avoid difficult choices that might be less than what we wanted at the time. Why can’t we all do what we want as much of the time as possible? Why trust anyone when you can follow your own dreams and desires?

Kim was telling us that, in his worldview, doing what he wanted was not the way to happiness. Trusting his parents was the way to happiness, even if it meant sacrifice, suffering, an uphill struggle in a career that wasn’t his first choice.

Honoring his parents was more important to him than doing what he wanted to do.

We wanted his parents to make their happiness dependent on letting Kim do whatever he wanted to do.

Dead-poets-society-robin-williams-37377123-3000-2040Sound familiar?

Yes, that’s where I’m going.

I thought about it all day.

I should trust and honor God. I should trust his choices that are not my first choices. I should trust the sacrifice he has made for me. What further proof do I need that he is for me and wants what is best for me?

Why do I assume that the Gospel is all about a God who makes my happiness and a guarantee of my choices his greatest concern? Why do I assume that discipleship is a process where I will always get what I want, the way I want it, when I want it?

Why do I think that the way chosen for me by a loving Father can’t possibly be that path of sacrifice; that path of difficulty?

Why does what Kim Kwan is saying sound so strange to me? Why does it sound so unlike the way I want God to be?

Why does it irritate me that he trusts his parents so much?

Today, I was the student and my Korean friend was the teacher. I’m not signing up for the superiority of this way of being family, but I see the beauty of it as well as the weaknesses. What I see most clearly of all is what Ravi Zacharias called “the imprint of the Father” on the human soul; the deeply imprinted fingerprints of a time when we trusted God more than we trusted ourselves. The deep imprint of what it means to be made in such a way that you know your happiness and your own choices are not the ultimate path to joy.

The shadow of the cross that lies at the heart of the Father’s love; the cross that made Paul say “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live. Yet not I, but Christ lives in me.”