Benedict's Apostolic Pilgrimage - part 1

In light of the Holy Father's visit to America, I have been watching EWTN for commentary about the pilgimage. I wanted to reflect on some of my observations in this series.

The first quote is not directly related to the visit, but I heard it while trying to follow the visit -

Fr. John Corapi was talking about a conversation he had with a woman who converted to Roman Catholicism. She told him, "You really convinced me, because you are so convinced yourself." He relayed that to his audience and then said - and this is the interesting part - "It is true. I am convinced. I believe everything the Church teaches. I may not understand it all. I may not be able to explain it all. But I believe it all."

There are several interesting things about this notion of believing everything the church teaches. I wonder how many Nazarene pastors would say the same thing? I talk with pastors all the time who say things like, "I know the style="font-style:italic;">Manual style="font-style:italic;"> says [fill in the blank] but I think [fill in the blank]. I find it oddly refreshing that someone believes everything their church teaches. I wish the same could be said for us instead of the continual infighting over Wesleyan Holiness vs. American Holiness; baptism vs. dedication; Real Presence vs. Memorial, etc, etc, etc.

It also points to what I believe is one of the The Church of the Nazarenes greatest failings. Many will disagree with me, citing Bresee, or Wesley, or Augustine or whoever really said it, "in essentials unity, in non-essential liberty, in all thing charity." That is a lovely quote, but it just doesn't work. Never did. Never will. Why? Who says what is essential? For me sacraments are essential: one can no more be holy as God is holy while ignoring the sacraments as she can while ignoring the 10 commandments. As long as there is no clear understanding of essentails, the quote fails.

The church must step up and clearly teach what it believes. No wishy-washy-ness. No having it both ways. No muddled doctrinal statements trying be pacifying rather than clarifying. When we cannot clearly articulate what the Church believes about [fill in the blank], we are doing ourselves and the world a great disservice.

Further, his statement is a faith statement. It is a faith statement in the Church. It demands a high respect for and understanding of the Church, one which is sorely lacking in most evangelical circles. The Church is not just wherever two or three are gathered in His name. The church is not just an organiation. The church the body of Christ. It is Christ's continuing presence in the world. Most evangelicals I know would not care if a person believed everything the church taught because it really doesn't matter. All that matters is what the Bible says, and how I interpret and believe what the Bible says. The church somehow gets left out of the mix, perhaps by its own retreat from the conversation.

If we believe the church is just wherever 2 or 3 are gathered then it is ok that we all believe whatever we want. If the church is just an organization it is ok that we are all able to believe what we want within the confines of the organization. But it if the Church is the body of Christ - Christ continuing, physical, mystical presence in the world then we must be much more careful to be the church. To believe what the church teaches.

Perhaps this will be a little more clear after the next observation which is directly related to the nature of the Church. For now though, help me unpack this wonderful faith statement:

"I believe everything the church teaches. I do not understand it all. I cannot explain it all. But I believe it all."

A More Entertaining Service

OK, so you have to hear this. I just got off the phone with a "marketing firm" wanting to ask me questions about how to better market General Assembly 2009 in Orlando - which I will do my part and highly encourage you to attend. The woman, I don't know if she is a Nazarene or just a call-center employee, asked about what stood out to me about the last General Assembly I was at. I told her it had been a while. I believe I was in high school, so it would have been the early 90's in Indy. I told her that what stood out to me was the silly wafer/cup communion elements. I told her it was the first time I saw them, was shocked, and that I hope I will never have to see them again.

She was silent for a moment, perhaps not knowing how to respond. Then she began asking questions about the Sunday Night Communion Service. In the dialogue, she expressed that it was their hope that the Communion Service would have a better attendance and that not so many people would leave early to get back home. Some of the changes we will notice - according to this young woman - are:

Family Day: moved to Monday morning to encourage people to stay - OK, fine, sounds good to me.

Service Length: the service is being shortened so as not to become to long and drawn out. - EXCELLENT, nothing worse than a 2 hour service when it can easily be done in 1!

A More Entertaining Service: WHAT? *&!^#@$(*@#$&* Since when is the Eucharist entertaining? Can you just imagine that upper room: Jesus, "This is my body broken for you." Apostles, "O man, Jesus, that is hilarious - tell us another one!" Jesus, "OK - This is the cup of salvation, given for you." Apostles, "HA! HA! HA! Jesus, you are so entertaining! Do you mind if maybe we have a skit when you are finished?"

Why does it seem that the message of holiness and the pursuit of holiness is waning so in our world and in our denomination? If the Lord's Supper is not understood as holy, what is? What to recover the doctrine of holiness, start with the Lord's Supper - start with worship. Let's at least act like we believe in a holy God. Maybe then we can start to see some lives changed!

Sorry for the rant.

EF+

Incentivizing the Minimum

Why do we always seem to settle for the lowest common denominator. Not only do we often settle for the lowest common denominator, we quite often incentivize the minimum by penalizing those who strive for better than the minimum.

For instance, today I found out that my friend was denied his district license? Why? They claim he didn't have enough of the courses done. And why did he not have enough of the courses done? Because he did not settle for doing the minimum necessary to get by. Instead of enrolling in the District course of study and doing the minimum, he enrolled in a Nazarene University to complete a BA in religion. Because he is persuing a BA instead of a certificate that is not worth the paper it is printed on, he had to take courses like Psychology, Sociology, Math, etc. And, because he took Psychology, Sociology, Math, etc, he did not take enough of the "right" courses and was denied his District License. Never mind that he is better prepared to be a pastor than someone 1/4 of the way finished with a District Course of Study... quality of preparation not really that important anyway. It is far more important that we have enough pastors than that we have educated pastors.

Now before this turns into a full blown rant, I would like to suggest a simple solution to this dilema. Here it is:

Ordination requires a Bachelors Degree or higher in Religion from a Nazarene University or Seminary - or another academic institution approved by the General Board.

This takes all the "District" influence out and levels the playing field. It also produces better pastors. However, many will complain that this will cost a pastor too much money. In education, after you serve x number of years in a "low income school district" you are eligible for debt forgiveness. I propose a similar system whereby ministerial students are given debt relief depending on the income of their congregation.

There it is: simple and effective - just the way I like it.

Peace.