When We Confess Our Sins. . .

Standard

When I was in junior high people began throwing around the word, “hypocrite” like it was free candy.  It was an especially popular concept in Christian circles as we used it to judge anybody who held any sort of ethical standard for us.  All being sinners ourselves, we knew that any legalist who gave us a “thou shalt” could not live up to any ethical standard themselves.  So we dismissed any ethicist with the word, “hypocrite.”

It was at that time that I realized it was almost impossible for a true Christian to actually be a hypocrite.  My thinking went that if the central confession of our faith was that we are all sinners in need of a savior, then sinning did not make us hypocrites.  It made our message truer.

That is a fairly dangerous thought process from an uneducated middle schooler.  It runs us really close to antinomianism, the idea that we should go on sinning so that grace may increase.

But I still think there is a shred of truth there.  After all, we are not the sinning community but we are the confessional community.  One of our pillars has always been confessing our sins, airing our dirty laundry for all to see.  This does not mean we are the most church when we go on sinning.  But we are the most church when we confess our sins, hanging them out for all to see while we pray for the God of forgiveness to deliver us.

There have been those this week who have suggested that having honest discussions about our church’s shortcomings are hurting our witness to the world.  They seem to be caught up in the 1950s mindset that the church can only be effective in mission if we are sinless and conflict free.

They want us to hide behind vague cliches like, “You are hurting the church” and “You are making our witness less effective.”

I disagree.  First the church is all ready hurting.  We are hurting not because of the actions of any one person or the existence of any one crisis but because we are the broken body and spilled blood of Jesus.  Our scars and bruises and pain only magnify Christ that much more.

Second, our witness does not rest on our own power or might.  If you read Acts 1:8 Jesus does not say, “Go and try to witness.”  Jesus issues a promise, “You WILL be witnesses” whether you like it or not.

I write all this to give us hope.  If our faith rested in our own deeds and sinlessness than this would be a time of despair.  But as our denomination confesses some of our dirty laundry, I am buoyed by hope, hope in a God who will make us witnesses, a God who will reveal God’s nature and self through these trying and hurting times, a God who uses situations like these to draw us all closer to the cruciform lamb, standing as though slain.

I am reminded of the closing words of Charles Dickens, “Tale of Two Cities” and they are my sentiments and prayer today:

“I see a beautiful [church] and a brilliant people rising from this abyss. I see the lives.  .  .peaceful, useful, prosperous and happy.”

Keep on fighting for transparency and justice and know your toil in the Lord is not in vain!

Advertisements

Loving the Community in The Anti Institutional Age

Standard

Let’s face it.  As a society we are not huge fans of institutions any more.  Whatever Postmodernism means it is certainly a rejection of everything institutional.  In the last 100 years, the word “President” has changed its meaning from “a position of great authority” to “person we elect to hate and blame our problems on.”

I did not realize how true that was until I began pastoring in a small town in Oregon.  The town voted Republican and claimed conservatism but it was not long until I realized their brand of conservatism had nothing to do with social issues like abortion and homosexuality and going to church.  Instead they hated everything institutional.  Whether it was big government, big church or big business, anything that smelled institutional was flatly suspect.  To put it more simply, they weren’t conservative as much as they were libertarian.

That town is not alone.  It is becoming true of all American towns and cities but it is more prevalent in the Northwest.  We seem to be the forerunners in tearing down institutions.

This is bad news for NNU because “Northwest” is its first name.  Whether you supported the President’s actions this week or decried them, chances are you became involved because anti-institutionalism is in your bones.

Concerning the events surrounding NNU, on one side we have the fundamentalists who hate institutions more than probably any other group.  The creeds and dictates of the historical church are suspect just because they came from the historical church.  The reality that a professor has been approved by several governing boards over and over again proves to them how errant this professor is.  Surely an institutionally approved professor is anathema because, after all, institutions are the source of all cursing.

I would venture a guess that if a professor was terminated for not agreeing with the made up doctrines of any given fundamentalist, that fundamentalist would make up new doctrines and use them to attack other professors.  They are not doing this because they love the institution but because they are decidedly against any institution telling them what to believe.  Instead they hold that the institution should be made to believe what they believe and teach what they want them to teach, not the other way around.

On the other side you have those of us who love the community at NNU and have fond memories of our times there.  We want is best for the community, particularly the individuals therein.  A lot of us became involved not because we dislike NNU but because there was a threat against a friend who happened to be on staff.  However, anti-establishment runs through our veins too.  So it is easy to attack those with the institutional titles just because they are leaders of an institution.

I wonder if this Oordeal ends with the resignation of someone with an institutional title, if the next one will be able to do better.

After all, in such a climate having an institutional title, like “President” of “Director” or “Head of the Office of University Advancement” stacks the chips against you from the get go.  You are suspect just because you were dumb enough to let them call you “President.”  You thought it was a title of power and prestige.  We all knew we just wanted someone to attack and investigate when things go wrong.

Then there is Facebook, which made the world flatter than anything else before it.  In this new age we can trade notes and compare data and put together the truth behind every action.  The surprising thing this week is not how many vague superstitions filled Facebook but how quickly the truth got out and went around the world.  There is now no control over the truth.  It will get out there.  In fact, as politicians know, the best way to fight the truth is to fill the internet with half truths and lies.  It is admirable that no Christians want to do this.  However, it is the only way to win.

You know, I take that back.

There is another way to win.  It is to act in the way of Jesus:  With integrity, honesty and 100% transparency.

In this day and age, where everything an institutional leader does is both public and highly suspect, that is the only way to go, unless you want to dive into the realm of lies and half truths.  Us younger types have known this for some time.  It is still quite shocking to me that the older leaders among us have not figured it out.

Still, if anything has happened within me this week, it is that I have been completely cured of my desire to ever have an institutional title or position.  Thanks but no thanks.  I will not volunteer for that witch hunt!

If you didn’t follow all that, the cartoon below might help.  In the 21st century Northwest there are no room for bosses, only leaders:

How to Give a Good Gift

Standard

Last fall my wife and I found ourselves in the best financial situation we have yet seen.  We both had steady jobs.  We were on top of our bills.  Our needs were more than provided for and our “want” list was at an all time low.

Then I got paid a $3000 paycheck for coaching Cross Country.  As we mulled over how to split it between gifts, savings, paying off debt, Christmas and other things, I got a card in the mail from NNU asking me to help contribute to a scholarship for Track and Field.

We gladly gave an amount to the scholarship and doing so was a point of pride.  It was the first time I was able to give back to the school and since graduating I have longed to help the school as much as it helped me.  When I gave a meager amount to that scholarship, I promised it would be the first of many meager amounts, and one day hopefully some not so meager amounts.

I bring all this up to go on the record and state that nothing that has happened at NNU the last couple weeks and few years will change my support for the campus.  I still plan on giving my time, money and compliments to the school.  I still plan on encouraging my parishioners to give their time, money and compliments to the University.  I will still support my children if they choose to attend there.  Whether Tom Oord goes or stays and whether Alexander goes or stays, no matter who goes or who stays I will continue to give good gifts to NNU.

I bring all this up to say that a wrinkle in the recent situation has to do with monetary gifts.  I know that we have not confirmed the names of anybody who has threatened the university with decreased giving because of Tom but we have confirmed the existence of them.  Moreover, several professors and administrators have said that regularly in NNU’s 100 year history someone will only offer to give a gift if certain professors are terminated.

I do not think those people understand what a good gift looks like, at least from Scripture.  When Scripture calls us to give, we are called to give in the way of the cross, a free, unrestrained, non manipulative gift.  If the gift is misused, we are still blessed.  If the gift is squandered, we are still blessed.  If the gift is rejected, we are still blessed.  Scripture is quite clear in that regard.

In fact, the Apostle Paul reminds us in 2 Corinthians that “God loves a cheerful giver.”

That word “cheerful” makes me curious.  That adjective is out of place when you think about it.  It should be “God loves a grateful giver” or “God loves a gracious giver.”  Instead, Paul chose “cheerful.”  That is quite weird.

But then I think of two people in my life, my friend Dustin and my grandmother.  Dustin grew up in a very bad household.  There was verbal and physical abuse, manipulation and even spiritual degradation.  Then he moved across the country to live with his grandparents and that is when I got to know him.  I fell in love with the kid immediately.  He was the most incredible friend I had ever made.  My friends in high school and youth group rallied around him and showered love on him in the form of full access to our social gatherings.  We even elected him Prom King!

At the end of the school year, Dustin showed up to school with a bag stuffed full of very expensive presents for all of us.  He danced a little jig down the hallway, grinning from ear to ear as he handed out these gift wrapped gold watches, jewelry, expensive video games and the like.

The scene shocked us.  His younger brother surprised us further by saying that Dustin had never spent more than $1 on a present before.  He had spent hundreds on us.  Dustin was not giving these gifts to manipulate us or to coerce us.  I don’t think he even knew why he was giving us the gifts.  I think he was just so happy (maybe, cheerful) to have such an amazing group of friends that his right hand did not know what his left hand was doing as he threw those watches and necklaces out.

We should learn how to give like Dustin gave, not because we want control or manipulation or power but because we are cheerful and we want to join God by giving rain to both the just and the unjust (see the Sermon on the Mount).

Awhile back my grandma started going to a church in town whose presence in our community was less than stellar.  They were a mean and hostile community but they took care of older people better than anybody else.  So it happened that while my grandma was attending that church, she sold my grandpa’s cabin for $250,000.  She paid the tithe to the mean, hostile church.  I complained and she told me quite sternly, “I did not give that money to that church.  I gave it to God and if they use God’s money for sinful aims, God will probably hold them accountable.”

I repented quite quickly because my grandma knows how to give a good gift, better than even me.

With all this said, I really struggle at the thought that any NNU alumni or supporter would even want to give money manipulatively or with ulterior motives.  I think the reality these types exist illustrates a spiritual failure in our congregations.  As a pastor, I note that we have not taught or modeled the giving of good, cheerful gifts so we create situations that put unbelievable pressure on the administrations of our universities.

May we all do better, including myself.

Tinder Piles, Gasoline and Leadership

Standard

The scandal at NNU is now entering its second week.  What started out as the announcement of a simple restructuring plan has grown into a wildfire of conflict.

Unfortunately, I am far too involved right now to back out.  My blog posts and comments are available and public.  There is no turning back. With that said, if I owned a Delorian I might go back in time a week and encourage my more ignorant self to stay away from this one.

As I move forward without my Delorian, I do want to clarify that by supporting Tom Oord I am not worshiping Tom or even agreeing with Tom’s views and opinions.  I think the best person to defend Tom’s theology is Tom himself, which he has done repeatedly.  Instead, I am supporting my friend, someone who taught me how to love and how to think and who has reached out to me numerous times to give me opportunities and career advice.

With that said, to say this issue is about Tom Oord would be a crazy understatement given the events of this weekend.  This has grown to be a very complex and interesting dilemma, one that involves the entire soul of the Church of the Nazarene and her commitment to higher education.

As we enter week two, it is not time to back away from this dilemma or let it fade into the night, but time to recommit ourselves to charitable discourse, peaceful (and hopefully speedy) solutions, prayer, fasting and, of course, living lives of love.

With that said, it also a week to be a bit reflective.  Most of what happened last week was understandably reactionary.  Now that the hard data is out (which you can read here) it is perhaps time to stop reacting and be more discerning and proactive.

Therefore, my blog posts this week will focus on discussing the deeper issues at play.  These issues include the role of leadership in the 21st century, the ongoing battle between conservative fundamentalists and the more moderate wing of our party (to say the Church of the Nazarene has liberals is to vastly misunderstand the meaning of the word, “liberal”), the role of social media in aiding or preventing charitable discourse and the relationship between the sanctuary and the classroom.

At the same time, I am not promising I will address all those issues.  I do still have a local ministry context that deserves priority.  However, these greater issues need to be discussed or they will continue to bubble to the surface again and again.

Since I just wasted a lot of my word count on introductory material, I only want to say a bit more about leadership in the NNU situation.

I have lately been profoundly influenced by the book, “Fierce Conversations” by Susan Scott.  In the book she argues that careers, marriages, institutions and churches fail one conversation at a time.

Click here to buy.

Due to my own connections with NNU’s campus, I know that this is exactly what has happened here.  Over the last four years there have been several conversations between the faculty and administration that have served to metaphorically stack up a large pile of dry tinder.  Some situations before this one have even poured gasoline on that tinder.  After the pile of wood and gasoline had been constructed, all it took was one spark to set the thing ablaze.  This spark was the layoff of a highly public and controversial professor.  To change metaphors, it was like the dominoes had been stacking for years and Tom Oord was the single domino that set the chain going.

The comments on Facebook and Twitter and the faculty’s letter have all shown that to be the case.  With that understanding in mind, President Alexander’s apology about the way in which Tom Oord was terminated seemed a bit misunderstanding of that truth.  The issue right now is not about Tom but about a severe lack of trust between a faculty and an administration.  It now involves the very structures and covenants on campus.

With that said, I have very much appreciated the confessional community surrounding NNU.  Several times on the “Support Tom Oord” page we have posted our own apologies, clarified our own mistakes and even prayed a liturgical confession together.

And in that spirit of confession, I know that I too am a leader of an institution, albeit a much smaller one and God uses situations like this to ask me, “what dry tinder am I piling up?  What gasoline am I pouring?  And how can I disperse and water it all down?”  Those are good questions every leader should ask, particularly before something sparks a wildfire.

And so being fully aware that even lately I have been guilty of actions that have turned my communities into piles on tinder, I close by praying the prayer of confession:

Almighty God, our heavenly father,
we have sinned against you and against each other,
in thought and word and deed,
through negligence, through weakness,
through our own deliberate fault.
We are truly sorry
and repent of all our sins.
For the sake of your Son, Jesus Christ, who died for us,
forgive us all that is past;
and grant that we may serve you in newness of life;
to the glory of your Name. Amen.

What Happened This Week

Standard

On Sunday night I heard a rumor and joined a Facebook group only to see if it was true.  I thought joining the group was an innocent enough gesture, just showing support for a friend and former professor who had been unfairly treated.

As the week unfolded it became apparent I had done so much more than join a Facebook group.  What had happened and is happening is so much more than a mistreated professor.

I wrote a blog expressing some frustration on Tuesday.  Actually, that blog kind of wrote itself.  I went into a really rare writer’s trance and emerged out of it having all ready posted it.  I reread what I wrote and noticed a few grammatical errors and awkward phrases which reveal the overwhelming passion I felt at that moment.  That passion has not subsided.

When I posted the blog, I felt like it would be fairly popular but I had no idea how popular.  As of right now 5200 people have seen the link on Facebook and it has been viewed 1500 times.

I want to pause a minute and say “Thank you” to all of you for hearing my voice and thank you to those who have given me positive feedback and helped me know I am not alone.  In cases like these social media is certainly a means of grace.

That last sentence is not being widely recognized right now.  There are a few voices in this particular crisis who have leveled frustration at Facebook claiming the social media service has blown things out of proportion.  And I agree that 10 years ago, this local situation at NNU may not have started quite the firestorm.  But that is all the more reason we need forums like Facebook.  There were very real misdeeds being done and if social media helped expose them and right the wrongs than I am all the happier.

With that said, how do you follow up your most successful post ever?  How do we move forward after the last 7 days as a church, as a people, as a denomination?

I don’t know but I do take heart in the voices who have called us to prayer and fasting.  I have found my prayer life deepened by this tragedy, as if we really do serve a loving and wooing God who in the midst of trials and tragedies beckons us to come into God’s presence.

With that said, what we did this week and what we do next week are incredibly important.  Love really is on the line here.  This is a moment when as a denomination we can choose to treat each other better and hold each other (even our leaders) accountable or to turn a blind eye and so let the list of victims increase.

To illustrate how love is on the line, I want to share my story of being a student of Tom Oord.

I first heard his name in the Christian fundamentalist high school that I graduated from.  It was our Old Testament teacher who hated the very name, “Tom Oord” and had grievances with all of NNU’s faculty.  He made us memorize the books of the Old Testament (and I am still grateful) but stopped there and instead taught us all the “heresies” being taught by NNU.  He regularly tested us on those heresies, even beginning his tests with a question, “Is this test an attack on Tom Oord?”

One student circled “yes” and got detention, even though that student knew the truth.  My high school teacher hated his enemies and the hate dripped off of him.  He regularly got red in the face and yelled about the evils of wrong thinking.

So when I started attending NNU, even though I was called to be a pastor, I avoided the Christian Ministry department like the plague, declaring a business major.  Unfortunately, they made me take a Bible class.  In that class we were actually required to read the Old Testament.  In 2 years of “Old Testament” classes at my high school I had never once opened the Bible.

A year later I took Sophomore theology and we read Scripture there too.

But it wasn’t until my junior year that I met Tom Oord.  Tom knew people disagreed with him but never demonized them.  He would often say in class, “some disagree with me and here is why” and he would represent their opinions in the best light.  A few times he even talked me into going with them instead of him!  He never got red in the face or angry.  He knew his way around the Scriptures and seemed to quote large texts with great love for God’s written word.  This love spilled out of Tom at every turn.

I had never seen a fundamentalist actually love Scripture and it was Tom who really taught me that love is a verb (with all due respect to that lousy DC Talk song).  It is not an expression or a feeling.  You have to show it.

And Tom, along with his colleagues, helped me actually show my love for Scripture, a love that continues to inform my love for others.  It is not enough to claim Scripture’s authority, you have to read it and delight in it and use Scripture as a means of delighting in God and others.  That is how Scripture is used at NNU and that is how I have endeavored to use Scripture since then.

So with Tom and all of our friends in this great movement, I plan to live a life of love because they will know we are Christians by our love!

What’s Pastor Kevin Reading: Renovating Holiness

Standard

“That was the day we eradicated eradication.”

That line was the conclusion to a story a much older pastor was telling during a meeting I attended last Fall.  He was talking about a time when all the pastors on his district got together and talked about holiness, particularly the Nazarene doctrine of “entire sanctification.”

When he said, ” we eradicated eradication,” I thought, “They must have been thorough as I have no idea what eradication is!”  And I have both a Bachelor’s and a Master’s degree from Nazarene institutions and am a Senior Pastor.

Of course, I did some brain searching and with great effort remembered that day 10 years ago in “holiness class” where I was taught that “eradication” referred to the old Holiness Movement idea that upon receiving the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” God completely eradicated the sinful nature and made it possible to live a completely sinless life.

I will pause for a few moments while you laugh at that ridiculous idea……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..before pointing out that 50 to 100 years ago most Nazarenes believed it.  And now you probably can’t find more than 10 who do and they will all be over 70 years old.

This is just one example of the ways that the defining doctrine of the Church of the Nazarene, “Entire Sanctification” has been redefined over the last decades.  Its original formulation proved too high minded and optimistic for the pessimism that gripped the Western nations in the latter half of the 20th century.  Moreover, as the Church of the Nazarene globalized we struggled to articulate our ideas in different cultures.  It seems that the further away from California 1900 AD we got, the less sane our doctrine sounded.

Therefore over the last decades there have been countless conversations which sought to reexamine, redefine and reexplain holiness to a global church and a cynical constituency.  These conversations have happened everywhere from large auditoriums to tiny Sunday School classes and from as close as your local pulpit to as far away as an underground church in China.

The editors of “Renovating Holiness” sensed that these conversations are increasing in number so last year they set out to help the global conversation along by asking over 100 leaders from all the world areas to weigh in on their recent conclusions regarding holiness.  More than that, they are probably the first editors of their kind to prioritize younger voices over older ones.  The result is that the majority of essays are written by people under the age of 35.  (I should take this moment to note that I was one of them.)

download

Available in hard cover and digital. Click to buy on Amazon.

The project was nothing short of momentous and would not have been possible before the internet age.  Now for the first time voices from many world areas and many generations weigh in on why holiness is important and what vocabulary and conceptual changes need to be made in order to keep it viable.

Due to the sheer amount of contributors it is impossible to write a critique that would hold true for every essay.  For example, a few essays come dangerously close to saying nothing while a few others say entirely way too much.  Most though, are succinct and readable, adding their 1200 words to the conversation in an effective way.

The book is also hard to critique because its goal was not meant to finish a conversation or to posit timeless and unassailable theological truths.  Instead the essayists want to introduce readers to the conversations that are happening all across the world and to invite the readers to join them.

With that said, I do not entirely agree with every essay and opinion but it was those places of disagreement that proved the value of the book.  The reality is that I am not having the same conversations about holiness in Elgin, OR that some are having in inner city LA or a village in Africa.  Hearing those voices both agree and disagree with me is a great gift.

This makes “Renovating Holiness” a wonderful contribution to the church and a must read for anybody who wishes to discuss “holiness” as coherently and contextually as possible.

Therefore I would recommend not only reading the essays but using them to begin and lead discussions about Holiness wherever possible.

Hopefully within a week I will follow up this post with another one about what discussions are worth prioritizing and where the conversations should happen.

Until then, may God, God’s very self, the God of peace sanctify you through you and through and may your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless before the coming of our Lord.