Ordination?

Patrick Friesen has written an article for The EMMC Recorder called "the ordination of a servant" (page 11). In this short article Patrick tells about some his struggles regarding ordination and how he has overcome them. I have serious problems with ordination. So I read this article with some interest. 

Here some of the struggles that Patrick sees: 

Anabaptists have a strong view of the priesthood of all believers. He asks, "how can a church group who believes so strongly that everyone is a minister, single out one person to serve in that role? And if ordination is about the recognition of particular giftedness, why not have an ordination for other roles within the body of Christ?"

Another issue is that ordination is often "seen as placing the pastor on a pedestal". 

Further Patrick notes that historically ordination was "the process which appointed individuals, predominately male [always for EMMC], giving them the right and responsibility for leading the ordinances [communion, baptism, marriage and funerals]." Now Patrick says that within the church "virtually anyone" can lead these things. 

Patrick's solution to all of this? How did he overcome all of these objections? He redefines ordination:

ordination is best understood not as raising someone up to a "higher" role within the church, but rather it is a process of identifying, examining and commissioning a servant.

 Interesting.

2 issues I have with this.
1) Patrick fails to address most of the problems that he raised. The only one that this actually addresses is that ordination places a pastor on a pedestal. In fact defining ordination as a call to serve simply makes the others issues more obvious. Everyone is called to serve. Why would we single out one person [male] as the servant?
2) Redefining words requires intentionality and time. One of the real issues with ordination is not what do the pastors and college professors believe but what does the average church goer believe. Redefining ordination will be a lot of work (something that will not just happen). This is especially true since many denominations will not have the same view of ordination as EMMC. Let me provide an example of how difficult this is. In 2007 EMMC worked through ordination. At the annual convention it was agreed that ordination was no longer viewed as a lifetime call on a person. Once a person would no longer be a pastor it is be likely that their ordination would be dropped. This was 7 years ago. Patrick writes that ordination "is a ceremony of identifying a lifetime demotion into servant-hood". Lifetime? But for 7 years we have been working at defining ordination as not lifetime. Guess this has not worked that well. (Now I should note that I am not sure what conference Patrick is actually in. However Patrick teaches at an EMMC bible school, this article is written for the EMMC, and the event that stimulates this article is the ordination of an EMMC pastor). 

Leading of the Holy Spirit?

Francis Chan in his book Forgotten God challenges the way people often refer to God's leading.

Did God lead you to where you are? A lot of people in my church and in my travels tell me, "I believe that God has called me to Simi Valley." Or Wichita. Or New York. Or Greenville. Or wherever. That very well may be the case. But it could also be a cop-out because you like where you live. You have a good job. The school district is safe and has high ratings. Your family loves close by (or perhaps far away, depending on your relationship with them). It makes sense that you are "called" to be there, right?" (page 90-91)

A little later Chan says:

It is true that God may have called you to be exactly where you are. But it's absolutely vital to grasp that He didn't call you there so you could settle in and live out you life in comfort and superficial peace. His purposes are not random and arbitrary. If you are still alive on this planet, it's because He has something for you to do. He placed us on this earth for purposes that He orchestrated long before we were born (Eph. 2:1-10). Do you believe you exist not for your own pleasure but to help people know the love of Jesus and to come fully alive in Him? If so, then that will shape how you live your life in the place where you are." (page 92)

This is convicting. I am honestly convinced that God has lead me to live where I do. But I also have a constant battle to not just live for my comfort. It is so easy to just live for myself, to focus and obsess about what I want. Every day I am faced with the choice, be lead by the Spirit or by my desires.

Lord Jesus have mercy on me for I usually choose my desires.

Fear of the Holy Spirit

Francis Chan, in Forgotten God, asks what fears we have regarding the Holy Spirit.
Personally I can think of a few (irrational?) fears:

Turing off your brain. At times trusting the Spirit comes across as not thinking. Too much critical thinking and logic can be seen as stifling the Spirit.


No discernment. Everything and anything can be written off as a leading for the Spirit. Since it is the leading of the Spirit it cannot be questioned. 98% of the time when people have told me God lead them to do something they are not asking for conversation and discernment. The voice of God has been used to kill discernment. A side note, it is strange how often God changes his mind. And that change of mind often involves the opposite gender.

These fears have caused me to limit my openness to the Spirit. But these are the easy fears to admit to. Chan raises two other fears that I would like to deny having (though that would be a lie):

What if God doesn't come through?

What happens if I ask for God to fill me or to lead me and nothing happens? It is easier and safer to hold back, to not expect God to show up in my life. 

Do I even want this?

Do I really and truly want God's Spirit to lead me and guide me? Am I prepared to live that kind of life? Am I prepared to go anywhere and do anything for Jesus? Really, go anywhere and do anything.

Have we forgotten the Holy Spirit?

Sunday was Pentecost.
The day when we remember and celebrate the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2).

Have we forgotten the Holy Spirit?

Francis Chan (his book Forgotten God) argues that we have forgotten him.
Not that we deny him. But he is not a real part of our lives.
He states

"While no evangelical would deny His existence, I'm willing to bet there are millions of churchgoers across America who cannot confidently say they have experienced His presence or action in their lives over the past year. And many of them do not believe they can." (page 15).

Calvinist or Anabaptist? - Definitions

Terry Hiebert presented at Revive! EMMC Leadership retreat. Terry showed that in the EMMC there are Calvinists and Anabaptists. The title of his presentation was "why can't we get along?"

Working Definitions:

New Calvinist - The Gospel Coalition's "Foundation Documents" summarized:

1. The Bible is without error, but also that its inerrant content must be properly interpreted.
2. The absolute sovereignty of the triune, creator God has exhaustive foreknowledge, determines the smallest details of the universe, and saves his elect monergistically [monergistically means that God saves without any cooperation from the individual].
3. In marriage and in the church, God has ordained that men and women play complementary (not equal) roles.
4. The strong sense of mission comes out of a rich theology of God's kingdom as the exercise of God's sovereignty in the world for the eventual redemption of all creation.
5. A well-developed ecclesiology commits New Calvinists to the renewal of faith in the gospel of Christ, reforming ministry practices to conform fully to the Scriptures, and proclaiming a gospel that "seeks the lordship of Christ over the whole of life."
6. The "gospel-centered" faith is rich in piety holding up Christ as the one to whom we are united by faith and through whom we receive our justification and sanctification - he is not merely a moral example.

The Neo-Anabaptist - The Anabaptist Network

1. Jesus is our example, teacher, friend, redeemer, and lord.
2. Jesus is the focal point of God's revelation.
3. Western culture is slowly emerging from the Christendom era when church and state jointly presided over a society...seriously distorted the gospel, marginalised Jesus, and has left the churches ill-equipped for mission in a post-Christendom culture.
4. The frequent association of the church with status, wealth and force is inappropriate for followers of Jesus and damages our witness.
5. Churches are called to be committed communities of discipleship and mission, places of friendship, mutual accountability and multi-voiced worship.
6. Spirituality and economics are inter-connected.
7. Peace is at the heart of the gospel.

At the end of the presentation Terry asked two questions:

1. Does this matter?
2. Are you more Calvinist or Anabaptist?

Read the bible literally?

EMMC – Mennonite

Low German, great food, and good last name (like Klassen or Schroeder) this is what it means to be Mennonite.  However there is another way to understand Mennonite.  After all the majority of people who refer to themselves as Mennonite do not speak low German (and none ancestors do either), eat farmer sausage, or have a name like Klassen.  In fact they live in Asia or Africa.
What is a Mennonite?

1. Believers Church.  Only those who have decided to follow Jesus are truly part of the church.  Mennonites do not baptise infants because that cannot decide to follow Jesus.
2. Separation of church and state.  The government has no business telling us what to believe.  The church does not use the government to force people to obey the bible.
3. Discipleship.  Christians are those who follow Jesus.  We are saved by grace through faith which leads us to doing good works.
4. Peace church.  The command to love God and others (including enemies) seems to lead to the conclusion that we should not use violence against others.  What does this actually mean is often discussed.
5. Priesthood of all believers.  Every believer has direct access to God.  Every believer is a minister, bringing God to others.  Ordination, bible school, holding a certain position (deacon, elder, pastor) does not give a person special access to God.  We are all priests.  

The Anabaptist Vision written by Harold Bender strongly influenced these points.  And yes all these points are debated and argued in the Mennonite community.  But I think we are not abandoning any of these positions, more like trying to figure out how to apply them to the world right now.

EMMC – Evangelical

Evangelical Mennonite Mission Church.  Who are we?  Evangelical

There is a lot of debate or confusion about what “evangelical” means.

Tony Campolo states “there is little argument that the word evangelical conjures up an image of Christians who are anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-environmentalist, pro-war, pro-capital punishment, and conservative Republican.”  (page XI, Red Letter revolution, Shane Claiborne and Tony Campolo)

This seems a bit harsh, unfair and not a very good picture of evangelical.  This is not what we mean when we define ourselves as evangelical.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism) defines evangelical by four convictions which I think are helpful and good.

1. Conversion.  There is a call for people to be “born again” (this comes out John 3).  A decision needs to be made.  A decision that is to bring a radical change into a person’s life
2. Authority of the Bible.  The Bible is viewed as the authority for life and faith.  
3. Jesus.  The birth, life, death and resurrection are central.  
4. Makes a difference in life.  These are not simply beliefs that we are to hold in our heads rather they are supposed to deeply influence every part of our life (including politics)

Now linking ourselves to evangelical is interesting.  As Mennonites we would hold to the authority of the Bible, Jesus and discipleship very strongly.  In fact in some circles it is argued that as Mennonites we hold to these things more strongly than the average evangelical.

So I believe that when we said we are Evangelical this refers to the personal decision to follow Jesus.  A person is not a Christian because they were born into a Christian home or in a Christian nation or because they did so many good things.  To be a Christian is to be a follower of Jesus.  To follow Jesus means we had to make a decision to follow him.

Faith: loyalty

Loyalty is another translation for the Greek word pistis, often translated as faith.  (Citizenship: Paul on Peace and Politics, Gordon Zerbe).

To have faith in Jesus means that we are loyal to him.

Loyalty: willing to sacrifice, defend, obey, be there for, promote, and die for.

Faith: trust

Faith in Jesus means that we trust him.

Trust is more than belief.  It is risky.  We trust with our lives.

But to trust we need to believe.

• Believe that Jesus actually cares about me.  If he doesn’t why trust him?
• Believe that Jesus knows what he is doing.  This is my life.  I am not going to trust someone who is nice but clueless.
• Believe that Jesus can actually help me.  I need help.  

I will risk my life and trust Jesus if I truly believe.

Faith: believing

Belief is a core of faith.

Faith is impoverished when we fail to think about God and what we believe.

Failing to struggle and wrestle with theology gives us a weak faith.  A faith that we will give verbal ascent to but one that does not shape any part of our lives.

And most likely a faith that will crumble in the first sign of trouble.

Faith: rational

Faith is not blind or irrational.
Sometimes people say “you just have to have faith.”  Often this means stop thinking and just believe.

Ridiculous!

Certainly there are some things that will be mysterious.  Things we cannot explain or fully understand.

But to have faith does not mean that you park your brain and just believe.
In fact we are commanded to love God with all our “mind”.  This implies that we should engage our minds and think deeply about God.

Faith is rational.

Should churches do state weddings?

Found this interesting article on Jesus Creed - (originally here).
By Robin Dugall:

Ok - this is bound to be a bit "controversial" for some of you.  For others, it will be a no-brainer.  I believe it is time to separate the civil and "religious" ceremonies of marriage.  In light of the conversations, issues of civil rights and cultural discourse that has surrounded the issue of marriage for "centuries" (believe me, for you students of history, we are not the only people who have struggled with what marriage means - monogamous, man/woman, polygamy, etc. throughout history), it is time to revisit what some countries already practice - first, have EVERY couple seek a marriage license and a state marriage validation through the civil processes.  Get the Justices of the Peace busy with every wedding sought by people within whatever civil definition prevails.  Secondly, for those couples who would like to have a marriage "blessing" from the church (note that I used the small "c" because there is not even unanimity in opinions about the definition of marriage even among relgious communities), have them seek that wedding blessing from within the definition and faith/belief system to which they adhere.  That way, for those faith communities who believe that marriage IS defined by one woman/one man, these communities can continue to abide by their faith/doctrinal systems and embrace their definition of marraige from within the protection of religious liberty.  In this way, NO MORALITY is imposed on the culture in any manner.  In this way, faith communities can continue to practice what many of us feel is an issue that is non-negotiable, that being, a biblical worldview perspective, a biblical narrative/story perspective on the institution of marriage.  For some of my pals this might be seen as a bit dualistic.  I'm NOT trying to imply a separation of the spiritual and material realms.  I still believe we live in a God-soaked world in which there is NO separtion between the secular and sacred.  God's presence in reality as Ultimate reality implies that there is NO SUCH THING as secular space or pure secular living.  What this DOES DO  is give followers of Jesus an opportunity to practice our faith and celebrate our "culture's" adherance, commitments and obedience to our hermeneutic and application of the biblical story (in regards to human relationships, our understanding of family, marriage, etc.).  I don't think there was EVER an expectation within the biblical story that the faith community would be in agreement with cultural norms.  In fact, there are very clear perspectives throughout holy writ that imply that there WILL BE a differentiation with culture.  So, I think it is time to do this with marriage.  In actuality, I think I'm going to begin some discussions with my friends, faith community and fellow scholars about how this idea may take shape in creative action in the days to come.  In this way as well people of faith can support civil rights and NOT get bogged down by accusations of bigotry or hatred due to the legality of ONE issue.  I have compassion and humility with this issue...I also have strong feelings and long-held beliefs about what Christ followers are supposed to uphold when it comes to sexual and relational ethics.  By splitting the two "realities," we live in the best of both worlds.  So, push back anyone?  

Water tower?

I picture God’s love like a giant water tower.  It is full of love towards me.

However when I fail it is like I open up a tap and let out some of the water out.  Small failures is a sink faucet.  Large failures is a fire hose.

There is a lot of love.  So I don’t have worry about running out.  Right?

But the whole tower seems to have a lot of taps that are leaking (or spraying).  And the water (love) is getting lower and lower.

But possibly God’s love is not like a giant water tower, vast but still limited and slowly getting less and less.
Could his love be a river?
Vast and unlimited.
Always flowing and running.

Does God break us? - part 2

This is a continuation of the post “Does God break us?”

Instead of viewing tragedy as the direct work of God on our lives I believe that all tragedy is the result of sin. Sin is anything that is opposed to God, which is why I say that tragedy is not the direct work of God. (Is there a difference between tragedy and change? Yes. In the future I would like to discuss this difference. For now I am viewing tragedy as the bad things that happen to us.)

There are three basic convictions that I hold to: God is good, God loves me, and God is great.
Anything good in my life is a gift from God (it is grace) – James 1:17. I do not have so many good things in my life because I am so good, or worked so hard or am so smart. I am blessed because God is good.
The creator of the universe loves me. In fact he loves me so much that willingly died in order to be in relationship with me. Instead of beating me over the head to crush me into submission Jesus lovingly invites me to be with him.
And the God who is loves me and is good to me is not powerless and weak. He is the creator and sustainer of everything. And there is nothing that rivals him.
If this is true why do Christians suffer?
Because humans and some angels have chosen to reject God and live for themselves. The result is that we live a broken planet. We could explore the idea of a broken planet, however I would like to get more personal.
Why do I suffer? Because I reject God and live for myself. Now I am a follower of Jesus. But it is amazing how many times every day I end up living for myself instead of God (Praise the Lord that he is so gracious and loving that he keeps holding me close to him, forgiving me). And when I live for myself I make a mess of my life.
Instead of tragedy being something that God brings on me, tragedy is something that I bring on myself. I know this is not the answer for all evil, but it does explain a lot of my suffering.
Tragedy is often the result of God removing his hand blessing from me allowing me to experience the consequences of my actions/thoughts/words. It is not God beating me over the head.
Does God use tragedy to change me? Absolutely. He is that amazing. He can take something evil and still work good. But that does not mean that he was the author of evil.

Picturing God in this way I am more prone to thankfulness and prayer. I want to be close to him.

Does God break us?

When we experience pain and suffering in our life is that God working to get our attention? Is it God's way of removing things to insure that we become more dependent on him?
Sometimes we say things like "I am so dense God has to hit me over the head with a two-by-four to get my attention." What we are saying is that the tragedy we are in right now is God's intentional act to get our attention. I grew up believing this.
But is this right? I am not so sure.
Today I want to explore some of the difficulties that I see with this view. In a couple of days I want to explore a different way to view tragedies.

In this belief God is the author of tragedy, loss, suffering and pain. And I am the worker of good.
Think about it. This view believes that God intentionally brings tragedy to help me see him. The tragedy is the work of God.
Now the fact that God had to "hit me with a 2-by-4" indicates that I was not paying attention to him. And the fact that the tragedy is God's action means that my life was going quite well without him. I wasn't experience pain/loss/suffering. Without God I was doing very good - thank you very much. And along comes God and messes it all up. As a good Christian I am suppose to be thankful to God for this.

What seems to happen then is that I seek God in my tragedies. I need his help to get out of them (he should be able to help since he brought it on me). But that is it. My faith dries up when the tragedy is over. I don't need God any more. Oh I may try and pay attention to him in order to avoid getting hit again. But I don't need him. And my relationship with him becomes weaker and weaker as I improve my life.

Taking captivity captive

In Ephesians 4:8 is says

"When he [Jesus] ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive".

Jesus, our messiah, takes captivity captive. He said at one time that he came to set us free. If Jesus' mission was to set people free, as his followers we most make sure that we don't make people captive. If we are honest too often the church has bound and held people captive instead of bringing them to Jesus who sets them free.
The institution of the church has held many people captive. We feel this need to insure that our institution or program survives. The institution or program holds us as slaves. We become competitive with other churches and other programs within "our church". Instead of serving in love and freedom, we end working because of guilt and fear.
Guilt and fear are two weapons the church has often used to keep people under control - enslaved. Enslaved to our institutions or to our idea of morality.
But Jesus died to set us free. And the one Jesus has set free is free indeed.

Anabaptist core beliefs

I have been reading Jacob Loewen’s book Only the Sword of the Spirit. In this book Jacob explores some of the core beliefs that Anabaptist’s (Mennonites) held to at the beginning. He then examines our history, evaluating how well we have done in living up to these requirements. According to Jacob as Mennonites we have not done a very good job of being faithful.

Here are the 12 main beliefs that early Anabaptists held to.

1) Disciples of Jesus are citizens of the kingdom of peace

2) Citizens of the kingdom of peace must separate themselves from this world

3) The followers of Jesus should live together as a community of equals under Jesus as Lord and master

4) Disciples are stewards, not owners of property

5) The believing community should be governed by the Spirit of God mediated by its servants – the ministers and teachers

6) Disciples are to live by the sword of the Spirit in building the kingdom of peace

7) The Anabaptists read the Bible as a focused rather than a flat canon

8) Menno Simmons believed that the believing community should serve as an exegetical community in interpreting Scripture

9) Menno Simmons believed that the church can best make decisions on the basis of consensus under the guidance of the Holy Spirit

10) Menno Simmons believed that the congregation should fully participate in church governance as part of the Body of Christ

11) Menno Simmons believed that church members should practice sacrificial servanthood rather than seeking privileged status as God’s chosen people

12) Menno Simmons believed that the people of God should be identified by their discipleship, not by doctrine and ideology

Are there any that you agree with? Any that you think are totally crazy?

God all-knowing?

I have been looking at the confession of faith for my conference. In the commentary on the confession of faith we state that God is all-knowing. Now if knowing is more than just head knowledge but also experiential knowledge. Is God truly all-knowing? Does God know everything experientially? Specifically I started to wonder if God has ever experience shame or guilt.
Two ways I see that it might be possible for God to experience shame and guilt.

There was a man who had a son. When the son was grown up he set his heart to do evil all the time. The son continued in his evil behavior for many years. Soon everyone knew about this son's evilness. As time passed the community began to associate evil with the son's family name. Does the father experience shame even though he has done no wrong?

There was once a man who decided to never wash or change his clothes. As time passed his body and clothes became filthy. This man and his clothes were infested with fleas and lice. He was miserable. One day another man passed by, this man had just had a bath and had bought new clothes. When he saw the filthy man he had compassion on him. The man with new clothes offered to trade his clothes with the filthy man. Once they trade clothes would not the clean man now experience the consequences on the filthy man's choice to not wash? Is this not sort of like what Christ does for us - taking our sin upon himself?

Seven deadly sins

The Catholic Church has just announced that there are a new seven deadly sins. They are

• Bioethical" violations such as birth control.
• "Morally dubious" experiments such as stem cell research.
• Drug abuse.
• Polluting the environment.
• Aggravating social injustice by contributing to the widening gap between rich and poor.
• Excessive wealth.
  

This is in addition to the old list

• Lust.
• Gluttony.
• Greed.
• Envy.
• Wrath.
• Pride.
• Sloth, which replaced sadness in the 17th century.

I am some what surprised at this list and that they have come out with a new list. Pleasantly surprised that Catholic Church sees the destruction of the world, social injustice and excessive wealth as major problems that need to be addressed. I was sadly surprised that certain things were not on the list. Things like abortion, terrorism and sexual abuse.
Over all I am not sure that making a list of the worst sins is the best idea. First of all, it comes across as really judgmental. This list would be a lot more powerful if sexual abuse was included because the Catholic Church would have been identifying some of their sins. Second reason a list might not be a good idea is that this implies that Christianity about following rules and not about following God. Third, I have real doubts that this list is going to change anything.