Date Published: 10/04/2010
In 1972 Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton was forced off the Democratic Party's ticket as George McGovern's Vice-Presidential running mate because he acknowledged he had been hospitalized and received treatment for physical and nervous exhaustion and depression.
As I opened worship on September 26 I spoke of a mental health concern in our family and asked for the congregation's prayers and support. Several people have spoken to me since acknowledging their own mental health challenges, thanking me for my openness and requesting my prayers. I tried to be as simple and open as possible without drawing too much attention away from worship. If anyone was offended or objected, they did not speak to me. Maybe that will change now that I have posted this. Who knows?
Since this forum is completely accessable, I have not named either the family member or the specific diagnosis out of respect for privacy and confidentiality. Perhaps that hesitancy is a symptom of the persistence of the stigma associated with mental illness. Even so, that doesn't change my decision.
Each of those who spoke to me about their own mental health issues thanked me for my openness and said it gave them more courage to speak, even to me their pastor, about it. Each one expressed some sense of not being free to talk about their experience because other people do not understand and accept their situations.
I write this today as an invitation for a conversation about how to have a healthy openness about mental illness, first of all in the church as the faith community of Jesus who clearly overflowed with compassion toward those who suffer. And then to explore whether and how such openness in the church might influence the broader society.
Your responses are encouraged!
Monday, January 2, 2012
Pastors Who Lose Their Faith
Date Published: 11/12/2010
The ABC evening news had a piece this week on pastors who have lost their faith but keep it a secret and continue to serve their congregations. The pastors who were interviewed were treated sympathetically, and the feature did not delve much into the nature of their doubts but focused on the tension of the incongruity of pretending to believe in public what has been lost in private.
I am not only certain that many pastors go through dark doubts, but I would actually be a little suspicious of a pastor who did not wrestle seriously with doubt. I remember reading a story about a pastor who resigned because of his doubts, and the congregation told him to preach his doubts. Their acceptance opened the door to their pastor’s recovery of faith, and I’m sure deepened not only their faith but their respect for their pastor. I can’t remember for sure where I read it, but James F. McGrath tells it on his blog. (http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2009/08/preach-your-doubts.html)
On thing that struck me about the pastors in the ABC news feature was how isolated these pastors seemed to be. It was not just that they didn’t feel safe sharing their doubts with anyone in their congregations or with other clergy, but that seemed not to have authentic relationships with other pastors. Perhaps that is a function of the competitiveness that has infected so many churches, or perhaps these pastors were in settings that defined Christianity so tightly that exploring and wrestling were forbidden.
I am thankful for clergy colleagues with whom I have been able to have real and transparent conversations. It’s not so much getting answers as it is knowing I am not alone. My suspicion is that pastors like those in the ABC news feature are trying to do the impossible: guide God’s people on their own. When pastors are viewed as entrepreneurs running businesses, the isolation is necessarily harmful to faith.
While I wouldn’t make myself the subject of my preaching or pastoral prayers, I have tried to be honest about my struggles with the congregations I have served. I actually think that has helped many people hang onto Christ in the midst of their dark doubts, knowing that their pastor has wrestled with similar issues. The New Testament is totally clear that faith is nurtured in community. It is not good to be alone! (Genesis 2:18)
The ABC evening news had a piece this week on pastors who have lost their faith but keep it a secret and continue to serve their congregations. The pastors who were interviewed were treated sympathetically, and the feature did not delve much into the nature of their doubts but focused on the tension of the incongruity of pretending to believe in public what has been lost in private.
I am not only certain that many pastors go through dark doubts, but I would actually be a little suspicious of a pastor who did not wrestle seriously with doubt. I remember reading a story about a pastor who resigned because of his doubts, and the congregation told him to preach his doubts. Their acceptance opened the door to their pastor’s recovery of faith, and I’m sure deepened not only their faith but their respect for their pastor. I can’t remember for sure where I read it, but James F. McGrath tells it on his blog. (http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2009/08/preach-your-doubts.html)
On thing that struck me about the pastors in the ABC news feature was how isolated these pastors seemed to be. It was not just that they didn’t feel safe sharing their doubts with anyone in their congregations or with other clergy, but that seemed not to have authentic relationships with other pastors. Perhaps that is a function of the competitiveness that has infected so many churches, or perhaps these pastors were in settings that defined Christianity so tightly that exploring and wrestling were forbidden.
I am thankful for clergy colleagues with whom I have been able to have real and transparent conversations. It’s not so much getting answers as it is knowing I am not alone. My suspicion is that pastors like those in the ABC news feature are trying to do the impossible: guide God’s people on their own. When pastors are viewed as entrepreneurs running businesses, the isolation is necessarily harmful to faith.
While I wouldn’t make myself the subject of my preaching or pastoral prayers, I have tried to be honest about my struggles with the congregations I have served. I actually think that has helped many people hang onto Christ in the midst of their dark doubts, knowing that their pastor has wrestled with similar issues. The New Testament is totally clear that faith is nurtured in community. It is not good to be alone! (Genesis 2:18)
Peace on Earth?
Date Published: 12/24/2009
One of the Christmas letters we received this year, the sender said that every year he prays for peace, and every year wars and violence continue. He commented that he keeps hoping for a president or congress that will take the Christmas prayers and longings for peace seriously.
English teacher and writer Leonard Beechy writes about a Rabbi asking a class of Christian seminary students, “If Jesus was messiah, where is shalom?” (The Christian Century, November 17, 2009, page 20)
Last Sunday evening our congregation’s Christmas Vespers closing prayer was the singing of Let There Be Peace on Earth, and the key line is “and let it begin with me.”
Yesterday I was with a group of clergy who were discussing Greg Mortenson’s book Three Cups of Tea. One of the questions was whether building schools or counter-insurgency was more effective. We asked whether pragmatic outcomes are appropriate for discerning what personal actions to take and how whole societies make such monumental moral decisions.
We all resonate with the words of the angels in Luke 2:14: “On earth peace among those whom [God] favors!” Yet, a face value reading suggests that either the peace has not come or we are out of God’s favor.
As I muse on this every Christmas, I have come to be certain that no president or congress can be the channel of God’s promised peace. That’s just counter-intuitive, incongruous with being commander-in-chief, which is not to say that those in government don’t have moral responsibility and opportunity. Settling for an ambiguous inner peace without relational and even international peace sells God’s promise short and evades reality. Jesus reminds us that there will be “wars and rumor of wars” (Matthew 24:6; Mark 13:7) but to use that as an excuse for avoiding peacemaking contradicts all that Jesus stood for. Somewhere “let it begin with me” seems to be on the right track but doesn’t go far enough.
The answer is somewhere in a mystery that transcends pragmatic effectiveness. It is buried in the mystery of the hiddeness of the Kingdom and of the Gospel (Matthew 13:44). It is realized in the great reversal of the incarnation (Philippians 2:1-11). It is experienced in brokenness and wholeness when the Church lives as community of grace, as community of Christ’s Kingdom of Peace.
One of the Christmas letters we received this year, the sender said that every year he prays for peace, and every year wars and violence continue. He commented that he keeps hoping for a president or congress that will take the Christmas prayers and longings for peace seriously.
English teacher and writer Leonard Beechy writes about a Rabbi asking a class of Christian seminary students, “If Jesus was messiah, where is shalom?” (The Christian Century, November 17, 2009, page 20)
Last Sunday evening our congregation’s Christmas Vespers closing prayer was the singing of Let There Be Peace on Earth, and the key line is “and let it begin with me.”
Yesterday I was with a group of clergy who were discussing Greg Mortenson’s book Three Cups of Tea. One of the questions was whether building schools or counter-insurgency was more effective. We asked whether pragmatic outcomes are appropriate for discerning what personal actions to take and how whole societies make such monumental moral decisions.
We all resonate with the words of the angels in Luke 2:14: “On earth peace among those whom [God] favors!” Yet, a face value reading suggests that either the peace has not come or we are out of God’s favor.
As I muse on this every Christmas, I have come to be certain that no president or congress can be the channel of God’s promised peace. That’s just counter-intuitive, incongruous with being commander-in-chief, which is not to say that those in government don’t have moral responsibility and opportunity. Settling for an ambiguous inner peace without relational and even international peace sells God’s promise short and evades reality. Jesus reminds us that there will be “wars and rumor of wars” (Matthew 24:6; Mark 13:7) but to use that as an excuse for avoiding peacemaking contradicts all that Jesus stood for. Somewhere “let it begin with me” seems to be on the right track but doesn’t go far enough.
The answer is somewhere in a mystery that transcends pragmatic effectiveness. It is buried in the mystery of the hiddeness of the Kingdom and of the Gospel (Matthew 13:44). It is realized in the great reversal of the incarnation (Philippians 2:1-11). It is experienced in brokenness and wholeness when the Church lives as community of grace, as community of Christ’s Kingdom of Peace.
Post-Christian America?
Date Published: 04/20/2009
Any number of commentators, Christian and secular, have weighed in on the observation of the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey that the decline in those in the U.S. who identify themselves as “Christians” marks the end of “Christian America.” Through U.S. history the tension between the Puritan vision of a Christian commonwealth and the Deist vision of a free secular society has played out in uneasy rhythms. In the colonial era, most of the colonies had established churches. When devout Baptist Roger Williams founded Rhode Island as totally secular with complete individual religious freedom, the Massachusetts’ Puritans ridiculed it as the “insane asylum” of the colonies. But when the time came to write the U.S. Constitution, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania (with William Penn’s Quaker respect for religious freedom and individual conscience) became the model, not the colonies with established state churches.
However, Roger Williams’ motive was to provide an environment for the nourishment of healthy Christian faith. He believed that faith was most authentic and strongest when it was freely adopted and not artificially propped up by government or society. Before Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire, the Christian Church was on the fringes of society, if not regarded as dangerous to the dominant culture. I am convinced by church history that is when the Church is strongest and healthiest.
I certainly care about the welfare and practice of justice in the nation in which I live. But I recognize that I am here by a quirk of birth, thanks to the opportunity my grandparents had to immigrate, for which I am thankful. I also recognize that the U.S. is not the Kingdom of God and stands under God’s judgment and blessing as a temporary human institution. As a Christian, however, my ultimate concern and hope is the eternal Kingdom of God. I believe that the health of the Church is better served by a totally secular government, society and culture. Then identifying one’s self as a Christian is much more likely to reflect a live, personal faith lived in a community of others who share the same covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. So rather than bemoan the loss of “Christian America,” I see it as an opportunity for the reinvigorated and authentic faith of Christians.
Any number of commentators, Christian and secular, have weighed in on the observation of the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey that the decline in those in the U.S. who identify themselves as “Christians” marks the end of “Christian America.” Through U.S. history the tension between the Puritan vision of a Christian commonwealth and the Deist vision of a free secular society has played out in uneasy rhythms. In the colonial era, most of the colonies had established churches. When devout Baptist Roger Williams founded Rhode Island as totally secular with complete individual religious freedom, the Massachusetts’ Puritans ridiculed it as the “insane asylum” of the colonies. But when the time came to write the U.S. Constitution, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania (with William Penn’s Quaker respect for religious freedom and individual conscience) became the model, not the colonies with established state churches.
However, Roger Williams’ motive was to provide an environment for the nourishment of healthy Christian faith. He believed that faith was most authentic and strongest when it was freely adopted and not artificially propped up by government or society. Before Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire, the Christian Church was on the fringes of society, if not regarded as dangerous to the dominant culture. I am convinced by church history that is when the Church is strongest and healthiest.
I certainly care about the welfare and practice of justice in the nation in which I live. But I recognize that I am here by a quirk of birth, thanks to the opportunity my grandparents had to immigrate, for which I am thankful. I also recognize that the U.S. is not the Kingdom of God and stands under God’s judgment and blessing as a temporary human institution. As a Christian, however, my ultimate concern and hope is the eternal Kingdom of God. I believe that the health of the Church is better served by a totally secular government, society and culture. Then identifying one’s self as a Christian is much more likely to reflect a live, personal faith lived in a community of others who share the same covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. So rather than bemoan the loss of “Christian America,” I see it as an opportunity for the reinvigorated and authentic faith of Christians.
Receive, Don’t Take the Helmet of Salvation
Date Published: 08/23/2009
On Sunday, August 23, my worship message is on Ephesians 6:10-20, which we tend to think of as the armor of God passage. As I prayed, studied and prepared, I became convinced that explaining each piece of armor was not the direction to take the message. For a variety of reasons (the other lectionary passages I Kings 8:22-30,41-43; John 6:56-69; reflections on the General Assembly of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Indianapolis; reading Walter Bruggemann’s book “The Word Militant” during my summer travels) I was drawn to focus the Sunday message of Ephesians 6:12. “Our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
If you want to know what I said about that, you’ll have to download that message and listen to it, unless you were in worship at Central Christian Church on August 23. But one thing about the armor of God jumped out at me when I was doing my commentary and language study. Throwing it into the Sunday sermon didn’t really make sense, so I decided to post that one observation here.
Verse 17 says “Take the helmet of salvation.” Several commentators noted that the verbs for all of the previous pieces of armor described someone putting on their own clothes (or armor in this case). But the word translated “take” is the word for accepting or receiving something someone else gives you. The implication is that our action, volition, discipline is part of the virtues of truth, righteousness, readiness to proclaim the Gospel, and even faith. But salvation is given to us. We just receive the gift. The image some of the commentators conjured was of the soldier who, after putting on all of the armor, is not able to bend down to pick up the helmet and set it on the head. Someone else has to lift it into place. All that is needed is to receive it.
Interestingly, the sword of the Spirit is also grammatically included as something that must be handed to the soldier. If the soldier picks it up before putting on the armor, the armor won’t go on, but once the armor is on, someone must hand it to the soldier so the soldier can grasp and use it. We conventionally think of the sword as the word of God being a symbol of the Bible. While that’s probably included, the commentators (and Walter Bruggemann) suggest something deeper. This “word of God” is the utterance of God, the power of God speaking (Genesis 1:3 “God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.”) This is Jesus replying to his temptations, “It is written/said.” (Luke 4:1-13) It is the force of Jesus’ word “I am he” that knocks his arresters to the ground (John 18:5-6).
I don’t want to push this too far or make any dogmatic statements. I only want to explore in my own heart (and challenge you to do the same) what do my spiritual disciplines contribute (truth, righteousness, readiness to proclaim the Gospel, faith) and what do I receive as gifts (salvation, the Spirit, the word of God)?
On Sunday, August 23, my worship message is on Ephesians 6:10-20, which we tend to think of as the armor of God passage. As I prayed, studied and prepared, I became convinced that explaining each piece of armor was not the direction to take the message. For a variety of reasons (the other lectionary passages I Kings 8:22-30,41-43; John 6:56-69; reflections on the General Assembly of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Indianapolis; reading Walter Bruggemann’s book “The Word Militant” during my summer travels) I was drawn to focus the Sunday message of Ephesians 6:12. “Our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
If you want to know what I said about that, you’ll have to download that message and listen to it, unless you were in worship at Central Christian Church on August 23. But one thing about the armor of God jumped out at me when I was doing my commentary and language study. Throwing it into the Sunday sermon didn’t really make sense, so I decided to post that one observation here.
Verse 17 says “Take the helmet of salvation.” Several commentators noted that the verbs for all of the previous pieces of armor described someone putting on their own clothes (or armor in this case). But the word translated “take” is the word for accepting or receiving something someone else gives you. The implication is that our action, volition, discipline is part of the virtues of truth, righteousness, readiness to proclaim the Gospel, and even faith. But salvation is given to us. We just receive the gift. The image some of the commentators conjured was of the soldier who, after putting on all of the armor, is not able to bend down to pick up the helmet and set it on the head. Someone else has to lift it into place. All that is needed is to receive it.
Interestingly, the sword of the Spirit is also grammatically included as something that must be handed to the soldier. If the soldier picks it up before putting on the armor, the armor won’t go on, but once the armor is on, someone must hand it to the soldier so the soldier can grasp and use it. We conventionally think of the sword as the word of God being a symbol of the Bible. While that’s probably included, the commentators (and Walter Bruggemann) suggest something deeper. This “word of God” is the utterance of God, the power of God speaking (Genesis 1:3 “God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.”) This is Jesus replying to his temptations, “It is written/said.” (Luke 4:1-13) It is the force of Jesus’ word “I am he” that knocks his arresters to the ground (John 18:5-6).
I don’t want to push this too far or make any dogmatic statements. I only want to explore in my own heart (and challenge you to do the same) what do my spiritual disciplines contribute (truth, righteousness, readiness to proclaim the Gospel, faith) and what do I receive as gifts (salvation, the Spirit, the word of God)?
Season's Greetings to the Grinch
Date Published: 12/09/2010
I have been interested to watch the reactions to the Grinch naughty or nice website put up by First Baptist Church of Dallas. I'm not singling them out; they are the most prominent public expression of the movement to object to holiday messages that do not explicitly mention Jesus or CHRISTmas.
Pastor Robert Jeffress said they thought it was a fun way to call attention to Jesus at this season, but many of those who reacted found it offensive rather than fun.
I am one who makes a point of focusing on Jesus as a pastor and as an individual. I am also counter cultural enough not to expect the dominant society to share that priority. In fact, I find it somehow demeaning and even perhaps sacrilegious to use Jesus to sell everything from junk to extravagance at Christmas time.
I saw one letter to the editor that suggested that objecting to non-Jesus, non-Christ holiday messages was a question of freedom of speech, as though political correctness was limiting people's religious liberty. It seems to me that using economic pressure to coerce a business owner who does not have a faith relationship with Jesus to put Jesus or Christ in holiday messages infringes of free speech in ways that makes Christians seem like grouches (Grinches).
Besides that, it strikes me that Christians who go around looking to be offended by generic holiday messages are letting something quite innocuous steal their joy.
On Monday (12-6) I was at an interfaith gathering where Christians (and even Christians and Jews) were a distinct minority. I received the seasonal greetings as expressions of good will as positive wishes without in any way diminishing my faith in Jesus.
I have been interested to watch the reactions to the Grinch naughty or nice website put up by First Baptist Church of Dallas. I'm not singling them out; they are the most prominent public expression of the movement to object to holiday messages that do not explicitly mention Jesus or CHRISTmas.
Pastor Robert Jeffress said they thought it was a fun way to call attention to Jesus at this season, but many of those who reacted found it offensive rather than fun.
I am one who makes a point of focusing on Jesus as a pastor and as an individual. I am also counter cultural enough not to expect the dominant society to share that priority. In fact, I find it somehow demeaning and even perhaps sacrilegious to use Jesus to sell everything from junk to extravagance at Christmas time.
I saw one letter to the editor that suggested that objecting to non-Jesus, non-Christ holiday messages was a question of freedom of speech, as though political correctness was limiting people's religious liberty. It seems to me that using economic pressure to coerce a business owner who does not have a faith relationship with Jesus to put Jesus or Christ in holiday messages infringes of free speech in ways that makes Christians seem like grouches (Grinches).
Besides that, it strikes me that Christians who go around looking to be offended by generic holiday messages are letting something quite innocuous steal their joy.
On Monday (12-6) I was at an interfaith gathering where Christians (and even Christians and Jews) were a distinct minority. I received the seasonal greetings as expressions of good will as positive wishes without in any way diminishing my faith in Jesus.
Secular But Not Atheist
Date Published: 07/03/2009
In a previous post, I commented on a KERA interview with Christopher Caldwell from Sunday, June 14, 2009. In a tangential reply of little significance to the theme of the interview, he made a distinction between atheists and secular people in Europe. That got me thinking about the secularism of the United States.
Without implying what Christopher Caldwell might say, I would suggest that those who call themselves atheists have make not believing in God, any god, an article of faith around which they organize their lives. They are likely to seek to persuade those who believe in God or gods that they are in error, illogical or unscientific. Some may even write books or make speeches militantly attacking religion as dangerous and harmful.
The people I know whom I would describe as secular are not so much opposed to believing in God as just uninvolved with God. They are happy to tolerate religious people as long as they keep their religion private, like a personal hobby. They may even welcome humanitarian endeavors of religious origin, as long as religious expectations are not imposed on the recipients of the service, or perhaps even volunteers or staff. If asked, secular people may well say they believe in God and even describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious.”
As a Christian theist who puts a high priority on my intimate relationship with God based on faith in Jesus, I have no interest in fostering a cultural Christianity, but I am passionate about inviting secular people to get to know and trust Jesus. In fact, I have become convinced that cultural Christianity is hazardous to authentic faith in Christ. Generic expressions of religion loosely associated with Christian symbols, such as the Golden Rule and the Lord’s Prayer, can delude people into thinking that they can be Christian with these superficial signs without a life in which everything springs from Jesus.
In a previous post, I commented on a KERA interview with Christopher Caldwell from Sunday, June 14, 2009. In a tangential reply of little significance to the theme of the interview, he made a distinction between atheists and secular people in Europe. That got me thinking about the secularism of the United States.
Without implying what Christopher Caldwell might say, I would suggest that those who call themselves atheists have make not believing in God, any god, an article of faith around which they organize their lives. They are likely to seek to persuade those who believe in God or gods that they are in error, illogical or unscientific. Some may even write books or make speeches militantly attacking religion as dangerous and harmful.
The people I know whom I would describe as secular are not so much opposed to believing in God as just uninvolved with God. They are happy to tolerate religious people as long as they keep their religion private, like a personal hobby. They may even welcome humanitarian endeavors of religious origin, as long as religious expectations are not imposed on the recipients of the service, or perhaps even volunteers or staff. If asked, secular people may well say they believe in God and even describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious.”
As a Christian theist who puts a high priority on my intimate relationship with God based on faith in Jesus, I have no interest in fostering a cultural Christianity, but I am passionate about inviting secular people to get to know and trust Jesus. In fact, I have become convinced that cultural Christianity is hazardous to authentic faith in Christ. Generic expressions of religion loosely associated with Christian symbols, such as the Golden Rule and the Lord’s Prayer, can delude people into thinking that they can be Christian with these superficial signs without a life in which everything springs from Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)