3/28/2011
Tenure for Pastors
When a minister has an opinion most other ministers disagree with, it is probably wrong. But not always. I have such an opinion on the “extended call” my denomination introduced a years ago. I am probably wrong on this, but maybe not. At the time, it seemed like a good idea. There was a day when all the local church members voted every year on whether to keep their pastor or not. Lots of preacher’s kids [believe they] sat through the springtime counting of the votes by the tellers: “Yes, no, no, yes, no, no,” tallying up weather they were going to have to move or not. Few pastors or their kids liked this. So two-year “calls” became standard, then a four-year call was introduced and eventually the “extended call” was rolled out to end this suspenseful process. If an “extended call” was approved by the entire congregation it ended congregational voting on the pastor, a semi-eternal security for pastors… or at least “tenure.” As long as a pastor satisfied their board everything was hunky-dory. And if a board got dissatisfied with their pastor they could call for a public vote to see if the rest of the church members agreed with them. But past solutions often become future problems. The way a thing works out is not always how it was intended. It is my opinion that the extended call merely concentrates power over the pastor’s future into the hands of a smaller group. Often that group is harder to satisfy then the larger one. How it worked out is that when a board calls for a congregational vote the pastor usually resigns. That’s my point. The extended call functionally just concentrates power over the pastor’s tenure into the hands of a handful of board members. In my opinion, the extended call is not a pastor-friendly device. But not many pastors agree with me. So I am probably wrong. So, what do you think? The discussion of this column is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=161502633 Keith Drury March 29, 2011 www.TuesdayColumn.com
3/22/2011
Julian Assange & the church
Technology has always affected the church. The printing press may have contributed to the Reformation, the telephone changed the speed with which a member could summon their pastor. The automobile multiplied the number of choices laity had for attending church. The Internet is in the process of influencing the church too—how the church communicates with its people, how pastors lead, and how information gets released. This column is especially about the latter—how information gets released.
Just 25 years ago the release of information was controlled by the insiders. Back then the General Board of my denomination would hold an important election, then the denomination’s leaders would orchestrate a ripple-release of the information. The following day an official would mail a first-class letter to all the District Superintendents and College Presidents announcing the decision or vote. These insiders where then to “pass it on” to ordinary folk. Denominational officials could control what got circulated by how they drafted the letter—what they put in…and what they left out. Sometimes decisions and elections occurred that were suspenseful nail biters yet the announcement merely calmly reported the outcome. Some leaders were elected on the 17th ballot yet the release confidently reported only the final victory as if it was a forgone conclusion. Of course there were insiders who knew the details and the actual vote numbers. In those days if you were in with one of the elite you could find out the real story—why a person “really” resigned, or how close a vote really was, but the ordinary people never got the messy details.
The Internet doomed the ripple release system. Then smart phones drove the final nail in the coffin. Now board committee members text out to their friends blow by blow descriptions of insider dramas. By the time the “official release” is sent an hour later 50 people in Florida have already passed on the news to the rest of their denomination. Even when board members are chided to confidentiality, the bucket still seems to leak—at least if you let board members keep their smart phones and they have bathroom breaks.
The younger generation has complicated the problem. Many feel that inside information should not be proprietary and limited to the elites. These folk were raised in the Internet age living the “documented life.” They think nothing should be kept secret and they think it’s a moral issue. They don’t just think they have a right to information—they believe it is wrong to withhold it. So when a pastor is quietly removed and the DS announces “we felt a change needed to be made” younger people want to know exactly what happened—including all the details. Older folk think tell-all reports are damaging to the people involved and blabbering sordid details is not the loving thing to do—for anyone involved. Younger folk are legalistic and judgmental, accusing the powerful elite of self-protection and being inauthentic.
Actually our culture in working through this. The discussion of who has the right to know things and who has the right to tell them surrounds Julian Assange recently. And, each institution, denomination and local church has its own Julian Assanges who like to spread messy reports. Of course, we have always had muckraking and yellow journalism. What is new today are blogs and Facebook. Any single person with Internet access can now report the sordid details of insider shenanigans. Any board member who has a gripe can feed inside information to someone who will publish the whole story for all to see on their blog or Facebook page that evening. That person may only have 500 Face book “friends” yet within 24 hours 5,000 people will have read the story, copied it into hundreds of emails and forwarded it like dandelion seeds. This single report is the only story circulating so people believe it until they hear differently. They seldom do. In the messiest situations leaders seldom give an official release, so the amateur reporter’s story gets believed since it is the only edition out there. Leaders imagine they are “trusted” and feel no need of correcting false information. Politicians have learned otherwise—“an unanswered story become true in people’s eyes unless specifically answered.” Can this be true in the church too?
That’s what I’m thinking about this week. Not wheather Julian Assange is a bad person or doing good in “democratizing information.” Not wheather some lay leader or denominational board member is bad or good in secretly texting their spouse the latest vote tally. Instead, I’m interested in how leaders should deal with this change in the world. Some are proposing a new kind of leadership called “authentic Leadership.” It is a style of leadership that hides nothing from followers, figuring they’re going to find out anyway. Is this a valid approach for the church too? Other strategies emerging are instituting a crack down with forced confidentiality agreements and removing people who ever leak inside information. A third strategy is pulling back important discussions away from leaky boards to have these discussions in smaller more elite groups where no minutes are kept and the leaders ask board members to “just trust u.”
So what do church leader do in this changed world? Should a pastor report everything that happens in a board meeting to the whole church—even non-members? What about a district board or a college board? Should denominational boards report everything to their pastors or keep some things secret? And… are your standards for those “above” you different than the standards for yourself? So what do you think…. how has the Internet and smart phones changed the way we release information in the church?
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this column is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=161502633
Keith Drury March 22, 2011
www.TuesdayColumn.com
Just 25 years ago the release of information was controlled by the insiders. Back then the General Board of my denomination would hold an important election, then the denomination’s leaders would orchestrate a ripple-release of the information. The following day an official would mail a first-class letter to all the District Superintendents and College Presidents announcing the decision or vote. These insiders where then to “pass it on” to ordinary folk. Denominational officials could control what got circulated by how they drafted the letter—what they put in…and what they left out. Sometimes decisions and elections occurred that were suspenseful nail biters yet the announcement merely calmly reported the outcome. Some leaders were elected on the 17th ballot yet the release confidently reported only the final victory as if it was a forgone conclusion. Of course there were insiders who knew the details and the actual vote numbers. In those days if you were in with one of the elite you could find out the real story—why a person “really” resigned, or how close a vote really was, but the ordinary people never got the messy details.
The Internet doomed the ripple release system. Then smart phones drove the final nail in the coffin. Now board committee members text out to their friends blow by blow descriptions of insider dramas. By the time the “official release” is sent an hour later 50 people in Florida have already passed on the news to the rest of their denomination. Even when board members are chided to confidentiality, the bucket still seems to leak—at least if you let board members keep their smart phones and they have bathroom breaks.
The younger generation has complicated the problem. Many feel that inside information should not be proprietary and limited to the elites. These folk were raised in the Internet age living the “documented life.” They think nothing should be kept secret and they think it’s a moral issue. They don’t just think they have a right to information—they believe it is wrong to withhold it. So when a pastor is quietly removed and the DS announces “we felt a change needed to be made” younger people want to know exactly what happened—including all the details. Older folk think tell-all reports are damaging to the people involved and blabbering sordid details is not the loving thing to do—for anyone involved. Younger folk are legalistic and judgmental, accusing the powerful elite of self-protection and being inauthentic.
Actually our culture in working through this. The discussion of who has the right to know things and who has the right to tell them surrounds Julian Assange recently. And, each institution, denomination and local church has its own Julian Assanges who like to spread messy reports. Of course, we have always had muckraking and yellow journalism. What is new today are blogs and Facebook. Any single person with Internet access can now report the sordid details of insider shenanigans. Any board member who has a gripe can feed inside information to someone who will publish the whole story for all to see on their blog or Facebook page that evening. That person may only have 500 Face book “friends” yet within 24 hours 5,000 people will have read the story, copied it into hundreds of emails and forwarded it like dandelion seeds. This single report is the only story circulating so people believe it until they hear differently. They seldom do. In the messiest situations leaders seldom give an official release, so the amateur reporter’s story gets believed since it is the only edition out there. Leaders imagine they are “trusted” and feel no need of correcting false information. Politicians have learned otherwise—“an unanswered story become true in people’s eyes unless specifically answered.” Can this be true in the church too?
That’s what I’m thinking about this week. Not wheather Julian Assange is a bad person or doing good in “democratizing information.” Not wheather some lay leader or denominational board member is bad or good in secretly texting their spouse the latest vote tally. Instead, I’m interested in how leaders should deal with this change in the world. Some are proposing a new kind of leadership called “authentic Leadership.” It is a style of leadership that hides nothing from followers, figuring they’re going to find out anyway. Is this a valid approach for the church too? Other strategies emerging are instituting a crack down with forced confidentiality agreements and removing people who ever leak inside information. A third strategy is pulling back important discussions away from leaky boards to have these discussions in smaller more elite groups where no minutes are kept and the leaders ask board members to “just trust u.”
So what do church leader do in this changed world? Should a pastor report everything that happens in a board meeting to the whole church—even non-members? What about a district board or a college board? Should denominational boards report everything to their pastors or keep some things secret? And… are your standards for those “above” you different than the standards for yourself? So what do you think…. how has the Internet and smart phones changed the way we release information in the church?
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this column is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=161502633
Keith Drury March 22, 2011
www.TuesdayColumn.com
3/15/2011
A Demanding God or the Affirming God?
God is both demanding and affirming so our God-concept is not an either/or proposition really. However, most Christians (and Christian culture in the church at any one period of time) tend to “tilt” toward one or the other God concepts: the demanding God or the affirming God.
The demanding God is all about justice and power. This God has high expectations of his followers and is constantly dissatisfied with how poorly we are doing. He has issued commandments and expects us to obey them all and the demanding God gets angry when we disobey or fall short of the perfection he expects of us. When we see spiritual progress the demanding God points out how short we still fall from the perfection He expects and even when we succeed He then raises the bar still higher—He is never satisfied because we will always fall short. The demanding God punishes sin and imperfection and has made a terrible hell for those who don’t measure up. This demanding God will finally judge us and it will be a fearful thing to fall into His hands.
The affirming God is all about love. The affirming God is gentle and kind and speaks words of affirmation to us—He helps us cope with a difficult days. We are the first thought on the mind of the affirming God each day for he is our good shepherd and loves us so much that He would have sent Jesus to die for us even if we were the only person in the would. The affirming God is like a personal trainer—He understands us, encourages, urges us onward, overlooks our weaknesses and forgives our sins and short fallings even before we ask.
So to which God-concept do we tilt? Americans are spread in a curve from demanding to affirming, with most predictably in the middle. The group at large, however, tilts a bit toward the affirming God concept. We know this because two sociologists from Baylor University have reported on America’s God-concept.1 But, I’m less interested in America’s concept as I am the evangelical church’s concept. It is my hunch that evangelicals used to tilt toward the concept of a demanding God but in the last 30 years they are tilting toward the affirming God concept. I’m not sure I’m right on this, but I think evangelicals used to teach at the 3-4 level but now might be somewhere around 6 or 7 on the scale. Whatever the number, I think the movement is toward the affirming end. I wonder where you’d put evangelicals at large…and yourself personally?
Demanding__1_________2__________3__________4__________5__________6__________7__________8__________9__________10__Affirming
So, what do you think? Where would you place evangelical on this scale and which way is the movement occurring? Is the change a needed correction… or is it an overreaction that has gone too far?
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this column is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=161502633
Keith Drury March 15, 2011
www.TuesdayColumn.com
1. The book is by Paul Froese and Chris Bader titled “America’s Four Gods.” (Oxford University Press, 2010). The four Gods comes from putting two X-Y graphs together producing four quadrants. The two scales are demanding-affirming scale and a second scale on how active people think God is—what we might call the active-inactive scale. Thus using the two scales they come up with four distinct God concepts in America:
1) The AUTHORITATIVE God [wrathful-active]
2)The CRITICAL God [wrathful-inactive]
3) the DISTANT God [loving-inactive] and
4) BENEVOLENT God [loving-active].
I am only using one of the scales here—the wrathful-loving scale, titling them demanding and affirming.
The demanding God is all about justice and power. This God has high expectations of his followers and is constantly dissatisfied with how poorly we are doing. He has issued commandments and expects us to obey them all and the demanding God gets angry when we disobey or fall short of the perfection he expects of us. When we see spiritual progress the demanding God points out how short we still fall from the perfection He expects and even when we succeed He then raises the bar still higher—He is never satisfied because we will always fall short. The demanding God punishes sin and imperfection and has made a terrible hell for those who don’t measure up. This demanding God will finally judge us and it will be a fearful thing to fall into His hands.
The affirming God is all about love. The affirming God is gentle and kind and speaks words of affirmation to us—He helps us cope with a difficult days. We are the first thought on the mind of the affirming God each day for he is our good shepherd and loves us so much that He would have sent Jesus to die for us even if we were the only person in the would. The affirming God is like a personal trainer—He understands us, encourages, urges us onward, overlooks our weaknesses and forgives our sins and short fallings even before we ask.
So to which God-concept do we tilt? Americans are spread in a curve from demanding to affirming, with most predictably in the middle. The group at large, however, tilts a bit toward the affirming God concept. We know this because two sociologists from Baylor University have reported on America’s God-concept.1 But, I’m less interested in America’s concept as I am the evangelical church’s concept. It is my hunch that evangelicals used to tilt toward the concept of a demanding God but in the last 30 years they are tilting toward the affirming God concept. I’m not sure I’m right on this, but I think evangelicals used to teach at the 3-4 level but now might be somewhere around 6 or 7 on the scale. Whatever the number, I think the movement is toward the affirming end. I wonder where you’d put evangelicals at large…and yourself personally?
Demanding__1_________2__________3__________4__________5__________6__________7__________8__________9__________10__Affirming
So, what do you think? Where would you place evangelical on this scale and which way is the movement occurring? Is the change a needed correction… or is it an overreaction that has gone too far?
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this column is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=161502633
Keith Drury March 15, 2011
www.TuesdayColumn.com
1. The book is by Paul Froese and Chris Bader titled “America’s Four Gods.” (Oxford University Press, 2010). The four Gods comes from putting two X-Y graphs together producing four quadrants. The two scales are demanding-affirming scale and a second scale on how active people think God is—what we might call the active-inactive scale. Thus using the two scales they come up with four distinct God concepts in America:
1) The AUTHORITATIVE God [wrathful-active]
2)The CRITICAL God [wrathful-inactive]
3) the DISTANT God [loving-inactive] and
4) BENEVOLENT God [loving-active].
I am only using one of the scales here—the wrathful-loving scale, titling them demanding and affirming.
3/03/2011
Who goes to hell?
Who goes to hell? -- Predestination, Universalism & Free Will
A question that rises in all religions is who’s in and who’s out. If the religion has a heaven and hell, this question often boils down to who gets to go to heaven and who winds up in hell. The Christian religion has answered that variously through history and it is recently being asked again, brought to the forefront by Rob Bell’s new book. A good conversation about hell might be the result, though it might become a name-calling wresting match too. So, who is in and who is out and is there a hell to shun?
I. The Catholic answer was—“those not in the Catholic Church go to hell.”
This position has been eroding since they have softened up on Protestantism recently, but the classic Catholic answer was that everyone who was not a baptized Catholic was doomed to hell. The graphic portrayal of hell as a place of eternal torment was raised to the level of an art from (literally!) in the middle ages and much of the torment-motif we still have of hell comes from this Western Catholic middle ages view.
II. The Calvinist answer was “God picks the elect and everyone else goes to hell.”
This idea dominated protestant thinking, especially in New England, so that it is sometimes considered “orthodoxy” and every other position is considered wrong. This answer argues that all men and women deserve to go to hell—even the slightest sin of a young child is enough to condemn that child to an eternity of hell. But, by grace, before the foundation of the world, God has chosen some to be saved—the “select-elect.” God did not choose based on any good of the person, or even because He knew they would someday choose Him—He did it out of sheer mercy and grace. Those who are not elect are condemned to an eternity in hell. The Calvinist answer to the hell question is—everyone who was not selected to escape goes to hell.
III. The Arminian answer was: “God sends nobody to hell—people choose themselves to go to hell.”
Like Calvinists, Arminians accepted the idea of hell but rejected the notion that God consigns people there. They considered the Calvinist God capricious and proposed that people themselves decide to go to hell by refusing and rejecting God. Some Arminians considered it easy to reject God and others thought it took a continual and repeated rejection before a person chose to spend eternity separated from the people of God—but God’s grace didn’t give up easy on anyone. Arminians tended to believe that all children automatically went to heaven based on God’s grace, a kind of “juvenile universalism.” Calvinists considered Arminians liberals at best and unorthodox at worst. Many consider C. S. Lewis representing this position best.
IV. The Universalist answer was “A God’s love triumphs in the end and all will be saved…nobody goes to hell.”
Not long after the Revolutionary War a new answer emerged in America, though some early church fathers may have proposed this answer during the first centuries. To these “universalists” God’s love was central. They considered a god who would pick and choose people to be saved and consign everyone else to hell was not a god at all but a devil. If God was loving and sovereign they believed God’s love would triumph in the end. No human rejection or resistance was strong enough to veto the power of God’s love. They believed all humans are the children of God. Some of these cooperate with God now and join the mission, but others delay. Bu those who delay—or even reject God—will eventually fall under the accepting love of God, even if that occurs after death. The Universalist answer to the hell question is—Love wins in the end and nobody goes to hell.
So, who goes to hell?
Perhaps Rob Bell is only verbalizing a position most evangelicals already have taken. While evangelicals insist on having “hell on the books” and will fight furiously against anyone who says nobody is going to hell, functionally most evangelicals are universalists. Several years ago I asked my students fresh out of high school two questions: 1) Is there a real hell where people go and are punished? And 2) name three people you believe are going to hell unless they repent. Virtually every student agreed with the first question—there is definitely a hell. But less than 10% could name three living people who they thought might actually go to hell. They listed a few dead people, like Adolph Hitler, who would go to hell, but most of them thought all their relatives and virtually every student on this campus would not go to hell. In the discussion follow-up I asked how many had heard a sermon developing the idea of hell and exactly two of them had ever heard preaching on hell.
So I think Rob Bell and others have done a favor to the Christian community by proposing the old Universalist answer to the hell question again. Christians need a discussion on hell again—what is it, where is it, what happens there and who goes to hell and why? Virtually all of us have “hell on the books” in our denomination’s doctrinal positions. But what is our functionally position? We to have a talk about hell.
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this column is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=161502633
Keith Drury March 8, 2011
www.TuesdayColumn.com
A question that rises in all religions is who’s in and who’s out. If the religion has a heaven and hell, this question often boils down to who gets to go to heaven and who winds up in hell. The Christian religion has answered that variously through history and it is recently being asked again, brought to the forefront by Rob Bell’s new book. A good conversation about hell might be the result, though it might become a name-calling wresting match too. So, who is in and who is out and is there a hell to shun?
I. The Catholic answer was—“those not in the Catholic Church go to hell.”
This position has been eroding since they have softened up on Protestantism recently, but the classic Catholic answer was that everyone who was not a baptized Catholic was doomed to hell. The graphic portrayal of hell as a place of eternal torment was raised to the level of an art from (literally!) in the middle ages and much of the torment-motif we still have of hell comes from this Western Catholic middle ages view.
II. The Calvinist answer was “God picks the elect and everyone else goes to hell.”
This idea dominated protestant thinking, especially in New England, so that it is sometimes considered “orthodoxy” and every other position is considered wrong. This answer argues that all men and women deserve to go to hell—even the slightest sin of a young child is enough to condemn that child to an eternity of hell. But, by grace, before the foundation of the world, God has chosen some to be saved—the “select-elect.” God did not choose based on any good of the person, or even because He knew they would someday choose Him—He did it out of sheer mercy and grace. Those who are not elect are condemned to an eternity in hell. The Calvinist answer to the hell question is—everyone who was not selected to escape goes to hell.
III. The Arminian answer was: “God sends nobody to hell—people choose themselves to go to hell.”
Like Calvinists, Arminians accepted the idea of hell but rejected the notion that God consigns people there. They considered the Calvinist God capricious and proposed that people themselves decide to go to hell by refusing and rejecting God. Some Arminians considered it easy to reject God and others thought it took a continual and repeated rejection before a person chose to spend eternity separated from the people of God—but God’s grace didn’t give up easy on anyone. Arminians tended to believe that all children automatically went to heaven based on God’s grace, a kind of “juvenile universalism.” Calvinists considered Arminians liberals at best and unorthodox at worst. Many consider C. S. Lewis representing this position best.
IV. The Universalist answer was “A God’s love triumphs in the end and all will be saved…nobody goes to hell.”
Not long after the Revolutionary War a new answer emerged in America, though some early church fathers may have proposed this answer during the first centuries. To these “universalists” God’s love was central. They considered a god who would pick and choose people to be saved and consign everyone else to hell was not a god at all but a devil. If God was loving and sovereign they believed God’s love would triumph in the end. No human rejection or resistance was strong enough to veto the power of God’s love. They believed all humans are the children of God. Some of these cooperate with God now and join the mission, but others delay. Bu those who delay—or even reject God—will eventually fall under the accepting love of God, even if that occurs after death. The Universalist answer to the hell question is—Love wins in the end and nobody goes to hell.
So, who goes to hell?
Perhaps Rob Bell is only verbalizing a position most evangelicals already have taken. While evangelicals insist on having “hell on the books” and will fight furiously against anyone who says nobody is going to hell, functionally most evangelicals are universalists. Several years ago I asked my students fresh out of high school two questions: 1) Is there a real hell where people go and are punished? And 2) name three people you believe are going to hell unless they repent. Virtually every student agreed with the first question—there is definitely a hell. But less than 10% could name three living people who they thought might actually go to hell. They listed a few dead people, like Adolph Hitler, who would go to hell, but most of them thought all their relatives and virtually every student on this campus would not go to hell. In the discussion follow-up I asked how many had heard a sermon developing the idea of hell and exactly two of them had ever heard preaching on hell.
So I think Rob Bell and others have done a favor to the Christian community by proposing the old Universalist answer to the hell question again. Christians need a discussion on hell again—what is it, where is it, what happens there and who goes to hell and why? Virtually all of us have “hell on the books” in our denomination’s doctrinal positions. But what is our functionally position? We to have a talk about hell.
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this column is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=161502633
Keith Drury March 8, 2011
www.TuesdayColumn.com
2/22/2011
Happy 50th Birthday
Happy birthday and welcome to your 50’s! The 50’s are a great decade—here’s some of what you might expect the next ten years:
1. Productivity & influence. The next ten years you will probably be more productive for the kingdom than all your years to date (and maybe even all your years before and after the 50’s combined). You are not longer a young up-and-coming minister and you’ll not be an older minister on the decline—in your 50’s you will be at your prime. Choose wisely where to spend this productivity. The 50’s may also bring you your greatest power, and you can use that power variously…chose wisely on what you spend your power.
2. Burnout. It happens in the 50’s to some pastors. Having devotions won’t prevent it—it is more complex than that. Choose wisely what you light on fire lest you light yourself afire. If you set yourself afire many will come to watch, however. When the fire goes out they won’t stay for the ashes—they’ll leave.
3. The great compromise. In your 50’s you’ll admit that some of your dreams probably won’t happen. This might be compromise to some but it is realism to others. On the other hand you might realize it is your last chance to accomplish other dreams. People who imagine doing all kinds of interesting things in their 60’s seldom do them unless they started in their 50’s.
4. Empty Nest. Somewhere in this decade the kids will be gone and you can have a second honeymoon. Maybe every week.
5. Marital changes. Some grow closer in their 50’s, others grow apart. It is your decision. In the 50’s many husbands get more like their wife has been all along. Some say it is sanctification. Or maybe it is just age. Whichever, most couples in the 50’s consider their marriage far more satisfying than the 40’s and 30’s.
6. Physical changes. One of the secrets making the 50’s so good is you will quit looking back and start looking ahead. Men in their 40’s tend to look back to their 30’s and regret how much they’ve lost; in the 50’s they look ahead and rejoice at how much you’ve still got. In your 50’s you begin believing that you are the fittest you’ll probably ever be—and that changes how you think. You may notice a bit of hearing loss, reduced vigor, and might even need an occasional nap But you’ll still be more productive since you will have learned to work smarter not longer. 50’s are a time of focus.
7. “Last job.” Somewhere in your 50’s you’ll realize that you are making your last job choice. You may continue doing what you’re doing or change to another church, but somewhere in the 50’s most males start “counting down.” In the early 50’s you might say to yourself, “I probably have one more church in me” but by the end of the 50’s you will either be in that church or have settled in your own church as you “last full time ministry.” Some are able to move to other work in their 60’s but for most men it is pretty rare.
8. Health scare. You or your wife might have a serious health scare in your 50’s. It is a precursor to your later years. Let’s hope you skip this. But be prepared to hold some funerals in your 50’s of people younger than you and at the visitation people will say “they had a good life.”
10. Family changes. You may enter this decade with your kids finally leaving home but you will probably leave the 50’s as a grandparent. During this decade your children might quit coming home for Christmas—you’ll go to their home. The focus on your family will decrease; the focus on their family will increase.
11. Faith. You may settle some faith issue you took for granted in your 40’s 30’s and before. You may face some doubts you never entertained before. You might enter what James Fowler calls “conjunctive faith.” You might become more close-minded and more open-minded simultaneously.
12. Generativity. This is the decade when you choose “generativity or stagnation” according to psychologists Erik Erikson. You will use your “power and productivity” to focus your energy on yourself (stagnation) or invest it by multiplying in the coming generation (generativity). By the end of your 50’s you be in the habit of protecting your own power or promoting the next generation.
------------
Have a happy birthday! Your coming decade can be the best years of your life (except, of course, your 60’s—but I’ll tell you about those in another ten years!
Keith
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this column is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=161502633
Keith Drury February 22, 2011
www.TuesdayColumn.com
1. Productivity & influence. The next ten years you will probably be more productive for the kingdom than all your years to date (and maybe even all your years before and after the 50’s combined). You are not longer a young up-and-coming minister and you’ll not be an older minister on the decline—in your 50’s you will be at your prime. Choose wisely where to spend this productivity. The 50’s may also bring you your greatest power, and you can use that power variously…chose wisely on what you spend your power.
2. Burnout. It happens in the 50’s to some pastors. Having devotions won’t prevent it—it is more complex than that. Choose wisely what you light on fire lest you light yourself afire. If you set yourself afire many will come to watch, however. When the fire goes out they won’t stay for the ashes—they’ll leave.
3. The great compromise. In your 50’s you’ll admit that some of your dreams probably won’t happen. This might be compromise to some but it is realism to others. On the other hand you might realize it is your last chance to accomplish other dreams. People who imagine doing all kinds of interesting things in their 60’s seldom do them unless they started in their 50’s.
4. Empty Nest. Somewhere in this decade the kids will be gone and you can have a second honeymoon. Maybe every week.
5. Marital changes. Some grow closer in their 50’s, others grow apart. It is your decision. In the 50’s many husbands get more like their wife has been all along. Some say it is sanctification. Or maybe it is just age. Whichever, most couples in the 50’s consider their marriage far more satisfying than the 40’s and 30’s.
6. Physical changes. One of the secrets making the 50’s so good is you will quit looking back and start looking ahead. Men in their 40’s tend to look back to their 30’s and regret how much they’ve lost; in the 50’s they look ahead and rejoice at how much you’ve still got. In your 50’s you begin believing that you are the fittest you’ll probably ever be—and that changes how you think. You may notice a bit of hearing loss, reduced vigor, and might even need an occasional nap But you’ll still be more productive since you will have learned to work smarter not longer. 50’s are a time of focus.
7. “Last job.” Somewhere in your 50’s you’ll realize that you are making your last job choice. You may continue doing what you’re doing or change to another church, but somewhere in the 50’s most males start “counting down.” In the early 50’s you might say to yourself, “I probably have one more church in me” but by the end of the 50’s you will either be in that church or have settled in your own church as you “last full time ministry.” Some are able to move to other work in their 60’s but for most men it is pretty rare.
8. Health scare. You or your wife might have a serious health scare in your 50’s. It is a precursor to your later years. Let’s hope you skip this. But be prepared to hold some funerals in your 50’s of people younger than you and at the visitation people will say “they had a good life.”
10. Family changes. You may enter this decade with your kids finally leaving home but you will probably leave the 50’s as a grandparent. During this decade your children might quit coming home for Christmas—you’ll go to their home. The focus on your family will decrease; the focus on their family will increase.
11. Faith. You may settle some faith issue you took for granted in your 40’s 30’s and before. You may face some doubts you never entertained before. You might enter what James Fowler calls “conjunctive faith.” You might become more close-minded and more open-minded simultaneously.
12. Generativity. This is the decade when you choose “generativity or stagnation” according to psychologists Erik Erikson. You will use your “power and productivity” to focus your energy on yourself (stagnation) or invest it by multiplying in the coming generation (generativity). By the end of your 50’s you be in the habit of protecting your own power or promoting the next generation.
------------
Have a happy birthday! Your coming decade can be the best years of your life (except, of course, your 60’s—but I’ll tell you about those in another ten years!
Keith
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this column is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=161502633
Keith Drury February 22, 2011
www.TuesdayColumn.com
2/15/2011
Should Christian Women have Long Hair?
The number of Christians who believe women should keep their hair long is small but significant. The group includes not just the Amish and many Mennonites but also some Baptists, Charismatics and a large group known as the “Conservative Holiness Movement, or CHM. The CHM is made up of independent holiness churches plus a dozen or so mini-denominations. Some of these churches have always been independent while others split from the larger “mainline Holiness denominations” in the 1950’s and 1960’s. There are about 100,000 Christians associated with the CHM most of the women keep their hair long.
But this column isn’t about the CHM…it is about hermeneutics. The Conservative Holiness Movement believes they are simply taking the Scriptures seriously when they insist that women keep their hair long (and that men keep shorter hair). They understand the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 to apply to more than a one-time historic setting but as being applicable to today as well. They see the passage calling for a distinction between males and females. They think the text suggests that it is the “natural order” for a man to have short hair and a woman to have longer hair (for it is her glory). So the CHM simply expects women to keep their hair long and men to have their hair short.
I know, I know, people in the mainline holiness movement don’t like to be reminded of this. We have long ago laughed away our grandmother’s hair and such “legalism.” But most mainline holiness denominations have not laughed off the Bible. Which brings us to the topic of the column: hermeneutics. Assuming you take the Bible seriously and you consider 1 Corinthians 11 inspired, what are the hermeneutical principles you use on these verses? I’d like to invite a discussion of hermeneutics by using these 16 verses as a test case.
So what are the principles you use on interpreting these verses? What is your hermeneutic for the Scriptures printed below this column?
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this column is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=161502633
Keith Drury February 15, 2011
www.TuesdayColumn.com
1 Corinthians 11 (NIV)
[1-6] I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
[7-12] A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
[13-16] Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
But this column isn’t about the CHM…it is about hermeneutics. The Conservative Holiness Movement believes they are simply taking the Scriptures seriously when they insist that women keep their hair long (and that men keep shorter hair). They understand the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 to apply to more than a one-time historic setting but as being applicable to today as well. They see the passage calling for a distinction between males and females. They think the text suggests that it is the “natural order” for a man to have short hair and a woman to have longer hair (for it is her glory). So the CHM simply expects women to keep their hair long and men to have their hair short.
I know, I know, people in the mainline holiness movement don’t like to be reminded of this. We have long ago laughed away our grandmother’s hair and such “legalism.” But most mainline holiness denominations have not laughed off the Bible. Which brings us to the topic of the column: hermeneutics. Assuming you take the Bible seriously and you consider 1 Corinthians 11 inspired, what are the hermeneutical principles you use on these verses? I’d like to invite a discussion of hermeneutics by using these 16 verses as a test case.
So what are the principles you use on interpreting these verses? What is your hermeneutic for the Scriptures printed below this column?
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this column is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=161502633
Keith Drury February 15, 2011
www.TuesdayColumn.com
1 Corinthians 11 (NIV)
[1-6] I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
[7-12] A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
[13-16] Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
2/08/2011
Music to my Ears
Music has tremendous power to influence people. For instance, music can trigger memories. A few notes of “Just as I am” can transport people back in time to a 1950’s altar call or a Billy Graham crusade. Specific tunes can remind a person of certain people or places and hearing the music resurrects the person like a ghost. Music is great at eliciting feelings too. A movie producer can get an audience to feel a certain way no matter what shows on the screen by manipulating their feelings through the background music. Music not only triggers memories and feelings but it instructs and unifies too. Church folk get as much theology from the music as the preaching. When a congregation melds together singing a song it can produces a kind of gestalt out-of-body unifying experience that is more then the sum of the parts. Because music has so much power is why we dedicate so much of our worship services to it… and maybe why so many church complaints are about the music.
Everything I described above is accurate for almost everybody. It is not true of me. I know, confessing music isn’t important to me is like admitting I don’t care for chocolate or ice cream. But I’m telling the truth—music plays a minor role in my life. I have tried to make it more important so I could be normal and be more like my wife and sons but it just doesn’t take. I even went so far as to buy an iPod a year ago and load it up with all the songs I ought to love. I use my iPod to read email and to listen to lectures and sermons. And only twice have I ever used it to listen to music.
I’m not normal when it comes to music. I experience all those qualities mentioned above through a different avenue. I experience triggering memories, feelings, instruction and unification through words not music. What I look forward to in church isn’t the singing but the call to worship, the prayers (the Lord’s prayer especially), the responsive reading and especially the sermon. Te most meaningful part of the Lord’s Supper to me are the words of institution and the ritual words the minister repeats. I sound malformed to normal people. Maybe you’ve never met a person like me, but we are out here...if only a few of us. We can take or leave music—it really isn’t that important to us. It is like oatmeal to other people. We don’t hate it and we don’t love it. We can have some from time to time and it is OK or we could go without it for a few years without missing it. People like me can listen to Todd Guy’s chorale sing the Halleluiah Chorus and what moves us isn’t the music but we will intently and get blessed by the lyrics! Ok, I’m different. My church offers a variety of worship venues with different styles of music but that doesn’t matter to me. What my church has done though is target one venue for the marginal group of people like me—people who love words. In that venue we sing one song a cappella but the rest of the service is about words. Ahhhhhh. I love that service… because words are music to my ears.
Have you ever met someone like this?
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this column is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=161502633
Keith Drury February 8, 2011
www.TuesdayColumn.com
Everything I described above is accurate for almost everybody. It is not true of me. I know, confessing music isn’t important to me is like admitting I don’t care for chocolate or ice cream. But I’m telling the truth—music plays a minor role in my life. I have tried to make it more important so I could be normal and be more like my wife and sons but it just doesn’t take. I even went so far as to buy an iPod a year ago and load it up with all the songs I ought to love. I use my iPod to read email and to listen to lectures and sermons. And only twice have I ever used it to listen to music.
I’m not normal when it comes to music. I experience all those qualities mentioned above through a different avenue. I experience triggering memories, feelings, instruction and unification through words not music. What I look forward to in church isn’t the singing but the call to worship, the prayers (the Lord’s prayer especially), the responsive reading and especially the sermon. Te most meaningful part of the Lord’s Supper to me are the words of institution and the ritual words the minister repeats. I sound malformed to normal people. Maybe you’ve never met a person like me, but we are out here...if only a few of us. We can take or leave music—it really isn’t that important to us. It is like oatmeal to other people. We don’t hate it and we don’t love it. We can have some from time to time and it is OK or we could go without it for a few years without missing it. People like me can listen to Todd Guy’s chorale sing the Halleluiah Chorus and what moves us isn’t the music but we will intently and get blessed by the lyrics! Ok, I’m different. My church offers a variety of worship venues with different styles of music but that doesn’t matter to me. What my church has done though is target one venue for the marginal group of people like me—people who love words. In that venue we sing one song a cappella but the rest of the service is about words. Ahhhhhh. I love that service… because words are music to my ears.
Have you ever met someone like this?
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this column is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=161502633
Keith Drury February 8, 2011
www.TuesdayColumn.com
2/01/2011
An interesting Mind Experiment
I’m thinking this week about a mind experiment that relates to church, but first some background in education. A few decades ago higher education was pretty much the exclusive domain of not-for-profit institutions with sprawling campuses and a large faculty who “shared the governance” of the institution. Then along came John Sperling who thought he might be able to run an educational institution more efficiently like a business than an educational institution—and make some money doing it to boot. Sure there were problems: a college run for profit would have to pay taxes and people couldn’t give tax-deductible donations to it, but this man thought his efficiency program would make up for these things. His plan was four-fold:
1. Target a group missed by traditionalists (in his case it was working adults who were stuck if they couldn’t go in the daytime to traditional classes).
2. Invent a new delivery system to reach this group (in his case hold classes in the evenings after they got off work, and later Internet classes).
3. Save bezillions of dollars on staff (in his case using mostly part-time adjuncts to teach instead of expensive full time professors).
4. Advertise so aggressively they can’t ignore you (in his case with multi-million dollar media blitzes).
The result is the University of Phoenix with a half-million students that is a for-profit company that competes briskly with the non-profit cartel of educational institutions and in the process makes hundreds of millions of dollars for its founder and its shareholders. When the University of Phoenix started, traditional educators scoffed and predicted collapse in a few years. It did not collapse but became the pioneer and model for other business-run educational institutions like the Christian Grand Canyon University that makes money for their owners.
OK, that’s the background in education, now to the church and the intriguing mind experiment: If you were to invent a private company to plant and grow a church, and named yourself President, what sort of changes would you make in the way you’d do church? Don’t freak out—this is only a mind experiment, but play along and you’ll have fun and maybe we’ll gain some great insights. If your church was a business and you were the owner, what would you do differently regarding staff, delivery systems, finances, and operations? Now, don’t skip to the “what we can learn” part too fast—do the experiment first… if you were the church’s owner instead of the people what would you do differently?
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this column is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=161502633
Keith Drury February 1, 2011
www.TuesdayColumn.com
1. Target a group missed by traditionalists (in his case it was working adults who were stuck if they couldn’t go in the daytime to traditional classes).
2. Invent a new delivery system to reach this group (in his case hold classes in the evenings after they got off work, and later Internet classes).
3. Save bezillions of dollars on staff (in his case using mostly part-time adjuncts to teach instead of expensive full time professors).
4. Advertise so aggressively they can’t ignore you (in his case with multi-million dollar media blitzes).
The result is the University of Phoenix with a half-million students that is a for-profit company that competes briskly with the non-profit cartel of educational institutions and in the process makes hundreds of millions of dollars for its founder and its shareholders. When the University of Phoenix started, traditional educators scoffed and predicted collapse in a few years. It did not collapse but became the pioneer and model for other business-run educational institutions like the Christian Grand Canyon University that makes money for their owners.
OK, that’s the background in education, now to the church and the intriguing mind experiment: If you were to invent a private company to plant and grow a church, and named yourself President, what sort of changes would you make in the way you’d do church? Don’t freak out—this is only a mind experiment, but play along and you’ll have fun and maybe we’ll gain some great insights. If your church was a business and you were the owner, what would you do differently regarding staff, delivery systems, finances, and operations? Now, don’t skip to the “what we can learn” part too fast—do the experiment first… if you were the church’s owner instead of the people what would you do differently?
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this column is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=161502633
Keith Drury February 1, 2011
www.TuesdayColumn.com
1/24/2011
Six Stages of Outrage
In my reading I’ve noticed the church seems to go through stages in its outrage against evil. Mostly I’ve been studying the history of alcohol. I can’t forget other issues completely but the stages in the alcohol outrage seems to provide to most accessible template for examining this issue. Here are the five stages history offers over the church’s outrage against alcohol:
1. Alcohol is EVIL and it needs prohibited for everyone
The first stage is outrage over the evil of a thing—in this case “demon alcohol.” Stories were told of how it ruined families, promoted other evil and society would be a better if there was no alcohol at all—not a single drink. The church is not satisfied that “we Christians do drink” they wanted nobody in the country to drink… which of course led to prohibition. Id the church is successful in this first stage it leads to laws which prohibit the behavior—not just because it is sin… but because it is evil and needs banished from society—even from the lives of unbelievers.
2. Alcohol is SIN and no Christian should do it.
When the church’s attempt to ban a thing for all people fails (as it did when prohibition was repealed) we then default to stage two—agreeing that “Christians don’t do it.” The vast majority of “evangelicals” of the post-prohibition were unanimous—“Christians don’t drink.” At this stage like-minded denominations unite to reject the “so-called Christians” who practice the thing. In the case of alcohol, the tee-totalers were Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Quakers and the Disciples of Christ who scolded the Episcopalians and Roman Catholics for allowing alcohol. At this stage there is a subtle shift in terminology—the thing is called “sin” more than “evil.”
3. Abstinence is our TRADITION and we don’t drink.
Over time prohibitions break down. Methodists met Presbyterians and Congregationalists who had started using alcohol? Nazarenes went to Europe and met Nazarenes who happily visited the local pub—and not just to witness. At this stage a denomination quits calling the thing “sin” because they know there are Christians who do it—after all their own kids do it! Yet they hold on to the notion that for us “we prohibit using alcohol—it’s our rich tradition.” At this the discussion moves beyond the question of evil or sin and is more about “keeping your promise” or “submitting to the Christian community.” Abstaining may be more of a protest or test of submission as anything to do with God.
4. Alcohol is UNWISE for leaders.
Churches go through stage rapidly often simultaneously with the above stage. At this stage the thing becomes acceptable at one level but unacceptable at another “higher” level. “Community Members” are permitted to drink but “Full Members” are expected to be tee-totalers. Or, maybe the laity are permitted to drink while the denomination insists that ministers won’t (e.g. today’s Methodists).
5. Alcohol is QUESTIONABLE and we urge members to avoid it.
At stage five the behavior is still suspect, but not enough to make it a rule. Members are “urged” toward a higher level of living by totally abstaining as a matter of witness or as a means of self-denial. At this stage the rule becomes advise; the decree melts into recommendation. In my denomination at this stage a thing is moved from “Membership commitments” to “Special Directions.” A denomination at this stage still prefers total abstinence but they no longer insist on it.
6. Alcohol is NOT AN ISSUE to us.
At the sixth stage the thing is taken off the table altogether. Ask a Congregationalist church member today what they believe about total abstinence and you’ll get a perplexed look as if you’ve asked them what their stance on wearing jewelry is. Denominations who once were at the forefront of trying to banish a behavior from the entire nation often eventually are not even able to banish it from their midst—indeed they don’t even imagine the thing is an issue.
-------------------
The history of alcohol is at it later stages in the USA among evangelicals so that’s not the only issues I’ll bethinking about this week. I’m more interested in the recent movements for social reform—things like prohibiting abortions or homosexual marriage. Will denominations go through these six stages on these issue too?
Now, I can hear it already—some are being tempted to say, “but these things are Biblical and those things they fussed about in the past weren’t.” I don’t want to get into a Bible wrestling match but I need to say that all these denominations 100 years ago were just as sure about prohibition as evangelicals are today about abortion and homosexual marriage—in fact a close reading of the documents shows they were more sure. So saying “But the Bible is clear” won’t guarantee these stages won’t happen. What will?
That’s what I’m pondering this week: What would keep the church from not going through the same stages when it comes to abortion or homosexual marriage? At what stage is your denomination already? Are these stages inevitable? Are they bad or good?
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this column is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=161502633
Keith Drury January 25, 2011
www.TuesdayColumn.com
1. Alcohol is EVIL and it needs prohibited for everyone
The first stage is outrage over the evil of a thing—in this case “demon alcohol.” Stories were told of how it ruined families, promoted other evil and society would be a better if there was no alcohol at all—not a single drink. The church is not satisfied that “we Christians do drink” they wanted nobody in the country to drink… which of course led to prohibition. Id the church is successful in this first stage it leads to laws which prohibit the behavior—not just because it is sin… but because it is evil and needs banished from society—even from the lives of unbelievers.
2. Alcohol is SIN and no Christian should do it.
When the church’s attempt to ban a thing for all people fails (as it did when prohibition was repealed) we then default to stage two—agreeing that “Christians don’t do it.” The vast majority of “evangelicals” of the post-prohibition were unanimous—“Christians don’t drink.” At this stage like-minded denominations unite to reject the “so-called Christians” who practice the thing. In the case of alcohol, the tee-totalers were Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Quakers and the Disciples of Christ who scolded the Episcopalians and Roman Catholics for allowing alcohol. At this stage there is a subtle shift in terminology—the thing is called “sin” more than “evil.”
3. Abstinence is our TRADITION and we don’t drink.
Over time prohibitions break down. Methodists met Presbyterians and Congregationalists who had started using alcohol? Nazarenes went to Europe and met Nazarenes who happily visited the local pub—and not just to witness. At this stage a denomination quits calling the thing “sin” because they know there are Christians who do it—after all their own kids do it! Yet they hold on to the notion that for us “we prohibit using alcohol—it’s our rich tradition.” At this the discussion moves beyond the question of evil or sin and is more about “keeping your promise” or “submitting to the Christian community.” Abstaining may be more of a protest or test of submission as anything to do with God.
4. Alcohol is UNWISE for leaders.
Churches go through stage rapidly often simultaneously with the above stage. At this stage the thing becomes acceptable at one level but unacceptable at another “higher” level. “Community Members” are permitted to drink but “Full Members” are expected to be tee-totalers. Or, maybe the laity are permitted to drink while the denomination insists that ministers won’t (e.g. today’s Methodists).
5. Alcohol is QUESTIONABLE and we urge members to avoid it.
At stage five the behavior is still suspect, but not enough to make it a rule. Members are “urged” toward a higher level of living by totally abstaining as a matter of witness or as a means of self-denial. At this stage the rule becomes advise; the decree melts into recommendation. In my denomination at this stage a thing is moved from “Membership commitments” to “Special Directions.” A denomination at this stage still prefers total abstinence but they no longer insist on it.
6. Alcohol is NOT AN ISSUE to us.
At the sixth stage the thing is taken off the table altogether. Ask a Congregationalist church member today what they believe about total abstinence and you’ll get a perplexed look as if you’ve asked them what their stance on wearing jewelry is. Denominations who once were at the forefront of trying to banish a behavior from the entire nation often eventually are not even able to banish it from their midst—indeed they don’t even imagine the thing is an issue.
-------------------
The history of alcohol is at it later stages in the USA among evangelicals so that’s not the only issues I’ll bethinking about this week. I’m more interested in the recent movements for social reform—things like prohibiting abortions or homosexual marriage. Will denominations go through these six stages on these issue too?
Now, I can hear it already—some are being tempted to say, “but these things are Biblical and those things they fussed about in the past weren’t.” I don’t want to get into a Bible wrestling match but I need to say that all these denominations 100 years ago were just as sure about prohibition as evangelicals are today about abortion and homosexual marriage—in fact a close reading of the documents shows they were more sure. So saying “But the Bible is clear” won’t guarantee these stages won’t happen. What will?
That’s what I’m pondering this week: What would keep the church from not going through the same stages when it comes to abortion or homosexual marriage? At what stage is your denomination already? Are these stages inevitable? Are they bad or good?
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this column is on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=161502633
Keith Drury January 25, 2011
www.TuesdayColumn.com
1/18/2011
Calling for Change
If you are a preacher you sometimes call people to change. You preach a sermon on what people ought to be then come to the end of it and close the sermon with some sort of call to change. I’ve noticed there are two main models for how to make that final call to change.
1. THE SEEK MODEL
The Seek model assumes listeners don’t have the power to change—they can’t change without the Holy Spirit “doing something” in them. It posits changing power outside the listen in the Holy Spirit. A preacher with the seek model might end a sermon by calling listeners to seek changing power from God. This might mean an invitation to come forward to kneel at the altar and “wait on the Lord” until this “seeker” senses God had “done a new work” in his or her soul—cleaning, delivering, empowering or purging.
2. THE DECIDE MODEL
The Decide model posits changing power in the listener—either in their own will to decide, or because they already received the Holy Spirit when they were born again and already have all they need to live a holy life. A preacher with a decide model might end a sermon by calling listeners to “decide now” to change. It could mean an invitation to raise a hand indicating their “decision,” or it could mean coming forward as a statement of will. There is no elongated seeking or waiting in this model because what is holding up change is the person’s will and once a decision is made the change happens…or at least change begins.
These two models affect how a church approaches people getting saved too. Those with the seek model tend to expect a person to repent and seek salvation for a while at the altar until they know God has heard their prayers and has truly saved them—they wait for assurance, then stand to testify about it. For churches using the decide model conversion might be as low key as reading a short prayer in a little booklet and “taking it by faith,” or maybe raising one’s head and nodding to the preacher at the end of the service.
I’m thinking about calling for change this week and the models we use in doing that. For instance, what are the theological assumptions behind each of these models? How does changing culture affect which model we use more? Why do preachers—even denominations—shift from one model to another over time? Which denominations are more inclined toward which of these two models? What other models are emerging? How do we call for change and what does that say about our assumptions?
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this column is on Facebook:
Keith Drury January 18, 2011
www.TuesdayColumn.com
1. THE SEEK MODEL
The Seek model assumes listeners don’t have the power to change—they can’t change without the Holy Spirit “doing something” in them. It posits changing power outside the listen in the Holy Spirit. A preacher with the seek model might end a sermon by calling listeners to seek changing power from God. This might mean an invitation to come forward to kneel at the altar and “wait on the Lord” until this “seeker” senses God had “done a new work” in his or her soul—cleaning, delivering, empowering or purging.
2. THE DECIDE MODEL
The Decide model posits changing power in the listener—either in their own will to decide, or because they already received the Holy Spirit when they were born again and already have all they need to live a holy life. A preacher with a decide model might end a sermon by calling listeners to “decide now” to change. It could mean an invitation to raise a hand indicating their “decision,” or it could mean coming forward as a statement of will. There is no elongated seeking or waiting in this model because what is holding up change is the person’s will and once a decision is made the change happens…or at least change begins.
These two models affect how a church approaches people getting saved too. Those with the seek model tend to expect a person to repent and seek salvation for a while at the altar until they know God has heard their prayers and has truly saved them—they wait for assurance, then stand to testify about it. For churches using the decide model conversion might be as low key as reading a short prayer in a little booklet and “taking it by faith,” or maybe raising one’s head and nodding to the preacher at the end of the service.
I’m thinking about calling for change this week and the models we use in doing that. For instance, what are the theological assumptions behind each of these models? How does changing culture affect which model we use more? Why do preachers—even denominations—shift from one model to another over time? Which denominations are more inclined toward which of these two models? What other models are emerging? How do we call for change and what does that say about our assumptions?
So, what do you think?
The discussion of this column is on Facebook:
Keith Drury January 18, 2011
www.TuesdayColumn.com
1/09/2011
Impressions from [the Wesleyan pastor's] "Gathering"
My impressions from The Gathering...
(The column is at the above link, and also posted at Facebook... to participate in the discussion "friend me" on Facebook...)
(The column is at the above link, and also posted at Facebook... to participate in the discussion "friend me" on Facebook...)
9/01/2010
Tuesday Column Responses now on Facebook
I'm moving with the shift in the Internet traffic during the last year... so now I'm hosting responses to the Tuesday Column on Facebook... here...
.
.
4/25/2010
Gone Fishin'
.
Well, I actually don't fish... but here's what I'm doing this summer...
Have a great summer all... see you again next September!
--Keith Drury
Well, I actually don't fish... but here's what I'm doing this summer...
Have a great summer all... see you again next September!
--Keith Drury
4/18/2010
What Wesleyan believe about the Bible
To help Wesleyan Seniors understand what Wesleyans believe about the Bible we wrote this explanation. How does YOUR denomination's position (or you own) agree or differ form the Wesleyan doctrine on this?
So, what do YOU think?
So, what do YOU think?
4/11/2010
What Wesleyan believe about Sanctification
.
Here's how we explain to students what Wesleyans believe about Sanctification.
So what do YOU think?
Here's how we explain to students what Wesleyans believe about Sanctification.
So what do YOU think?
4/04/2010
3/28/2010
History of the Sunday School
.
My students have put together a "Short History of the Sunday School" which I think it pretty good... it asks a provoking question at the end...
So what do YOU think?
My students have put together a "Short History of the Sunday School" which I think it pretty good... it asks a provoking question at the end...
So what do YOU think?
3/21/2010
The Tea Party Comes to Church
.
The tea party movement isn't just a political movement--the tea party has come to church.
So what do you think?
The tea party movement isn't just a political movement--the tea party has come to church.
So what do you think?
3/14/2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)