Recently, a church leader posed an important question to me. One of the ministers at their church has recently completed an M.Div. and is pursuing further education. This is a congregation that has not traditionally required theological education of their minsters, but in recent decades has seen reason to encourage and support such education. In general, though, it is like many low church Protestant groups in the US; mostly conservative/traditional on most of the hot button issues in the US today, but not preaching on those topics week in and week out. I didn't ask, but I imagine there hasn't been sermon or class on sexuality or gender roles in a while. It is in this context that our minister friend plans to embark upon an eight-week series on the topic of hermeneutics.
The question from the church leader to me is a compelling one in this context. This leader has been having conversations recently with a person who has recently been coming to their church. This person is relatively young (late 20's to early 30's), and, though raised in church, has not been regularly living in church since those youth group days. As the church leader described it, this young person had departed fom life in the church to explore the world, which can be nasty at times. Having come out on the bad side of some experiences, the young person has begun building community again with folks in this church and, perhaps taking some steps back toward the faith. The church leader posed the question to me: what does this series have to offer such a person?
In this post, I will offer 1) my initial reaction to the questions; 2) discuss my fuller repsonse to the question in broad detail; and 3) consider the final piece of information that came out after my initial response: this series is meant to prompt a repsonse in the church that their traditional position on women's roles and LGBTQ may not be as clear-cut and obviously correct as they have always thought.
One brief disclaimer: I hope you, dear reader, do not need me to tell you that I am 100% committed to theological education and I deeply believe in the necessity, especially for ministers, to have more education, not less. Further, I am convinced that any Christian who wishes can and should have the opportunity to learn the intricacies and depths of our faith, should they desire. I do not think, though, that theological education makes one "better" or "more spiritual". As will become clear later, I hope, such education is not necessary for one to understand and live the gospel.
First, I shared in my initial response what I teach my students who are majors in Bible when they begin learning some of the intricacies of exegesis and hermeneutics in the required class Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. I remind them repeatedly of Augustine's guidance in the Enchiridion. To summarize and paraphrase: If you arrive at love God and love your neighbor, I don't care how you've read Scripture, you've read it correctly; if you arrive somewhere other than love God and love your neighbor, I don't care how you've read Scripture, you've read it wrong. I tell these students that the gospel is simple on the one hand. On the other hand, though, the gospel is deeply complex. Our sisters and brothers have been pondering it and plumbing its depths for millennia. If one wishes to explore, the rabbit hole is DEEP. We must remember, though, that such exploration is neither required of the average believer nor does it make a Christian who does explore superior to one who does not. Remember, in God's reign, often the inverse of what we expect is what is true and greatness before God is determined by imitating Jesus and giving up all pretension to superiority and domination, in favor of sacrificing all for others. I then inform them that AS MINISTERS, they are choosing to walk down some of this exploration and that it is incumbent upon them to do so. The task they are called to requires them to be thoughtful about the intricacies of the Scriptures, about the questions they pose to us and the questions we might pose to them. After all, how can they, as ministers, meet the spiritual needs of an average congregant who runs into scholarship on the historical Jesus or Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, if they have not explored these topics themselves? In other words, if a series on hermeneutics is proposed, it is important to consider all manner of angles with respect to this series. What should be avoided is taking the 20-30 minute sermon slot for eight weeks in a row to give someone a crash course in topics a seminary graduate spent years learning and processing, despite that being a great temptation! Thielicke's
Second, this leader's question has within it an assumption that is worth considering: for whom is a series like this one on hermeneutics? Or, posed in a different way, who is the primary audience of the Sunday service? This is familiar territory for low church Protestantism and American Evangelicalism broadly in recent decades, where discussions of being "seeker-friendly" have dominated. There is not space to explore the theological intricacies that have led to a consensus by many that the target audience of the Sunday service and, therefore, of the sermon is the outsider to the Christian community, but from the simple practical persepctive of teaching young people who were raised in Christian churches because I teach at a Christian university, allow me a brief exploration of the fruits of this focus. I am continually struck by how little the young people I teach know the Christian Scriptures. Beyond this, I am struck by how little knowledge of their own faith they have. I do not mean to put all the responsibility on their congregations by any means, but I would suggest that this lack of instruction in the basics of Christianity and in the Christian Scriptures is a product of the collision of Sunday services and sermons that are focused on outsiders to the neglect of the faithful and the erosion of other places where the faithful may have been formed. Wednesday (or other during the week) nights are not reliable for many church members. It is hard enough to get people to attend the Sunday service, generally, so you can forget about some kind of additional Bible class or Sunday School for many church members. What is left, then, is the Sunday service. Never mind that for almost all of Christian history this service was for the gathered Christians (and in the early centuries of Christianity we have some indications that for at least portions of the service non-members were not welcome to even be there). I can tell you from my post here in a Christian university in the Bible-belt of the US, the people who are already in the pews need Sunday to form them in the faith. There is much for all of us on the other side of the waters of baptism and there is a good argument to make that work the focus of Sunday morning.
Third, when I learned that this series was meant to prompt a change of understanding about gender roles and sexual ethics, it changed the terms of this entire discussion. If this church minister were asking me about this series, and I had the knowledge I now have, I would press hard to find out what the hoped for outcome actually is. If this series is serving as a way for this minister to direct this church towards changing their congregational views on gender roles and sexual ethics, I would say two things immediately: 1) Eight weeks is nowhere near long enough. Especially if it is eight weeks confined only to the sermon. 2) Why now?
In terms of the first: people struggle with change. Even the so-called liberal and progressive among us struglle with change. As people we don't really like it. When it comes to something like these two topics, which are deeply personal and impact not only us, but also many people we love and, potentially, many difficult conversations we have had with ourselves and others, asking people to "repent" fom their past views as the result of an eight-week series is foolish. That doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. The Spirit of God has changed the terms of how humans are living in shorter times than eight weeks! However, in many of those instances, it was traumatic. Rather, consider the trajectory in Acts for the earliest Christians as they moved from being convinced that God's Messiah in Jesus was for Jews (and those who became Jews by being circumcised) to recognizing that God "shows no partiality" and the uncircumcised should not be asked to be circumcised. It took years. Peter witnessed the Spirit's action in Acts 10 with respect to Cornelius and his household, and yet, just by virtue of considering the travel time for Barnabas and Paul, it was years before things came to a head in the council at Jerusalem Acts 15 narrates. Patience is required to discern the movement of God. Patience is required for people to reckon with a change to something so deep and personal.
In terms of the second: we are in the midst of a constant low-key boil in US society right now. Everyone is on a knife's edge from screaming at one another. Is now the time to tackle two of the discussions over which so much acrimony is currently being expressed? Maybe. Maybe now is exactly the time. However, given the context, if it is the time, a congregation who would pursue this needs to prepare themselves to tackle it. Leaders who would embark on this discussion need to prepare themselves. The words of Jesus to his disciples upon coming down form the Mount of Transfiguration to their failure to exorcise a demon from a boy come to mind: this kind comes out only by prayer. The demons of our era, that assault our communities, these ones come out only by prayer. So, if a church wants to consider difficult and fraught conversations, the leaders best gird up their loins, fast and pray for a season in preparation, lead the congregation in fasting and prayer, double down on the teachings in John 13 considering how Jesus calls us (and showed us) to love one another, and purify ourselves. If you expect to meet God on Sinai, to hear a word of life from God, preparation is required. Without preparation, as the narratives in Exodus and Numbers show us, bad things are likely to occur.
No comments:
Post a Comment