I don’t have any doubts that homosexual behaviour is a sin, it seems pretty clear from my non-professional reading of scripture.

If you’ve read McLaren, which I think some are too embarrassed to admit, you’d know that he’s a loving heart-led guy in pastoral ministry that struggled with the negative effect that fundievangelicalism has had on some people he’s ministered to. He’s trying to love the rejected and sometime people doing that struggle with maintaining ‘truth boundaries’; especially when working face-to-face with people that have been abused by the truth. Yes, the truth can be wielded in an abusive manner.

Maybe being a Minnesotan makes me cocky about ‘slippery-slopes’ (especially when there’s snow on the ground), but it does seem that many people interpret ‘passion’ and ‘understanding’ as ‘endorsement’. Besides, if the entire Body of Christ switched over to ‘endorsing’ homosexual behaviour starting tomorrow I doubt that the world ‘as we know it’ would like totally come to an end. In fact there are many to whom homosexuality has more to do with living in opposition than by desire. Gee whiz, people are gossiping their butts off as we speak and the church continues to survive. It’s just that right now this is the ‘battle of the day’ in the everlasting, revenue generating, culture war.

It’s just sin, Jesus took care of that.

The banner quote makes me think about the letter I got from Dr. Dobson last night…which makes me want to read Nouwen.  That said, Pirate makes me want to read Don Miller and reformed bloggers make me want to read Capon.  Joel Osteen makes me want to read the Bible, so I guess he really must be a pastor after all.  Listening the local Christian Radio Station makes me want to listen to U2 or sometimes Lonestar, and listening to or reading NTW makes me want to become Anglican while listening to charismatic megachurch pastors makes me want to become Buddhist.

Brian: I enjoyed your post about revivalism and commented on your blog.

Kent: Interesting category choice on the your last post. Concerning that post, I really have no bone to pick. However, I thought about former political leaders who might be regarded as “good compromisers” and those who might be regarded as leading through political dominance. Here are a few that came to the top of my head:

Political Dominance – FDR, Churchill, JFK, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, George Bush Jr.

Compromisers – Jimmy Carter, George Bush Sr.

As I made out that list, I noticed that all in the first list except Nixon (because he got busted) served at least 2 terms. The two guys in the second list only served one term. Hmmm.

Following my public flogging by Michael, I have returned from a brief self-banishment from BHT. You know what they say – a healthy flogging is good for the soul. So I feel better now.

Phillip: I appreciate your desire to be there for your pastor. You can be a real gift for him. How can you convince him that you are safe? Be transparent with him about your deepest struggles, but don’t make your struggles the constant center of your conversation. Consistently share your sin struggles with him, and also consistently ask him how he is doing – really doing. When you ask him, pause and listen, allow the uncomfortable silence – he may be waiting to see if you seriously care to hear what is going on inside him. I would also encourage you to try to pray with him when you share stuff with each other. IMO, this is the biblical component – especially explicit in James 5 – that so many folks leave out when confessing their sin struggles and failures to one another. We need to be mindful of acknowledging and receiving the grace and mercy of God together.

I can’t stress the word consistent enough. Just pursuing this for a few weeks or even months will not be good enough. If you pursue this supportive relationship with your pastor for several months and into a couple of years, he will come to appreciate it greatly. You will become for him a breath of fresh air and a much beloved reinforcement in his life.

Having said all that, every pastor also needs these kind of relationships with peers outside of the church. That is an absolute necessity. So I would encourage you along the way to see if your pastor has that and, if not, nudge him in that direction. There are other pastors in geographical range who are ready and willing to enter into such a relationship with him.

Kent: I stand with you in the need to categorize. I won’t give up if you won’t.

Michael: That is one of the best brief analysis of the homosexual behaivor vs. orientation question I have ever seen. Here’s a little more on sexual addiction/ homosexuality if any of you are interested… More »« Less

Mr. Haggard’s experiences should not drive us to renew our efforts to develop new programs (accountability groups); they should drive us to renew our efforts to develop relational intimacy with our brothers and sisters.

Michael: No, you are not being cynical.

A friend who participated in a CA (Cocaine Anonymous) group years ago related one of their sayings: “You are at your most invulnerable when you are totally vulnerable.” In other words, what kills you is secrecy; so this is a testimony for transparency.

I spent three years working on a psychiatric unit in a small (pop 13K) community; we often hospitalized people for being suicidal after sin revealing experiences like Mr. Haggard’s. I saw believers who had been disfellowshipped due to drug addiction find fellowship and community like they had never before experienced in AA (Alcoholics Anonymous). This is one of the pictures of community and fellowship imprinted on my psyche that has become a litmus of sort for what I expect of Christian fellowship.

Michael, the problem isn’t that you are an “emotionally unstable fraud”, we all know that.  The problem is that there are some Christians who, upon discovering that truth about you, believe that it is not true of themselves and condemn you as if they held some sort of ‘moral high ground’.

One truth about humanity that my clinical supervisor has taught me is that revelation of sin is a good thing. It is a good thing that Mr. Haggard’s sin is revealed, the same goes for Mr. Hovind. It is good that their families can now live in truth, that they can stop hiding the sins of homosexuality and greed and walk in the truth of God’s forgiveness as an example of His Grace.  It hurts like hell but it is good.

I think Driscoll’s article on the Haggard issue to which Matthew has already linked is excellent. Also, I thoroughly agree with Brian and Kent’s posts about the unhealthy, isolating framework of evangelical ministry (particularly evangelical mega-church ministry). Our sick system is inevitably producing these results. Undoubtedly, true spiritual community is a huge component of the solution.

Kent: I’m not sure that the “house-church” movement is the answer. I say this as one who embraces much of the “organic/simple church” thinking and practice. Though I obviously have more questions than answers related to ecclesiolgy, I am convinced that form is secondary to the issue of the heart. A “house-church” system can/will be corrupted by men who want to control, but I’ll admit that is less likely than with our current system. On the other hand, the ”house-church” system probably more easily lends itself to unspiritual community, not to mention false teaching.  

Are you guys familiar with Haggard’s free market small groups concept? In the name of community and outreach, these groups meet around any number of interests, for instance scrapbooking, gaming, or Monday night football (I’m not making these up). The vision is simple: if everyone in the group takes one step closer to Christ, it is a success. So if a person feels better about church folks because they hang out with them and find them to be fun and cool rather than dull and uptight, then the group is a success. A key leader in my church once tried to get me to implement this small group strategy. I had no interest. He eventually left and attends a church with such groups. The point of that story is to say that I believe the content and focus of the church must be primarily Christ-centered, no matter what the form. This may seem obvious, but there are many wacky things going on out there in the church world that are amazingly Christ-less and, therefore, powerless.

Phillip: Though I’m trying to avoid another full-fledged holiness/sanctification debate, I want to respond briefly to your comments…

More »« Less

From Henri Nouwen’s meditation for today:

The Poverty of Our Leaders

There is a tendency to think about poverty, suffering, and pain as realities that happen primarily or even exclusively at the bottom of our Church. We seldom think of our leaders as poor. Still, there is great poverty, deep loneliness, painful isolation, real depression, and much emotional suffering at the top of our Church.

We need the courage to acknowledge the suffering of the leaders of our Church – its ministers, priests, bishops, and popes – and include them in this fellowship of the weak. When we are not distracted by the power, wealth, and success of those who offer leadership, we will soon discover their powerlessness, poverty, and failures and feel free to reach out to them with the same compassion we want to give to those at the bottom. In God’s eyes there is no distance between bottom and top. There shouldn’t be in our eyes either.

We have a saying at work:

Your system is perfectly designed to create the results you are getting.

Mr. Haggard was isolated by a modern evangelical system designed to create personality cults which relationally isolate the very person they effectively deify. Rich Mullins sang (emphasis mine):

I will be my brother’s keeper,
Not the one who judges him,
I won’t despise him for his weakness,
I won’t regard him for his strength...

Mr. Haggerd was elevated and used by a system that creates and consumes living idols and erroneously calls it ‘church’. This is a system that will receive only the dust of my sandals as it is unloving and controlling. I had never heard of Wolfgang Simson’s 15 thesis until I read them on TSK yesterday…but I can easily identify them as a framework for a ‘system’ that with loving participants could produce loving, Christ-like results.

Blue: Your point about each person ultimately following his own conscience is well taken. I have looked at it from that perspective as well. However, that point really opens up another massive can of worms, which Joel would probably be much better at addressing than I. Question on that point: when a Catholic decides to not use artificial birth control, is she following her own conscience or following the leadership of the Church? Well, the obvious answer is both.

Brian: From a pastoral point of view, your point about choices in rural America can hardly be argued against. But it still strikes me as a bit of a red herring – kind of like the classic question about whether the primitive person in the jungles of Africa who has never heard of Jesus will be held accountable. I don’t think this discussion about authority and the rootlessness of evangelicalism is primarily a practical discussion, but rather a discussion about ideals. In other words, we are not a committee deciding a course of action for the entire evangelical church; rather, we are simply considering what we believe to be God’s best for His church. Certainly nobody at the BHT (and I wouldn’t even think anyone at Touchstone) is drawing hard lines about who is in and who is out, but we are all simply going about the business of figuring out what we really mean when we speak of deconstructing our evangelicalism.

Blue Raja: In the practice of my life up till now, I have been in agreement with your assertion that submission is actually one of mutual submission to one another, as well as to the local church leadership (submission as you aptly described it). However, I’m not sure that approach will ultimately stand the test of time. If we allow for local church authority (which we must if we believe the bible), then we must put that authority in some context. Evangelical authority is admittedly free-floating and answers pretty much only to God’s Word with the help of the Holy Spirit, but that takes us back to hermenutics, or who decides which version of the story is the right version.

I have mostly questions – very few answers.

Michael, Joel: Thanks for the interesting conversation. I am a pastor, and really function more like a spiritual life director. For me, the discussion about authority and rootlessness is ultimately a question of the condition of the heart (which was Jesus main focus after all, wasn’t it?). When discussing authority, we’re actually talking about submission. I’m keenly aware of how sophisticated we as people are when it comes to justifying our rebellion. Surely, in some sense, we just don’t want to submit to anyone. (I can hear Michael’s reaction ringing in my ears as I write the word “submission”). Keeping in mind that submission is something that can only be given, not something that can be demanded, for the condition of our heart’s to be submissive to God and to spiritual authority is obviously a goal for a follower of Christ. So, a large part of the question in my mind is simply “why not pick some (ecclessial) body to whom you will submit”? We can debate all day about who is right and who is wrong, but, in the end, is the real point that we just don’t want anybody to tell us what to do?

I realize that this is waaaaaaay too simplistic, but I often think of the difference in Luther and Francis. Both made a major statement and greatly impacted the church. One did it in a spirit of submission – the other in a spirit of protest. I’m well aware that this illustration can be shot so full of holes as to be unrecognizable, but for me Francis’ story is more compelling, more attractive, than Luther’s. Now, let me get my head gear on. OK, go ahead and blast away.

Though nobody took the bait in my previous post concerning authority, I can’t get the topic out of my head. So…

A good man taught me an important lesson when I was in my 20’s that has served me well: your critics will teach you things that your friends may not. If we listen to those who are criticizing us – rather than taking a defensive posture – we’ll benefit greatly. With that as a backdrop, there is one more point from the Touchstone gang touching on this issue of authority that struck me as having a lot of merit. The entry by D.G. Hart, who is an Orthodox Presbyterian and author of Deconstructing Evangelicalism among many other books, addresses us post-evangelicals on a key issue. He says

The reason for such rootlessness is Evangelicalism’s suspicion of the forms that define ecclesiastical bodies, such as creeds, liturgy, and ordination. George Whitefield spoke volumes when, in 1739, while preaching in different pulpits and to mixed audiences, he said, “It was best to preach the new birth, and the power of godliness, and not to insist so much on the form: for people would never be brought to one mind as to that; nor did Jesus Christ ever intend it.” As the latest historical scholarship has shown, this indifference to form was essential to the Evangelical movement. It stemmed from a conviction that mediation of any kind, whether Catholic or Protestant, posed a barrier to direct communion between God and the individual Christian. Ecclesial forms, the logic went, could be faked; they could result in nominal Christianity or dead orthodoxy. Evangelicalism, accordingly, sought authentic or genuine faith, unencumbered by rites, dogma, and clergy.

Can’t really argue with that. We evangelicals place the highest value on our personal relationship with Christ, and we hold those suspect who do not do the same. Now we might have an attraction to elements of the historic church, but we cling to our rootlessness as that thing which most defines who we are. So Hart throws out a simple challenge. One reason it struck me is that this question has coursed through my tormented brain many times…

If real antagonism exists between Evangelicalism and ecclesial Christianity, then why do born-again Protestants who desire historically grounded expression of the faith remain Evangelical? Why not simply join one of the other communions that guard ancient Christianity?

Its a fair question, again touching on the issue of authority (though not necessarily answering the question). If one truly takes ecclesiology seriously and honestly values ancient Christianity, why not pick one of the groups who is structured in a way that seriously attempts to address these issues? I’m not saying I’m convinced (after all, I’m still as Evangelical as they come), but I do feel like Hart is making a reasonable suggestion. So what is the real issue, Hart asks?

One suspects that the reason has something to do with the advantages of being rootless. Without an Evangelical identity, a born-again Protestant would have to choose one of those other traditions, join it, and reject the others. With an Evangelical identity, he can take the best from all Christian expressions without having to come under the discipline and restraint of a particular church’s ministry, authority, and tradition.

If this is so, then the Evangelical future called for in this statement is more modern than ancient, because it is more voluntary than received, more liberated than restrained, more tolerant than exclusive. Without becoming part of a historic Christian communion, Evangelicalism’s ancient future will yield merely the trappings of antiquity minus its churchly substance.

Ouch! Maybe its just me. Maybe its just that I have an awareness that he is describing me. I do enjoy the “advantages of being rootless”, yet I like to take what I think is best from various church traditions. Maybe I do think all I really need is the trinity of me, the Holy Spirit, and my Bible – along with a little advice from others from which I can pick and choose. Maybe I really do want to have my cake and eat it too. Or maybe I’ll get over this issue and one day get a book published by Emergent Press.

I’m probably kind of dumb when it comes to reformation history, but wasn’t it like the Catholics killed Reformers and Reformers killed the Baptists?  I mostly look at history as who killed who.

Joel, this is what I think you’re saying, please correct if wacked:

The Church has nearly two thousand years of experience creating beautiful music for worship. Why do we addict ourselves to the ‘culture of the current’ and in doing so deny ourselves 99.999% of our historic riches, pimping ourselves out to the ‘latest and greatest’?

Instead, why don’t we allow ourselves to be enriched and informed by our own history, by the vast cultural depth of our spiritual ancestors, those who have walked before us on the path of Jesus?

Bill, the true joy of bluegrass is not found in the listening; it’s in the community of creating it.

The writer of the post on The Point that Greg linked wins my award for the most judgmental non-judgmental statement of the year.

For those that don’t know, Bono’s mother was Protestant, and his father was Catholic—and this, remember, in a nation (Ireland) fraught with religious strife. So that’s his background. Does it excuse his non-membership in any local church? No, but nor is it our place to judge that—rather let us pray he does find a home, perhaps in some small, faithful Dublin parish. His faith in Jesus, though, is most assuredly real.

This is a great example of the sort of disingenuous (or maybe ‘manipulative-marketing’) language so many Evangelicals seem use so easily.

Personally I’d like to experience a U2-based liturgy. I connected deeply with Joshua Tree when it was first released (back in the 80’s, what?) but U2’s style was never my quite mine. In the past months I’ve slowly reconnected with them through some of the work they produced since JT. I must say that I find that I’m adjusting to their style.

Michael, the word ‘denounced’ is deeply linked in my mind to the practices of Nazis and Stalinists…nice choice of words.

A provocative quote from the piece at Christian Century that Michael linked earlier…

The first Catholic president of the U.S. had to go to considerable trouble to make it clear that his primary loyalty would be to the service and safeguarding of the Constitution, and if this has to be said less forcefully now, 45 years later, it’s only because everyone assumes that no sane U.S. Catholic would think anything else. We all know where primary loyalties lie and what the proper place of religion is—as private hobby, as neutered lapdog, as purveyor of branded consumer goods and, of course, as supporter and encourager of the virtue of patriotism.

True?

Pirate: I wrote this post (stepped away in the middle of it), then read yours. I think I’m basically just reiterating what you said. Imagine that.  

Phillip: I appreciate your post, and your insight concerning preferences within context. Good point. However, concerning the rest of your post, I must question one of your underlying assumptions. You seem to be making the assumption that the approach the church takes in worship should be primarily concerned with the person “walking in off the street”. That is a large assumption, and one with which the “anti-guitar” crowd would uniformly disagree. The simple question, which is obviously not a new question, is whether when the church gathers to worship she should strive to be culturally relevant as a high priority or if she should strive to create a peculiar culture which transcends all other cultures. Now, in no way am I implying that a church could gather and be completely free from the influence of its cultural context (nor should it). This is a matter of priority, or emphasis.

It seems to me that the only part of the church that can even claim to have never changed its worship style to adapt to culture in any way would be the Orthodox Church. Other than those guys, everyone else is somewhere along the continuum. There are many people who feel that the Evangelical Church has been one joy(less) ride down the continuum of cultural accomodation, and they looked around one day and couldn’t tell the difference between their church and Starbucks, or AT&T, or perhaps one of the lovely venues in Branson. So they decided to get off the joy(less) ride and seek out some sense of transcendence in their place of worship. I am one of those people. What that means for me as far as worship style goes, I’ll let you know when I figure it out. But it seems to me that this is the big question concerning how the church approches worship.

I grew up in a devout Catholic home. My older brother is a Catholic priest. My dad was not an intellectual, but a businessman. However, there were two things that I knew from an early age were very, very bad. First was Vatican II. Second was FDR and the New Deal.

Now I don’t want to mislead you – my dad read the National Review and watched Firing Line religiously every Sunday morning – but his views on Vatican II were pretty simple. He thought Vatican II was a ridiculous dumbing down of Catholicism, a sell out, an unnecessary movement away from the essence of Catholicism. Because of my brother, my dad is a little bit more on the “inside” than before, and he has been truly heartbroken as he has learned the truth about the sex scandal in the RCC (which is rooted in godless U.S. seminaries). He is old, and his son is a priest, so he has stayed. I think he would have stayed anyway, because that’s just the way he is. He has only spoken to me about these things one time, and he told me then that he would be perfectly happy if the priest never gave a homily. Like so many devout Catholics, he is there for the liturgy and the Eucharist. The leaders have crippled his faith, but he still loves the Church.

Men like my dad, and I think Dreher, are devastated over what they see as the movement away from God in the RCC. They cannot help but lump all of these negatives into one group, starting with Vatican II. Their response is an emotional one, and perhaps a bit sentimental, but I think it would be naive to dismiss them as naive.

Greg, there are many answers to your question. What keeps me from leaving the Free church for a liturgical church? I’ll list several in no order of importance.

One is the people. We’re not a large church, but we’re large enough to be clustered in groups. Some may call this clique-ish, but that’s not entirely true. In any case, there is a group of us who know each other, encourage each other, and love each other. We aren’t perfect, but we’re all doing our best to love God and others together. That, unfortunately, isn’t always easy to find. Additionally, I am getting to know two of my elders rather well. One, who is a little older than I, is something of a mentor to me. (He’s also teaching my Greek class.) I learn much from him and respect him as an elder brother in Christ. The other, who is a little younger than I, serves as elder over the ministry we do on Saturdays. I see him as an equal brother in the faith, and we encourage each other in service. Our worship pastor is an example to me of a man who builds loving Christian relationships. We have a new senior pastor, but I already appreciate his leadership, and believe I will learn much from him. In all this, both my wife and I have a strong sense of Christian community in our church, and though it has been tested in the past, there is enough there to make us stay. More »« Less

Joel, thanks for linking the Milgram experiment. A twenty or so year remembrace sounded in my head…I must have learned about it before somewhere/how.

Laurie and I watched news coverage of the killings at the Amish school. Afterward I told her of the news item somebody linked here describing the Love and Forgiveness expressed by the Amish people toward the murderer’s family. That genuine act stood in stark contrast to the guy we saw on the TV coverage of ‘local church’s reactions’ who was ‘power praying’ with a tearful affect and pressured speech the ‘Lord we just want to…’ prayer.

I stand convicted in the face of a pacifistic and forgiving response to gross injury…and I believe this to be one of the most strident issues that believers ignore in our day. You must have thoughts… :-)

Sharon, I’m an ‘image-thinker’ too, and it’s not gender linked. Have you read any of Temple Grandin’s works? She’s a lady with autism and a Ph.D.. The more I work with clients with autism and Asperger the more I recognize my own tendencies in these directions. When/if you read the Wikipedia articles I suggest you replace ‘disorder’ with ‘type’, ‘traits’ or ‘tendencies’.

On Sanctification. This weekend I camped without electricity (ok my truck has a battery) and all of the noise that comes with it. My thoughts simplified and I started to wonder if the whole thing about Santification/Holiness has a lot to do with being ‘set apart’ for God’s use (even if you do the exact thing you did before becoming a believer) and less to do with us and the filthy rags we call our works.

Joel - like it took forever, but I think you finally ‘get’ it.

Michael, what Joel said.

Jack, We the People; through participation in our representative form of government.

Josh, everything I call “Christianity” begins (and ends) with Jesus. Not being Baptist I’m only interested in the Baptolic machinations as a spectator. I understand and appreciate your explanation as to why baptism is central as a ‘starting point’ for you as an MS Lutheran; but would state that it is not the same to me.

I agree that theology can be described systematically; but I know that humans cannot (and/or will not) respond to Jesus in a theologically linear fashion; as Rich Mullins states:

We are frail, we are fearfully and wonderfully made,
Formed in the fire of human passion, choking on the fumes of selfish rage,
and with these our hells and our heavens so few inches apart,
We are not as strong, as we think we are…

Jack, I don’t see why churches should get a pass on paying their fair share of taxes.

I’m totally clueless when it comes to communicating. I totally didn’t get how that whole conversation turned into a ‘who’s really my brother in Christ’ conversation… unless… well… it is crucial (nice pun eh?) to be baptized in the correct method and mentation in order to be a ‘brother’... now I get it… no wonder I’m was clueless.

Bill, I thought that they killed Him because of who He said He was (I Am) and because He kept harping on them about opening the doors to the undesireables (inclusion).

Did anyone read Michael’s Jollyblogger linkage yesterday regarding NTW’s posit that Jesus’ healings were intended to correct ritual uncleanliness? I automatically start thinking that we should claim healings for smoking and being a Democrat – the two criteria of ritual uncleanliness in today’s congregations.

Bill, wasn’t there some fuss about SBC (or some other Baptist denom) baptizocorrectness posted at the Tavern some time ago? I’m remembering that it had to be an immersion by a certain flavor of pastor in a certain flavor of church. I do also remember Baptist friends using the bus analogy (if you were to walk out of here and get run over by a bus…) on me when I confessed that my only baptism was paedolutheran. This meets my definition of ‘methodology and theology as path criteria’.

I’m not saying that you come from this approach, but you did say ‘no Baptist (at least)’.

I don’t think we’re talking about mutually exclusive ideas; I think we’re talking about varied and acceptable responses from varied and valid perspectives. My goal is not exclusion, mine is inclusion; which is how I see Jesus…He’s more focused on inclusion than exclusion. I think that we are the opposite, both naturally and culturally…even our ostensible critera of inclusion are based on a de-facto doctrine of exclusion.

JackArse, it’s so good to hear from you…it’s so good to know that physical contact with Jim is survivable! I’m thinking that if we could get MacKinnon to drink beer we could get him to hug.

Hmmm…is exclusionary ecclesiology not one of the main purposes of a seminary education?

Blue Raja – I’ll see if I can connect dots today, my record so far isn’t so good. Ragamuffin Gospel and Blue Like Jazz were two soft and glorious landing spots on my long and painful fall from fundecharismentalism. I became a believer at age 30 and spent my first ten years of believerhood working my butt off, and failing, to make myself somewhat palatable to God; I was constantly worried sick that I’d be ‘spit out’.

Ragamuffin Gospel was like a loving lance to the overblown boil of my self righteousness; in it I found permission to relax and trust in Jesus rather than my own constructed self-image; I discovered that my assurance was in Him and His Love rather than me and my own worthiness. Brennan and Don (Miller) taught me how to relax and simply be myself and focus on the Author and Finisher of our faith (Jesus) instead of the controller and manipulator (me). Brennan signed my copy of RG; Laurie and I had travelled to the Twin Cities to hear him speak (‘boom’ is more like it) and spent some time standing in line to shake his big rough hand.

I’m not much of a judge of writing quality; I’m more focused on whether or not I felt that I’ve entered into a relationship of sorts with the writer and fellowshipped with them and their point of view. Brennan, Don and others have expanded my internal image of Jesus and encouraged me to keep looking for more; before them I had become so narrow.

Jason, you’ve not seen anything universalism-wise until you’ve read Capon; who isn’t – a universalist I mean.

Blue Raja, I’d pick Blue Like Jazz or Ragamuffin Gospel...but I approach things from funny angles. And yes, I understand that you’re looking for a book to teach you about evangelism, not a book to give to people as a form of evangelism.

I’d love to see a BHT discussion about the priestly role; my expectations and understandings are so situational…I want to be an Anglican only if Father Capon is my pastor and Tom Wright is my Bishop. It is interesting that two (or three if you include Brennan Manning) of my favorite writer/leaders inhabit (or have inhabited) roles/positions that I don’t fully agree with.  (And then there’s Nouwen, Merton, Chesterton…)

Jason, I fully agree…both with the attractiveness of Anglicanism and the reality of denominational ‘impurity’. I too am attracted to that which is holy, catholic and apostolic and often wonder if there is ever a valid reason for division…and subsequently remind myself that I am talking about relationships with humans…

When I look at my own life I note that as I grow older I can see areas in which I’ve grown and other areas in which I’m damaged by my year to year exposure to a fallen and violent world. How is the church different other than being inflicted by many more years of exposure to the world’s violence…it’s hard to appropriate this in my relational thinking however. I’m sort of a ‘relational perfectionist’, which works well professionally but is kind of an unreasonable standard to inflict on the rest of the people in my life.

I too struggle with the thought of leaving a wife behind in order to pursue ministry goals…I think that Paul was speaking to this issue when he wrote about ‘singleness’. I don’t any longer believe (I once did) that our success in our ministry endeavours is grounded on our own ‘rightness before God’; so axiomatically I don’t believe the fact that Carey was used by God as an endorsement of his behaviour toward his wife. God uses faulty and messed up people to work out His will in His kingdom.

Reading Greg’s link about Anglican communion administration customs leaves me counfounding over the whole idea of ‘ordination’ in the first place…the idea that certain things cannot be practiced without a certain person in attendance…yes I understand the idea of apostolic succession and that it is theologically consistent for someone who believes in that concept to make such a determination…well dang it…Christianity seems much simpler than what we tend to turn it into. (That may well be the longest sentence I’ve ever written – and I’m not really responding directly to the issues raised in the linked content.)

I probably simply need to say ‘end of rant’ and be done; but I have great difficulty accepting as scripturally normative any sort of intermediary role in our worship save that of Jesus’.

Scot McKnight has a review (book link – website) up today on Sarah Cunningham’s Dear Church: Letters from a Disillusioned Generation.

Instead of the usual picture of young people leaving the church, never to return, this book talks about people who grew weary of the problems they saw, but found a way to work through it and continue to love the Church. Perhaps there is hope yet, Bill.

When I read the review, I thought of the following cartoon from Dave Walker’s Cartoon Blog: The Evolution of a Worshipper (when you look at this image, know that Dave is Anglican, not Roman)

Michael, ‘dismissive’ was Greg’s assessment, not mine; I don’t feel dismissed, just disagreed with and if I have difficulty with that I may as well find another place to drink ;)

When you said this:

Give human beings repeated content and they will become emotionally disengaged from it. Give them spontaneous content and, after initially being engaged/entertained they will again be disinterested. Liturgy, entertainment, verbal content, visual content, Worship, pornography- it doesn’t really matter. Give humans the opportunity to see something more than once, and they will soon struggle with boredom, disinterest and disengagement.

You better stated with what I was struggling with saying. I had been reading Dr. Fitch’s account of his church’s application of the creative, and especially visual arts to their liturgy. I have also observed in myself a tendency which I extrapolate to others, the same ”...struggle with boredom, disinterest and disengagement.” that you stated. This is why I am excited, as a visual artist, about the idea of an ‘open liturgy’ so to speak; an ecclesiology that allows the creative arts to be judiciously applied to liturgics in order to add variablility, creativity, artistic communication and beauty.

Regarding your other two questions I’ll answer the second first (actually I already did): Yes I “struggle with the same thing” which is part of why I believe my assessment is generally correct. As a therapist I am comfortable with sensing, because of my own empathetic responses, the moods of others and offering that assessment to the ‘other’ as theory – a question that often, but not always, helps the ‘other’ put words to their feelings – which is the core of the theraputic dialectic. This is my answer to the first question, which was “How do you know?”; I don’t know, I have an impression which I offer…an impression which you confirmed for yourself (and others) in the part of your post I quoted above.

I’m reading David Fitch’s The Great Giveaway and due to all of the other busyness in life for the rest of August I’m only scratching the surface. One thing I ran across on my initial ‘page thru’ (a terrible habit as I don’t allow the author to build his case) was a church role that we’ve talked about in the past; a ‘liturgist’. As a visual artist who loves music I believe I’d love to participate in ‘liturgical design’ and that I’d find the ‘output’ a wonderful supplement to worship.

I must admit an internal dilemna manifesting itself as a small voice in the back of my mind asking the question: “How would this be any different than a multi-media presentation in a megachurch?” So there is my own internal question as I wander around Minnesota today soaking up time with Laurie: “What are the qualities and intent of ‘liturgical design’ that prevent it from devolving into megachurch megamedia megamarking megaglitz?”

On Southern Accents; I’d love to record for the southern Fellows our Minnesotan cast acting out southern accents…you’d probably all be falling off your barstools…

Richard, again, I so wish you pastored nearby…thank you.

Greg, what I’m so inadequately describing is my perception that in many liturgical traditions the congregants eventually, through rote repetition, become immune to the meaning of the words that they are saying. I’d like to know why this is happening and if it is linked to growing up in a liturgical tradition. Mass was celebrated at my grandfather-in-law’s funeral – I found the words wonderful but I noticed that those among us that grew up in the Catholic tradition were saying ‘hear our prayer’ with the same attention and conviction that they would have used for ‘pass the salt’.

I’ve also sensed such lack of conviction in the passing of communion elements at a ‘non-liturgical’ church; no reverence, no gravity or understanding of the words being spoken. This makes me wonder if the problem with many liturgical practices is it’s static nature…and at the same time I realize that if there’s something different every week more time and spiritual energy is spent on the learning than on the worshipping. Therein lies my dilemna…how can we find a balance?

All, thanks for your responses and perspectives regarding my liturgical question…I deeply value learning from your experiences.

East-Coast Geography: When you live in California everything east of the Mississippi and north of Washington D.C. is ‘New England’ and everything between the Mississippi and the Sierra Nevada’s is the ‘Great Plains’.

Mark, I think that the fact that the ‘rapture scale’ is not directly linked to the passage of time reveals the dispy belief that the behaviour of believers can actually hasten the ‘rapture’. So much for omnipotence.

Phillip – I wasn’t trying to set something up, more of an attempt to clarify a perception.

In thinking about the Tavern I recognized that my mental perception of BHT Fellows was that we were mostly individuals who grew up in non-liturgical traditions who have migrated to liturgical traditions.  My question was meant to elicit a sampling of responses in order to give myself a ‘reality check’.

My mental context was the ‘liturgical immunity’ I’ve observed in myself and others…which I define as ‘rote repetition with no cognitive connection’.  I’m trying to work out my thinking about this observation and my reactions.  I’m wondering if growing up liturgically is a factor in inculcating the ‘immunity’.

Matthew, the correct pronunciation (and spelling) is ‘Womern’.  That’s how we say it in our little bit of Oklahoma! carved out of Minnesota.

Greg, I would say ‘inconsistent’.