Michael's Blog

Dylan featured as local celebrity!

My wife's bro, Dylan, was featured in the latest issue of Metromix (Indianapolis) as a "local celebrity"!  I''m not sure he would embrace the label, but you can   Click here for the on-line interview.

He recently finished directing his third short film entitled Thank You for Calling Information Dynamics. It's now in post-production.  I'll let you know when it's complete!  You can also check it out on facebook.   He would appreciate the support.

Comments on 1 Timothy 2:12

In response to my comments on women in ministry, I was asked to respond to the Mennonite Church USA's position on women in ministry in light of Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:12.

From the start, let me say clearly that I do not speak for Mennonite Church USA, but I am willing to respond to the passage relative to my understanding of women in ministry and ordination, so that is what I'm going to do.

Here's the text (read the entire letter for context):  "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."  (CEV)

A few questions about the passage:

• What is the difference between the faith community Paul is addressing and the institutional, post-Constintinian church?
• Can "ordination" even be on Paul's radar screen given the context? 
• Is this a "Thus says the Lord" or simply Paul's opinion/practice? 
• If the verse is in the Bible does that make it binding on all people in all places at all times? Is this a universal truth, like Thou shalt not kill, or cultural? 
• Do we read ordination into the text? 
• What other kinds of questions are raised by the passage?  
• Is this passage used selectively?  Do we apply the same literal weight to Paul's desire that men everywhere lift holy hands without anger while praying?   
• Does v 15, if also taken literally, contradict evangelical understandings of salvation by grace through faith? 

A few questions about ordination today:

• What is the purpose of ordination?
• How does ordination function in the life of the church? 
• Is ordination synonymous with teaching and preaching? 
• How do we view authority in the church?  Is it positional, stemming from ordination?  Is it relation or functional? 
• Is our view of authority hierarchical? 
• How is authority exercised within congregational polity?  
• How does the priesthood of all believers, the cry of the protestant reformation, impact the discussion?

My thoughts:  In my understanding, ordination is a process of discernment whereby the congregation acknowledges leaders from within the church that are called by God and gifted by the Holy Spirit for ministry within the church.  Those roles may include preaching and teaching, but they do not exclusively include those roles.  Indeed, they may not include those roles at all.  So, I'm going to pay attention to passages that relate to the gifting of the Holy Spirit. I'm going to pay attention to the call of the individual and to the way the faith community tests that call.  In the Mennonite Church, one has to be in ministry, in a particular congregation for 2-4 years before the congregation can request ordination.  Again, in that time, we are paying attention to the fruit that should accompany a calling into ministry and a gifting by the Spirit. 

From an Anabaptist faith perspective, we still value the priesthood of all believers, not as a slogan, but as a way to live out service within the community and world.  In that context, making gender distinctions at the level of ordination are not different than making gender distinctions within the body as a whole.  The absence of gender distinctions in Paul's teaching about spiritual gifts makes it difficult for us to look for gender distinctions in the exercising of those same spiritual gifts in the life of the church.

Understanding 1 Timothy 2:12:  My knee-jerk reaction focuses on Paul's phrase "I do not".  I'm not convinced, given the overall trajectory of Paul's teaching that the community of Jesus followers is without barriers, that Paul is giving a once-for-all rule for the church.  I think Paul's teaching here is a response to the cultural situation of that time.  Specifically, the reality that prior to Jesus' women had very few rights and were not allowed to learn.  This meant that women, while fully welcome as full and equal members in the faith community, were not equipped for the role of teaching.  At the same time, the patriarchal context of 1st Century Judaism would make women in leadership roles difficult and disruptive to the faith community.  Paul's solution was pragmatic as the new church navigated these waters, but not a universal exclusion of women in these roles.  If it was, Paul would be open to some very critical charges that he contradicts himself throughout his writings.  To me that is a bigger issue that undermines the text than simply including women in these roles when the faith community discerns calling and gifting within women that will benefit the faith community and the mission of Jesus through his people.

Ultimately, I don't think 1 Timothy 2:12 speaks to women's ordination at all.  It speaks to Paul's understanding of how women related to the church within the context of the 1st Century faith community.  It also speaks to how women, who had new found freedoms, related to the faith community when there were disparities in education. I can see no reason why a woman today would not be able to teach with the same authority as a man, given the leveling of the educational playing field.  

Dan Kimball asks a good question on this regard.  If a man and a woman took their Bibles, went into separate rooms, studied the same passage, and came to the same conclusions, why would the woman's teaching be inferior to the man's?    

Some thoughts!  What do you think? 
  

Does US need another attack by Osama Bin Laden?

I can't believe anyone would nod their head in agreement to this logic?

Mennonite's Worship in Nationwide Arena?!?!?!

This is the first of several planned posts on the Mennonite Church USA Convention in Columbus, OH.  I'm going to start with my first impression, which was a bit puzzling.

If, as Marshal McLuhan says, "The medium is the message" I'm wondering out loud if the message of youth worship is consistent with the anabaptist vision?

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not a "old and traditional" is good and "new and hip" is bad kind of guy, but what is the message present in the medium (the way communication happened) of youth worship?

The venue for youth worship was Nationwide Arena.  It is a roughly 15,000 seat venue which is home to an NHL hockey team and countless concerts.  By Mennonite worship space standards, it's huge.

A large stage was front and center, with two large screens to the right and left of the stage.  Professional stage lighting.  Fog machines.  pro-audio and video (which, of course, is necessary).  Standard band configuration (2 guitars, bass, drums, percussion, keys, lead vocals and background vocals).

The size of the venue required a sender-receiver relationship where those on stage were senders and those in the stands were receivers with limited opportunities to communicate, seek clarification, ask questions, etc.

The size also created a hypernonymous environment.  In this context, this is the experience of being with so many people that engaging with any particular person was impossible. Being in the same room with 4,000 people is not the same is being in relationship with 4,000 people. 

What are some of the message present through the medium alone?

• We measure success in the same way that the world does (lots of people in a large venue doing cool stuff)
• What we call youth worship is something other than what we engage in on most Sundays. 
• What we call youth worship requires a large input of resources, both people and financial 
• Environmental concerns take a back burner to the large-group experience.  
• Connecting to other people and groups across the larger church happens by engaging in a common media event. 

This is significant because it seems to work against the anabaptist vision.  The anabaptist vision holds out community, service, simplicity and radical discipleship as keys to authentic living as followers of Jesus.  In what ways did youth worship embody that vision? 

When you add language about following Jesus with the absence of a critical eye on the message of the medium, it can create a message that is quite confusing.  Are we really being simple, counter-cultural followers of Jesus because we are singing Jesus songs in Nationwide Arena instead of watching a hockey game?  Or are we simply co-opting the values and messages of the world around us while tweaking them enough to avoid any critical tension?

As I raise these questions, I'm not attempting to be negative, but simply to point out that we have to think more carefully about the messages inherent in the medium itself.  These same issues could be raised while talking about Sunday morning worship in local congregations.  Awareness is important because without awareness we might be tempted to miss the point.  The point of youth worship is not that it is big, hip and cool - A Christian Mennonite version of the world - but that there is life and energy within the Mennonite Church itself!  As we spread out and follow Jesus in the world, we can help transform our neighborhoods with love.  

If we leave going, "Wow, that was great!  I can't wait until the next one so I can experience that large group high again!" the message of the medium may be coming through louder and clearer than the other messages present in our time together.

Off to Columbus, OH

I'm taking off this morning!  We're headed to Columbus, OH for the  Mennonite Church USA youth convention.  I'm looking forward to good times of worship, connecting with folks from around the country, and having fun with my family!

On the speaker list this year, we will hear from Shane Hipps (author of Flickering Pixels), Shane Claiborne (Irresistible Revolution, Jesus for President, the Simple Way), and Greg Boyd (check amazon, too many titles to list).    There are also three seminar slots per day, which is a lot of opportunity to learn from brothers and sisters from the larger church!  

Worship will be led by Jeremy Kempf and Kutless is performing on one of the nights (don't remember which one, glad I have the schedule in writing)!

If you pray, pray for safe travel!  I greatly appreciate it! 

I'll try to blog during the week if I find stuff worth blogging about...otherwise I'll be back next week!

Label Liable

Yesterday I preached/delivered a message on the role of women in the church.  Specifically, we asked if the church was male-dominated and oppressive towards women.  My answer was a stunning "it depends", but it shouldn't be.  

Then I outlined what I consider to be a positive framework through which to tackle the subject.  If all goes well, technologically, the message will be up on sermoncloud (I guess floating in space somewhere) so you can hear it if wish.

I talked about a pastoral response, which seeks reconciliation/healing between genders through listening, confession, forgiveness and repentance.  It is clear to me that in most faith traditions, as in much of society, women have been (and still are) marginalized.  It may be better and getting better here in America, but there are significant hurts that need to be healed.

I talked about a theological response which requires us to do some theological "heavy lifting" and resist the urge to pull texts out of context to suit our own ends.  I can articulate my position clearly within the NT witness, but I grow tired of being told I don't take the Bible seriously because I refuse to misuse 1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35 or 1 Timothy 2:11 - 15.  Someone help me see how taking texts out of context and making them say something they never intended to say is faithful to the scriptures?

I concluded by taking about an ethical response.  Here I relied heavily on methodology articulated by Richard Hayes in The Moral Vision of the New Testament (a must read).  We looked at the issue through the lens of community, cross and new creation.  As a community we are called to embody a counter-cultural vision for life together that manifests itself in self-giving love, considering others above ourselves, and putting on display the power of the resurrection in a not-yet-redeemed world.

I preached way too long, but the congregation was gracious.  I felt I needed to stake some ground on this issue and define where I stood.  I'm growing weary of folks who say, "Well, it's a complex issue and people of good will have vastly divergent opinions."  I know that is true, but it sounds more and more like a cop out.  If one of the divergent opinions leads to the oppression of women, I'm not sure agreeing to disagree accomplishes much.  We can agree to disagree, but one of us still be dead wrong.  

The biggest problem?  It is easy to dismiss someone with a different opinion with one simple move; ATTACH LABEL HERE.  He's just a LIBERAL!  I've been made aware that a neighboring church from the same denomination uses that label to describe our congregation.  (I hoped we were friends) The brilliance of the label is how clean and efficient it is.  The label doesn't really even describe anything specific. The label doesn't advance an idea or bring further clarity.  The label doesn't ad any substance to the issue at all. It is attached so that one can dismiss the other as not worthy of consideration.  As in, "You don't have to listen to them, they are liberal, or conservative, or fundamentalist, or atheist or Cardinal fan, or  _________.  

We're all guilty of label-liable (dismissing people by labeling them). We (I) need to stop it.  Choose discussion, debate or dialog instead. Some issues are just too important.

Civil Discourse on Abortion (really...I'm not kidding)

Recently, Jon Stewart and Mike Huckabee discussed abortion on The Daily Show.  Their conversation was substantive and respectful!  We need more people talking about this issue (and others) with this kind of humility!  As Huckabee said, "we don't need to shout at each other and we don't need to shoot each other!"   I am especially fond of the not shooting part.

Here's the interview (it's in three parts)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

A familiar playbook?

Proud of my daughter!

Cool pic of my daughter doing make-up on her first film shoot.  My brother-in-law is directing his third short film (his first was The Letter, his second was Red Harvest...sorry can't find link).  This one is called Thank You For Calling Information Dynamics.  I read the script.  I'm looking forward to seeing the film when it is complete.  They are shooting through the 23rd.  You can find their info page on facebook by searching the film title (above).  Above photo by Kristen Leep of Indianapolis, IN - more pics on facebook!

Who speaks for the church?

I'm currently teaching/preaching a series based off of Dan Kimball's book They Like Jesus but Not the Church.  The work explores common perceptions of the church by emerging generations outside the church.  

It can be a little depressing!  The  5 perceptions I am dealing with are the perception that;

1. The church is judgmental, negative and political.
2. The church is male-dominated and oppressed women. 
3. The church is homophobic. 
4. The church arrogantly thinks all other religions are wrong. 
5. The church is full of fundamentalists who take the whole Bible literally. 

  

You may wonder why anyone would choose to tackle that list.  That's fair.  It's a thought that has run across my mind (but only after I had committed to the series).

While dealing with each of the perceptions (or misperceptions as they may be), I have started wondering who speaks for the church?  I know many people think they do, but who really speaks for the church?  The only answer I could come up with is Jesus.  Jesus is the only one that can speak for the church with authority and integrity.  Humans can speak for various small-k kingdoms, but only Jesus speaks for the Kingdom of God.  Humans can speak for a local church or denomination, but that is not the church of Jesus, it's just a part.

In a Sunday school class taught by a gifted man I greatly admire, we have been talking about the Exodus story (Moses going to Pharaoh, etc.).  It seems in this story that Moses spoke for God, but his role was very clear.  He didn't generate the messages, he relayed the messages.  What Moses said to Pharaoh came from God.  And it strikes me that that is the role we have today as followers of Jesus.  It isn't up to us to generate the message, it is up to us to relay the messages, in words and actions,that  Jesus gives.  So if Jesus says love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, it isn't up to me to change that message, my only role it live out that message and relay that message to others.  

Pretty cool.  If more of us took seriously the responsibility to pass on Jesus' message instead of creating our own and then searching for support by putting words in Jesus' mouth, I think the world would be better off, don't you?  

I realize my job is to walk with Jesus and talk about Jesus (and I love it) but I hope I'm never putting words in His mouth.