It makes tasty fruit and sturdy wood, both of which he finds exceptionally beautiful. The Boy Scholastic once figured that, on any given day and varying on his mood (which is determined by the quality of his breakfast and his morning ride), he would be willing to go an extra five minutes out of his way just to sit in a room with cherry paneling. He thought it was rather silly at the time, but now he understands. The same goes double for stained glass.
A question which is of central importance to me is the proper structure and focus of a church, and while people close to me will often hear me touting the ideals of Luther's concept of the priesthood of the laity, there is a dark side to forgetting the role that the priest plays in the church. As a demonstration, I offer a situation which hit quite close to home.
There is an interesting predicament facing a church (UMC) that I used to attend; in fact, it lies at the heart of why I left that church, though I didn't know it at the time. At the time I left because my personal mentor left, along with the other members of the church that I had come to respect over time, and so I respectfully went with the people whose faith had been the most inspirational to me. I now understand why, and I'm glad that I did, though it would have happened soon enough as I went away to university not long after.
The only reason that I still know anything about what is going on at that church is because my mother and sister still maintain affiliations with the pastor of that church, and to a limited extent, the church in general. She and the pastor are quite close, and she presently serves on something called the Servant-Leadership Team (SLT), though she very much dislikes it. Let me explain why. The SLT was formed at this particular church around the time that the UMC instituted a pastoral switch at the church. It is a group of lay peoples in the church who were, at first, appointed by the same vote that was instigated to institute the SLT, after which point appointment is maintained entirely by the SLT -- there is no min/max term length, and the group offers, renews, and terminates persons on the team based by group vote. There is a president, treasurer, secretary, etc. as well as general members, where all positions are (once again) maintained internally. The pastor is, I believe, involved by invitation only; I am sure that the pastor is not a member of the SLT, nor does the pastor have a vote on any of the issues that are brought before the SLT.
The issues that the SLT manages are administrative, but not what a normal person would first think of as administrative. Along with conducting a capital campaign to raise money to help expand the church building, they are currently charging themselves with a drive to place every member of the church into a small group, as well as selecting curriculum for Sunday School teachers and maintaining Bible Studies in the church. This is outlined, of course, in the new church constitution, the same one that formed the SLT.
You can, perhaps, see a problem forming here. Upon hearing all of this explained to me, my gut response was, "What does the pastor do?" Apparently, this is a valid question, which goes back to the initiating purpose behind SLT. The belief behind the SLT model is the maxim "Every person in ministry." A noble belief -- I myself agree with the idea the priesthood of the laity, as previously stated -- but something is foul in the state of Denmark. But what?
It is best to show what is wrong: This Wednesday, the SLT is to have all of its members sign what they have called "A Covenant Agreement." It is a document with a list of promises that the SLT wants people to sign as members of the SLT (and, still proposed, the members of the church). The signer pledges to attend church regularly, to attend SLT meetings, to be a member of a small group, to donate to the Capital fund, among other things. After several meetings of resistance from three individual members of the SLT, the vote passed that the "covenant" should be signed, this Wednesday, at the meeting. Being one of the three who opposed the "covenant" from the start, and having spoken to me on the issue at length, my mother will refuse to sign, regardless of the consequences.
What then is the problem? Even if you are not a Christian or a religious person at all, I would believe it safe to say that something has felt off to you while you read this. If what exactly that is eludes you, don't feel bad -- it took me a while to be able to put my feelings on the matter into words. My knee-jerk reaction, however, sums it up best, I believe: Who do these people think they are?
That response has two sides, because the SLT has assumed the responsibility of two other roles. The first is evident: the priest. The priest is the leader of a church. It is the priests job. I know there are degrees to which the laity are involved in a church, and I don't believe in leaving everything up to one person, but there is a reason that the priest leads a church -- he is trained to do so. It is not because of an anointment or because of a special ceremony that a higher-up performed; it's because a member of the laity stepped forward and dedicated his life to being a Shepard of a flock. A priest goes to seminary, is educated in the position of leadership in a church. He has studied doctrine under those who have made it their life to study doctrine. This is his role.
There are, however, many churches who choose to function differently, and there is no fault in changing the roles of the priest to suit a particular church. What I object to is the second position that the SLT is usurping. They are attacking the place of God.
It is never clearer than in the use of the word "covenant" to describe the tract that they have put forth. If we examine the Biblical precedent for a "covenant" (or the definition, even), we see that it is a promise between God and man, initiated by God, and always a promise that God will do something for man in response to something that has happened or a man's faith. God promised Abraham that he would be the father of many nations, he promised Noah that He would never again flood the earth, and so gave him the rainbow. A covenant is not a promise that men make to God, as the SLT maintains their covenant is, nor is it something initiated by man.
What is happening at this church is business in the worst sense. There are now capital campaigns, and in an effort to increase attendance and to boost donations, what are they doing? They are leveraging a person's personal, individual relationship with God to get them to do what they want them to do. And what they want them to do is not the work of God but the will of man. As I posed to my mother, "This covenant is vanity, pure and simple. These people are so vain as to think themselves able to discern God's will for the future, both for themselves and for others. I ask you, what if a man signs this "covenant" and then, come Sunday morning, feels the call of God to be with an ailing relative or to visit a person in need? They have promised God that they will go to church, but yet that isn't what God wants them to do. They must either deny God's will or break a promise, and thereby become liars. And a path that can result in nothing but sin must be caused by a prior sinful action -- the making of a promise to God which is against God's will. I will proffer that a Christian should make no promise to God save to follow His Will. Anything else is vanity.
In defense of this, I point to the following verses:
Matthew 5:33-7
33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Matthew 15:1-9
3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'[a]
The Word of God for the people of God. You know the rest: take it away!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment