Rouge River Community Church

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Miscellany

In my early years of ministry, there was a trend running through faith circles to ask forgiveness for the sins of the past. Not one's own past, mind you, but rather the society's past. Or that of a people group, or a certain community. The pope apologized for the crusades. American families that owned slaves 4 or 5 generations previous asked forgiveness of the slaves' descendants. Canada asked forgiveness for their involvement in the Boer War (look it up in Hansard!). I'm still not sure to whom we apologized, and for what, exactly. I imagine in a hundred years we'll be apologizing to Afghanistan for the terrible sin of building schools, fighting terrorists (this one is admittedly, enlightened self interest) and securing some measure of freedom for women under the veil. Donald Miller in his book Blue Like Jazz tells a story about his college's Christian students group setting up a confessional booth at a campus festival. It was not meant to be a confessional for drunken students (good luck with that) but was meant to confess the sins of the church to anyone who would sit down to listen. I don't get all this apologizing.

In this week's MacLeans magazine, Brian Bethune's article entitled "Why didn't you do something?" talks about the modern German experience of lived out guilt over the holocaust and the events leading up to and including the Second World War. For the article, Bethune interviewed German judge and author Bernhard Schlink (think The Reader). Defining the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation, Schlink says this, "To ask forgiveness for someone else's guilt is cheap." At some point we all live in our own skin. We are the one's responsible for our actions, attitudes, beliefs. It is from our own soul stature that we all must approach God. Anything else is disingenuous. Admitting to our sin is authentic. Confessing the sin of another we never knew to people who never knew them either is inauthentic. To echo Schlink, that's cheap.

This world, so filled with conflict, is in desperate need of reconciliation. Abraham chose a wife over a concubine, one son over another, and look at the Middle East now! Israel need not approach their Arab neighbours with confession over the ancient past, but assertions about the future. That is a step toward peace. The reverse is true as well. Those who are still living out the consequences of some generations-old deed need to be freed by the power of reconciliation. This is a power that says, "Even though you have been my enemy for longer than either of us have been alive, I won't hurt you, I won't kill you. I will let go of the lies and hate and the ignorance, and choose to live with you in peace."

For some of us, living at peace means being forgiven and forgiving. Forgiveness is both an act of the will and a spiritual discipline. I can forgive, but I need to keep forgiving from the soul until all the heat and bile lose their sting. To be reconciled means to live together in some sort of ongoing relationship, as hard as that can be. When I am called in to do marriage counseling, the first sessions are all about forgiveness; the rest are about reconciliation. I can forgive with a plan of never seeing, never trusting, that person again. To be reconciled means that I'll be forced to look that person in the eye ball again, and probably on many occasions. The church does forgiveness pretty well. I wonder how well we do reconciliation?

Know anyone who left a church pissed-off? Me too. As pastor, I'm probably the one who pissed them off. I've heard the talk of forgiveness from these folks, but they still leave. "I forgive the pastor, the leadership, the congregation, but I just can't go back there." Fair enough. Then why do they run away in the mall when they see someone from their old congregation walking their way? Hmm. Could be a lack of reconciliation (or they just lied about that whole forgiveness thing, but that's for another day). Instead of spending time confessing the sins of others, lets work on something much harder: trying to live with each right now.

Posted By Andre Lauzon At 2:05 PM •

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Success

suc-cess |s?k'ses|
noun
the accomplishment of an aim

How does the church define success? It seems the only valid aim in evangelical circles is numbers. How many bums in the seats, how many $$ in the offering and how many baptisms each quarter. I'm not going to rant against that attitude. That's the measuring stick for success I was trained with. At Bible College, the pastors that were invited to speak at chapels and conferences were the ones who had churches exploding out the doors, in the midst of major building projects, busy planting dozens of daughter churches, or seeing more salvations than they could handle. Churches that were small and struggling were that way because of sin or leadership ineptitude, I was taught. I'm not sure anymore.

No matter how much I talk and write and study about defining success by faithfulness- a concept I believe to be significantly Biblical- I still can't get past the numbers of success. It informs my foundational perspectives on ministry. Success by the numbers tells me if I've done a good job as a pastor, if we've done a good job as a church. I had a small taste of that kind of success at my last church. Maybe it's some in-built need to have the approval and praise of others. Maybe its a sincere desire to please God. Maybe its just a random stumbling into what God's Spirit happens to be doing in a certain place or at a certain time. I had a pastor friend of mine asked to resign from his church after 5 or 6 years of ministry because of the lack of growth in the church. It was all on him to grow the church. In his case, few congregants took personal responsibility for accomplishing the aim of the church- success by numbers- but hung the pastor out to dry when they didn't grow. The only thing worse, I think, is if the church didn't care, but I'm not sure anymore.

I sometimes wonder what the Gospel is really all about. Is it as personal as we have made it out to be in evangelical circles? The Old Testament is so corporate in its view of salvation. God will retain for Himself a remnant. That remnant theology is all through the Old Testament. Jesus sure picks up on it in his teaching of the Kingdom. Paul says the same things in his letters- all with the English plural "you" in our translations, but somehow we in the evangelical world singularize those "you" statements, and make church all about me. Is the Gospel really just a numbers game? Are we still trying to recapture the Day of Pentecost when 3000 were added to the church? As a pastor, do I hold my first loyalty of service to God? My congregation? My concept of the Gospel? The Bible? My training? Something else? I'm not sure anymore.

I knew a pastor in my early days that came across, at least to me, like a used-car salesman (no offense to used-car salesmen, but society holds them in not much greater esteem than clergy and politicians). He grew his church to over-filling, planted daughter churches, and had a following of people that were incredibly loyal to him. However, when I saw him interact with people, I found him to be manipulative. I vowed I would never knowingly minister like that. It seems that all the large churches that I have seen that are growing and vibrant are led by individuals like that. Well, all but one. I don't understand leaders who do not take no for an answer from their congregants. They have a unique ability to convince someone to do something they just said no to, and seemingly do it willingly. Where is the fall out? From everything I know and understand about people, when they are manipulated, there has to be some kind of emotional, spiritual or other kind of fallout, eventually! Bitterness, rage, brokenness, an unwillingness down the road to say yes ever again, relational separation, something! Is it a matter that these leaders and churches need a steady stream of new people to keep the system working? Maybe I am just completely out to lunch here. I'm not sure any more.

My experience of late leads me to ask these questions, and others. After 20 years in this, how could I be missing the point this badly? Are people just tools to accomplish the goals of the church? I thought people were the point. The reason God sent Jesus to us- to live and die like a man, all the while not sinning and maintaining his divinity. I thought the Kingdom of God was people, under God. I look around at a lot of churches, and there has been a subtle shift from people to numbers. Is this overly cynical of me? I am just some raving ideologue who holds fast to his model, regardless of the facts? I'm not sure anymore.

For those of us on the outside of that kind of church, we need a definition of success that sticks, and we need it pretty soon, or I think we will just be defined by failure.Whatever that is.

Posted By Andre Lauzon At 11:16 AM •

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Evangelical Hagiology

One of my favourite novels is Robertson Davies' Fifth Business. It is the fictional autobiography of a Canadian man, from early life in small town Ontario, through his experiences in the Great War, and then teaching history in an exclusive Toronto private school. The character, Dunstan Ramsey, is incredibly literate and well-read. He is also noticeably quirky. A passion for him is the study of saints, known has hagiology. What makes this eccentric is his protestant roots. Protestants aren't supposed to go in for all this saints stuff. That's supposed to be the purview of Rome.

Roman Catholics and some Anglicans in the Western Church, and the Orthodox Church in the east canonize and venerate heroes of the faith. The Vatican even has a formula for sainthood. The idea is to gain strength and intercessory help from a Christian hall-of-famer, especially one who demonstrated exceptional prowess in a certain area. In my home town, a very Catholic community, it was common for someone who wanted to sell their house to bury a statue of St Joseph (I can't remember which one) in the front yard.

I've frequented protestant circles enough to know that we do have saints, but are not honest enough to admit it very often. In certain churches, the epistles of the Apostle Paul hold a 'first-among-equals' standing over the other books of the Bible. Paul is quoted more that Jesus in these churches. I call these churches "St. Paul" churches. In other churches, the Gospels are elevated, leading to little followings of Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In more seeker sensitive churches, the popular church growth guru of the day is raised almost to Sainthood. I saw this played out once in a board meeting at a church I was at. The board was discussing a new direction for a certain ministry. I was trying to bring into the discussion what I thought were relevant portions of Scripture. One board member cut me off, "That's all well and good Andre, but what would Bill Hybels do?" I should have marketed bracelets, WWBHD. I have met Wesleyan who care more what Wesley said than what the Bible says. I have seen reformed pastors who could quote Calvin with greater ease that they could quote the Bible. In the emerging church, we venerate (or vilify) Brian McLaren, Donald Miller, Rob Bell. Most of us have to admit that, in one form or another, we are closet hagiologists.

I'm not going to bash Roman Catholics, et al, for venerating saints. At least they are honest about it. I am suggesting however that the rest of us acknowledge what "saints" we elevate, so that we can evaluate their influence on us, especially our understanding of the Bible. A real danger is to land on a certain commentator's approach to the Scripture without ever wrestling with Holy Writ for ourselves. It sounds cliche, but lets aspire to be disciples of God in our own right, not disciples by proxy through McLaren, Hybels, Driscoll (especially Driscoll! :) ), Bell, Wesley, Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Irenaeus or even Paul, John or Ringo.

Castigat ridendo mores.

Posted By Andre Lauzon At 10:41 AM •

Thursday, April 08, 2010

My Father's Words

Have you seen the new (as of April 2010) Nike ad featuring Tiger Woods? Here is the YouTube link.

The black and white ad shows a serious, almost broken looking Tiger staring into the camera while the voice of his father, Earl Woods, can be heard asking some very fatherly questions. What is of note here, apart from Nike taking a less-than-conventional approach to rehabbing Tiger's image after the scandals of late 2009 and early 2010, is that Earl Woods has been dead for almost four years. There is no way that Earl Woods' words in this ad apply directly to Tiger's present situation. That does not take away from the power of the ad or the impact of what the elder Woods said. It's just out of context. Does that matter?

I think this ad illustrates how many approach the Bible; they forget about the context. How many traditions and legalities that are found in the church today can be attributed to a reading of the Bible that ignores the context of the original words? Women wearing head coverings? Elders and deacons policing the communion table? The modern missionary movement? We build grand theological cathedrals on sandy soil. The fact that these cathedrals withstand the storms of time is testament, not to our correctness, but rather the power of God's Word. That it can be misunderstood and misused for the sake of legalistic practices and still draw people to Christ is miraculous, not confirmative of our usage.

All of this leads us to a question: What filters do we use in reading the Scripture? Some filters- those factors that taint or colour our understanding of the Bible- are built in. Language. Culture. Relationships. Personality. Others filters are adopted- theological or denominational persuasion, for instance. With all of these filters getting in the way, we must work especially hard to ensure we get to the intent of the author, as inspired by God's Holy Spirit. By understanding a passage in its original context, we can begin to grasp its universal meaning, and then be able to apply it to our time and culture. Unlike Islam that requires believers to take on an Arabic culture, Christianity is meant to be dynamic enough to be relevant in every culture, every time period.

Here's an example. In 1 Timothy 2, Paul writes: I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes (1Timothy 2:9). On first blush, the passage seems to be dictating a certain style of dress for women as a symbol of spiritual propriety. Should this verse be applied universally? In others words, does this verse apply to all women who have ever lived, regardless of culture and time period? When we begin to delve into the context of the passage, we see that Paul is speaking of behaviours and attitudes during a worship service. Expanding the context a little more, we learn that Timothy, the recipient of this letter, was a pastor at Ephesus. Ephesus was the home of Temple of Artemis (Diana). Worship at the Temple of Artemis included prostitution. What did the temple prostitutes wear? Immodest expensive clothing, braided hair adorned with gold and pearls. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Going a little further, into the original Greek- the passage can also read I want women to pray in modest attire. They both work with the grammar, and the latter seems more consistent with how Jesus himself conducted his ministry. Let's check into applying all of this to our culture. When you see a woman with braided hair, or decorations in her hair, do you find that immodest? No. But for a young church at Ephesus, seeing temple prostitutes come to Christ, to have these women attending church services still dressed like prostitutes for Artemis would have been a problem for the congregation.

So why does every English translation choose the first reading? Not because of scholarly ethics or grammatical consistency, but because of tradition. So a questionably translated passage has been used for centuries to say 'no' to gifted women wanting to exercise their spiritual gifts in the context of church. So when Jesus lifted women up to be equal worshippers (remember, worship is an act of living) of God, that was a mistake the Apostles had to correct in the early church? Hardly! And this is only one example.

Kicking off the filters of tradition, and the tons of teaching and writing produced to justify tradition, can be hard. It could mean starting to walk out of step with those around. But wrestling with these issues leads us to a more grounded and dynamic faith.

Posted By Andre Lauzon At 10:52 AM •

Thursday, April 01, 2010

A New Day At The River

I have exciting news for this beginning of April blog entry. The River has just embarked on several new partnerships that will ensure that we will be a cutting edge church long into the future. Here are the deets, as the kids like to say:

Emergent Church Life Association of North America

This conglomeration of other emerging and emergent churches in North America will ensure that we will be part of a community of like-minded believers who 'get' us. The support we will gain from shared experiences and resources will be incalculable. The annual conferences in Las Vegas will be encouragement enough in and of themselves!

Churches with Borders

A spin off of several aid oriented ministries, Churches with Borders professes a "home nation" focus for outreach and missional living. Why send money and missionaries half way around the world, when you can keep it all within your own borders? One of the major initiatives of Churches with Borders is the "I Am Canadian" Maple Leaf give away each Fall. This is a door-to-door outreach program, seeking to educate our neighbours and co-workers about the central place Canada has in the Christian world, and especially in the End Times. Leaflets in the shape of, you guessed it, maple leaves are distributed. This should be very effective in the Toronto area! The River Leadership Team is especially excited about this new partnership!

The Canadian Auto Workers Union (Local 790)

In what can only be called a 22nd century move, we have joined the CAW. Former CAW president Buzz Hargrove was instrumental in our signing with this up and coming labour organization. Thank you Buzz! The benefits? Solid legal and muscle protection from rival churches, especially foreign churches (I'm looking at you, Churches of England and Rome! You know I am!). This union got our Federal Government to impose tariffs on foreign made cars. Just think what they will do for us with foreign-led churches! Our first move will be to encourage some of those "foreign' churches to make, um, certain donations of, um, good will- ya - good will, to the River to ensure a peaceable coexistence.
___

After taking in the above announcements, I am sure you are as excited as I am about the future of the River. The days ahead will be bright and prosperous, ensuring a healthy congregation and an important community impact role in the years to come. Hodie est primoris dies of April!!

Posted By Andre Lauzon At 10:06 AM •

Andre's Blog