Eternal Dialogue: Discussions Bigger Than Life

Pastors as Friendless Leaders??

2008-02-20T07:58:00.000-08:00

In one of my classes yesterday we were talking about role identity issues and boundaries in the pastorate. How do you know when to say what? When you give advice, it is always as the pastor? Or can it sometimes be simply as a friend? Is there a difference?

I was surprised at the division in opinion amongst the class. Some people were extremely adamate about the fact that pastors should not make friends within their own congregations. Other people couldn't understand how a pastor couldn't make friends in his own church.

Those who argued against friendship said that a pastor may lose all respect if she tells people her true struggles and thoughts. They said that they would rather be friendless than chance breaking up a healthy congregation if information of their "true life" got out.

Those who argued for friendship couldn't imagine how a pastor could encourage community in his/her congregation without being in true community themselves. Granted, this would look different in various size churces. However, a pastor who has no genuine friends in a church seems vulnerable to burnout and the sinful dangers which accompany isolation. If the church is called to exist as a community of individuals who are together learning to live like Christ, then how can a pastor not be friends with anyone?

What do you think? Is it possible to not have friends in your congregation? It is possible to have friends and still retain some personal boundaries? Where do you draw the line between professional and personal?

Or should there even be a line at all??

Leadership From Inside Out

2008-02-01T10:45:00.000-08:00

So I'm reading this book by Wesley Granberg-Michaelson called Leadership from Inside Out and it is really making me think about some of the ways which the church operates. Of course he covers a multitude of topics, but there was one chapter in particular that stuck out to me as counter-cultural. When we discuss these things, they seem so obvious, but when we reflect on the way we actually function... well, I think we're in trouble.
In a chapter about instilling new values into the culture of any organization, one of the values that the author emphasizes is the importance of Sabbath. Not your typical Sunday morning "obligation" to go to church, but rather the significance of building REST into your schedule. How does this apply to the corporate world? Or to the Church?
How doesn't this apply to either? Look at the ways which we operate. Most of the time, the Church is no different than the corporate world (if not worse) in its expectations of those in positions of authority. Pastors are stretched so thin that they burnout before they've even reached their peak. Church staff members are expected to do so much with so little time, that they neglect their families and their own physical health.
What can we do as a church to act counter-culturally to this illusive "need" to be always working? How can we go against the grain of "production" and allow for the self-care that is necessary in everybody's life? It'll definitely ruffle some feathers, but it MUST be done.

Being REAL at Church

2008-01-17T20:08:00.000-08:00

Ideally, I probably shouldn't say "Being real AT Church" as much as "Being real AS the Church". But I actually am referring to the habit in which many of us are stuck come Sunday mornings. When we wake up and get all "pretty" for Church we walk into our sanctuaries (or wherever your community may gather) and we pretend that everything is so good with our lives. When people say, "Hi, how are you doing?" our automatic response is, "Good, how are you?" The problem is, we go through these motions whether we've just had the best week of our lives or the WORST! Why can't we be REAL at church?

As a worship pastor I've heard a line used time and time again (in fact, I've used it many times myself): "Lord, help us to leave everything at the door this morning and focus on You." Maybe you've never heard this before or approached church with a "leave all the crud of life at the door" mentality, but for some of us it is way too familiar. When we "leave it at the door", however, we cannot possibly be REAL, not only with each other, but also with God.

Instead of "leaving it at the door" we need to "bring it in" and praise God in spite of everything that's tearing us apart and dragging us down. How much more does a worship song mean when it isn't isolated from the context of our everyday lives? When we can actually put the words of a song into the fabric of our family life, work life, social life, etc., then we allow God to see how we're REALLY feeling. When we are still able to praise our Creator in spite of the struggles of our life then we are learning what it means to rely on God in faith.

Just something that's been on my mind...

Learning to Lead

2008-01-07T09:49:00.001-08:00

Again, it's been way too long since I've posted anything here... I'm sorry. I'm starting a new quarter at Fuller today and two out of my three classes (the third one being Hebrew) are classes about leadership. One of the classes works in conjunction with the internship in which I am currently involved, and the other class surveys the various forms of leadership portrayed throughout the Bible. It should be interesting taking these classes simultaneously to see how they play off of each other.

An ongoing conversation that I've been having with peers and classmates is about the role of leadership in the church. Some churches have enormous staffs with multiple paid professionals each in charge of a specific realm of the church. Other churches only have one or two paid pastors who are forced to be multi-role players. Some churches don't even pay their pastor in an effort to eliminate the "profession" of the clergy. Is there a "correct" form of church leadership organization? Do different methods work better in different places?

I guess those are a couple of the questions that I will hopefully be more clear about as this quarter progresses. Any thoughts?

Missional Seminary?

2007-11-20T11:56:00.000-08:00

In my American Culture class we were given the prompt to explore an aspect of American culture which is based in an unquestioned assumption. We've talked a lot about how the way we are brought up, specifically in the United States, shapes the way we see the world. The goal of the paper I'm writing, then, is to not only explore the assumption, but also come up with ideas of how the Church can think critically and live in a way which counters the assumption. (For example, one assumption may be that the more toys we have the happier our lives are... to which the Church could preach and live a counter-message).

I've decided to tackle the task of questioning the assumption that "the way we do seminary is the best way to do it". I plan on looking into the effects that the academy has had on theological education and that modernity has had on the way which we operate. Are grades effective? Should we be competing with classmates for the highest grade? Is the regurgitation of facts the best possible way to train for vocational ministry? There has been recent conversation about the need for transformation in theological education. www.allelon.org has some great resources which explore this idea further.

Any ideas? How can a seminary have a more missional approach to educating and training pastors while maintaining its academic integrity? Is a more integrative approach with local churches even possible? How can the Church itself encourage such a change? What would local congregations need to do to contribute to such a transition in pastoral training?

God and Time: Does it really matter??

2007-10-19T09:00:00.001-07:00

So I got together with my buddy Patrick yesterday who is working on his PhD in Philosophy right now. Of course what began as "catching up over coffee" quickly became a deep (in my mind, anyway) dialogue about God, foreknowledge and time and space, etc. (This basically consisted of my questions with his answers). But it got my mind reeling about the question of God and time. Especially in regards to God's knowledge of future events, I've always been hung up on the issue of God's relation to time. Is God IN time with creation? Does God somehow exist ABOVE time or "beyond" time? Does that mean that God can see the entire spectrum of time at once?

Previously, I would think to myself, "OK, if God relates to humanity temporally, then God cannot see future events in their entirety (whether by choice or ability). But if God exists outside of time and can view the entire spectrum of past, present, and future events all at once, then God can see future events in their entirety."

After our conversation yesterday, Patrick pointed out an alternative starting point. Rather than starting with the issue of God and time, why not start with the issue of the existence of future events on the foundation of your belief in free will. Does a future event even exist if it has not yet happened? If it exists, then it must occur exactly as it exists. This would be determinism and we would have no other option than acting exactly as the event exists as foreknown in the future.

However, if I start with my conviction that God gave humanity free will, and concur that events in the future must not yet exist (it's an impossibility- like a square triangle), then I am able to see that it doesn't really matter where I land on the God and time issue. Of course I have an opinion about God and time... but either way you put it--whether God exists within or outside of time--doesn't change the fact that future events do not even exist. So it's not that God isn't powerful enough to see future events in their entirety, it's that they don't even exist in the first place. So even if God IS outside of time looking at the entire spectrum... the spectrum of events that exist is a lot smaller than most may imagine.

OK... this is just my mind wrestling with this issue right now. I had to write it out to articulate it to myself, even. Of course it leads back to previous conversations about Open Theism and God's foreknowledge (which could go on and on), but I at least had to get some of this out of my head. Now off to that Hebrew homework...

Chap Clark's HURT

2007-10-09T22:15:00.000-07:00

So I just finished reading a book titled Hurt by Chap Clark. It was really interesting. The basic premise of his argument is that today's society completely neglects the true needs of mid-adolescents. He says that the programs and systems which we have in place to "nurture" teenagers actually inadvertantly do more harm than good. For example, he argues that organized sports oftentimes push so hard for competition that they harm the students who are not as athletic... ultimately, the adults (coaches and parents) vicariously live our their own dreams while pushing their children to unprecedented levels of expectation. He also argues that our school system requires so much studying, along with extra-curricular activity, along with anything else to fill an adolescent's schedule, that our society no longer values a teenager for being gifted in one thing in particular, but only awards those who are able to balance the most activities without drowning.
He makes the point that all teenagers want the same thing from each other... but it is the one thing that they cannot provide for each other. They are begging for the genuine love and care that only an adult can provide in the process of ushering a teenager into adulthood. It's a fascinating survey of youth-culture in America today and a challenging wake up call to churches and youth organizations to reevaluate the way they organize their leadership. The bottom line: teens need adults, and in today's society that reality is as true as ever. The problem, however, is that adults just aren't paying attention.

Any thoughts??

Back to School, and Ready for Some Theological Discussion

2007-09-28T10:30:00.000-07:00

After a great summer, I've finally begun my fall quarter at Fuller Seminary. So it's back to the books, but I'm ready for it. I'm beginning Hebrew--which looks a little scary a this point. I'm also taking Foundations of Youth Ministry with Chap Clark (author of Hurt, among others). That should be a really good class. My third class is called American Culture: Social Location and the Gospel. Basically it's a class surveying the ways in which our Western culture in the US shapes the way our churches think and work. We are theologically shaped from birth, and it places our perspectives in a box that is hard to escape from. So that should be an interesting class as well. Sorry it's been so long since I've posted... but keep tuned, because I'm sure I'll have some great topics to discuss!

Hermeneutical Dialogue

2007-07-21T22:33:00.000-07:00

In my Exegetical Methods class the other day we were discussing the idea of hermeneutics. In particular, we were talking about the benefit of hermeneutical dialogue, especially when it includes voices from several different perspectives into a single conversation (e.g. various socio-economic standings, ethnic histories, denominational affiliations, etc. etc.) The idea was presented that as more voices are represented in the dialogue, and each person is allowed to point out the biases of another, the conversation as a whole naturally transforms toward a more healthy reading of the text.
I can see how this makes sense, since each person who reads a text approaches it with his or her own biases, whether or not they intend to. So it seems logical that the more perspectives respresented in the conversation, the fewer biased readings of a text exist.
My question is this: In the midst of such a hermeneutical dialogue, what is the goal? As the Church body, existing in a variety of contexts, approaches a text and then discusses it, is it gathering to come to a "consensus translation," one on which everyone can agree? If this is the case, as each person points out the biases of another, each voice will have to allow for a bit of compromise as they together strive for a consensus translation. Or is the goal for each perspective to affirm the other perspectives in the conversation, even if they do not agree with each other? They wouldn't be forced to compromise their own translation of the text, but at the same time, there is plenty of room for plurality.
This is just something I've been thinking about... any other thoughts?

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

2007-07-06T23:50:00.000-07:00

Sorry it has been so long since I've written... I've been pretty busy with school (but I know, that's a pretty stupid excuse).

Anyway, right now I'm in a really great class. It's "New Testament One: The Gospels" with Dr. Craig A. Evans, a professor who visits Fuller only during the summer to teach a couple courses. This guy knows what he's talking about. He's definitely one of the key players in some of today's top theological discussions. It's been extremely interesting, in particular, to hear him talk about The Lost Tomb of Jesus, a documentary that the Discovery Channel will be airing in the next few months. This documentary is directed by James Cameron (of Titantic fame, I believe). Dr. Evans has told us that he thinks this film is a huge joke... basically a bunch of guys who are using their mass media connections to spread a lie. If you're at all interested in what Craig Evans thinks about this, he's speaking at Fuller Seminary this Wednesday evening.

Here are a few links for you to explore on the subject:
Dr. Craig Evans' Site
Fuller Lecture Information
The Film's Website
Evans and Jacobovici on The Michael Coren Show
Dr. Craig Evans video
Dr. Ben Witherington's Blog

Living Missionally

2007-05-09T22:27:00.000-07:00

One of the topics that seems to keep coming up in discussions around school is the idea of the need for churches to become missional. It's definitely a concept with which I resonate. In today's post-Christendom society, people are searching for answers, but they're not wanting to trust the institutionalized Church to tell them what to believe. If we, as Christians, are to truly connect with those outside the Body of Christ, living missionally is the key. When someone sees me living out my faith in an authentic 24/7 fashion, my actions gain their trust. If I make a genuine effort to bring about the Kingdom of God in my world outside the church, lives will be effected. Whether they are the recipients of the Kingdom in action, or mere witnesses of a Kingdom event, people will see that my faith is real and that it dictates the way which I live my life. Living missionally is the key to sharing the gospel to those struggling in the world today. The awesome part is, there is freedom to determine what it means to live missionally within your own context. This idea will manifest itself differently in different sub-cultures of society, but the call is still the same: to live your life in accordance with the gospel in a way that brings about the Kingdom of God IN the world as a 24/7 lifestyle.

What do you think?

John Calvin: An Interesting Fellow...

2007-05-07T20:39:00.000-07:00

In my Church History class we're currently discussing the origins of the Reform movement in the 16th century. I will admit that being raised in the Wesleyan tradition, I haven't read a lot of stuff by Mr. John Calvin. But now that I'm having to read about this man, I'm finding that he was an extremely deep individual. Though I definitely do not agree with his ideas concerning predestination, he makes some very interesting cases for the combination of Church and State and the place for war within the Christian perspective. He makes the point that if one's focus is on love, then every difficult decision will fall into place (including the decision to go to war, or not).
But even more than this man's theology, one must respect his love for studying. He was seriously intense. By the age of 26 he published one of the most influential works of modern Christianity, the Institutes. He was a man of dedication and his intentions were always pure. I have found a new respect for John Calvin, and am glad that I've been able to step past my theological differences to do so.

Emerging Church Class

2007-05-04T13:43:00.000-07:00

So I'm in an emerging church class taught by Dr. Ryan Bolger. It's a really interesting class. I'll be honest and say, however, that I really think I was more impressed with the emerging church before taking this class than I am now that I'm in it. Bolger's book Emerging Churches is a great survey of the different types of emerging churches that exist both in the US and the UK. I don't think I have anything against the emerging church, necessarily, but I just have this burden for the existing church that is currently struggling. Everyday I'm challenged more to rethink how existing churches can respond to the same questions to which the emerging church is responding without having to start over and begin something completely new. I obviously don't have the answer. But I'm more encouraged now than I ever have been before. I will say that I love the questions that the emerging church is forcing upon the institutionalized church... but rather than losing hope for the existing church, there's GOT to be a way for churches to respond and act that won't completely obliterate the positive aspects that currently exist within these church bodies.

Changing the Game...

2007-05-02T22:37:00.000-07:00

So I'm currently in a class this quarter about the Emerging Church taught by Ryan Bolger. It's a really interesting class and we are required to blog 3 times a week. My blog for that class is joshfitzpatrick.wordpress.com if you'd like to check it out. But it's got me thinking about what I've been doing (or not doing) with THIS blog. I've always tried to raise questions for consideration to be a catalyst for conversation. But I think that I'm going to change game plans now. I'm just going to make it like a more traditional blog with more journal-type entries so that I'm posting more regularly. If it happens to begin a dialogue, so be it. But if it doesn't, that's ok too...

Is Big Bad??

2007-03-09T12:22:00.000-08:00

With today's church culture seeing a shift amongst certain communities from the seeker-sensitive mega-church to the extreme opposite small home emergent faith communities it's hard to know which is better. Is one better than the other? Are large churches missing the point? Are small churches not as effective? Weigh in the issue and let us know what you prefer and why?

Evangelism: What Works Best??

2007-02-01T12:31:00.000-08:00

Well, I just finished my mid-term in a class called "The Art of Evangelism." It's been an extremely interesting class so far and the conversations that we've had in it are very interesting. I'm curious, though, what types of evangelism have you seen as effective? Is there a specific "way" one should go about evangelizing? Are there certain methods that you've used that work better than others??

Spiritual Disciplines: Which Do You Prefer??

2007-01-05T09:34:00.000-08:00

In my Foundations for Ministry course at Fuller we've been talking a bit about spiritual disciplines. Are there certain disciplines (both personal and of the church), that you value more than others? What disciplines do you participate in regularly? Which disciplines do you see as unneccesary?

Dialogue Response: Volf's View on Free Churches

2006-11-28T14:30:00.000-08:00

This quote by Miroslav Volf was pointed out to me by Kyle Potter as one worth discussing (and I agree). It was originally posted at Sub Ratione Dei . Read it and let us know what comes to mind. At what point does the church's attempt to appeal to the "consumer" cross the line? Any personal experiences??

"Whether they want to or not, Free Churches often function as 'homogenous units' specializing in the specific needs of specific social classes and cultural circles, and then in mutual competition try to sell their commodity at dumping prices to the religious consumer in the supermarket of life projects; the customer is king and the one best suited to evaluate his or her own religious needs and from whom nothing more is required than a bit of loyalty and as much money as possible. If the Churches want to contribute to the salvation of Christendom, then they must first be healed."

Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity, Eerdmans, (1998), p. 18.

Thanks again to Sub Ratione Dei for the quote.

Is ALL good REALLY good??

2006-11-13T10:36:00.000-08:00

My friend and I had a short conversation about this topic the other day. Does God work through the actions of people who aren't "working FOR God"? For example, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie do a lot of humanity work as well as Oprah Winfrey. But is the good that they do considered God's good? Can he work through them? Or are actions with wrong motivation (not BAD motivation, simply not "Kingdom" motivation) void of God? Along those lines, can God speak through movies that aren't meaning to have a Christian message??

Bottom line: how involved (if at all) is God in the things that aren't done in God's name?

What If... Jesus' bones were found!?

2006-11-06T08:52:00.000-08:00

Here's a discussion topic that was recommended to me by Steven. It's definitely got some interesting conversation potential. For the sake of keeping the dialogue moving with this one, keep in mind that it is simply a "what if" question and the response, "Well, that would never happen" doesn't work... That said:

"Let's say some archaeologist found Jesus' bones...therefore, Jesus never was raised from the dead, how would that change your tomorrow?"

Once again, to receive an email when a new topic has been posted, simply become a member of Eternal Dialogue for free by clicking on the link at the top of the page.

The Sabbath: What's Your Motivation?

2006-10-16T10:23:00.000-07:00

I had a recent discussion with several friends about our definitions and theology of The Sabbath. We realized that we each had very different ideas about what it is and different levels at which we place it in our list of "Christian Priorities". What it the Sabbath to you? What is your motivation behind the concept of Sabbath? How do you feel it shapes us as Christians?

How would you change your church?

2006-10-02T10:39:00.000-07:00

If you had the power (and maybe you do) and could immediately change one thing about your church, without worrying about the "process" of change or the offense of it (in some peoples' minds), what would you change today? What would you add? What would you take away? How would your community be different?

NOTICE: If you haven't already signed up to receive new post updates through Eternal Dialogue Membership do so right now. It's completely free and it allows you to jump into the conversations while they're still fresh! Just click here.

Reaching the Elderly With A "Modern Church"

2006-09-21T19:31:00.000-07:00

Here's a problem that has been plaguing Christian churches since the pendulum of evangelistic focus has swung toward young families and youth: how do we reach the younger generations without forgetting about the older people in our communities? Sure the stats say that a young person is more likely to accept Christ than a person who has gone her entire life without doing so. However, we can't simply disregard this demographic. Has your church been able to find a successful balance? If so, how?

P.S. If you are a member of an Emergent Church, I'm curious how this resonates with the older people in your community...

The Eucharist: What's it to ya?

2006-09-13T14:14:00.000-07:00

Pretty simple prompt here: What is the Eucharist to you? Or, if you feel so inclined, what is it not (that some people believe it is...) ?

Grace After Death: Is Punishment REALLY Eternal?

2006-09-08T10:28:00.000-07:00

Thanks Pat for this discussion topic. It should definitely stretch us and lead to some interesting conversation.

The topic is this: if God is a God of love and grace, why do we view his offer for salvation as only available during our life on earth? What if God allowed us to accept his grace after we've already died and experienced the punishment of hell for a bit? Let me allow Patrick to explain this concept further in the first comment to this post. For the sake of space, I've listed his writing in the comment space instead.