Are Seminaries Really Cemeteries?

I know I heard it before going to seminary, that seminary was a place where many peoples’ faith in God died – hence the “cemetery”. “Be careful,” they would say, “You go in really solid, knowing what you believe, and you come out unsure of anything.” I was cautious about that sentiment and now at the midpoint of my seminary experience have a few more questions I want to ask back to those people that warned me of the potential death of my faith.

For instance, when we assume that faith is really strong outside a more focused, scholarly approach, do we mean it in the sense that an aspiring psychologist should be careful so they don’t overanalyze all future relationships because they’ll know too much, or do they mean it in the sense that an academic approach is antithetical to faith, that is to know God?

I’ll admit, some of the seminary experience is about the study of what others have said about God rather than the pursuit of God. But that’s not so different than training concert pianists to study Beethoven before trying to compose their own music, is it? We shouldn’t assume that our personal pursuits should disregard or be ignorant of all the people who have put serious heart, soul, and mind into this before we were ever born, right?

I do think that it is wrong to think of seminary as a professional school. In other words, I don’t think it should lead automatically to ordination. Even physicians have to go through a residency and nowadays, likely a fellowship, to go along with their M.D.s before being considered proficient at their craft. I think an M.Div should also be seen as a starting point.

Do I have more questions about God now having experienced seminary? Yes, but if I may say so, I think they’re good questions that the Scriptures provide room for. They are questions that I’m going to have to really seek the heart of God for, questions that I may never have an answer to, and to be honest, that’s OK with me. I would rather be with God out in the wilderness, than to stay on a secure mountaintop without God.

And that’s where I feel the fears about seminary, and maybe it depends on the seminary, need to be checked. It’s not everything, and you can certainly do ministry without studying at a seminary, but it’s a great place to be honed, to gain tools, to learn the languages, to understand the traditions, and find space to operate, experiment with ideas of worship and liturgy, and work with other future ministers. And what I hear from some professors, you may even find God here (scary, but better a calling here than not at all, right?)

But I will say this, I am more cautious with simple answers about the Christian faith. I am more sensitive to those who have been wounded. I am less certain about Christian apologetics (I used to love apologetics!), not because I think the faith shouldn’t be defended, but because I think if the point is to prove anything, it is to prove that we are transformed by the truth of Christ, not to feel that we right or are intelligent on the same rational grounds as those who question the faith.

But what do you think? Does it look like that on the outside? Or do you feel that seminary is too risky a venture for the faithful?

Peter Rollins @ CTS

Pete Rollins is on his tour through America. I’ve mentioned Pete on this blog before and really enjoyed his first book, “How (Not) To Speak of God”. But perhaps more than his book, I enjoy listening to him speak.

To cut to the chase, Pete came via some of our Emergent connections to CTS where he spoke to our class, Foundations of Evangelism (taught by Steve Hayner!), yesterday. I had the opportunity to record the conversation and wanted to share it with you. Enjoy~

You’re Invited! A Talk at CTS on the “History, Identity, and Destiny of Korean Americans” April 12th

In-Sub-Ordination

Really quickly, what is the purpose of ordination?

Let’s say you follow the call to ministry, to this life of servitude and infamy, how do you decide by whom you would be ordained (denominationally speaking) and to whom (what community)?

I know I have the tendency to speak irreverently about the office of the reverend, but I mean this as an honest question. I’m confused as to how twenty- and thirty-somethings like myself make these significant and important decisions without knowing the breadth and depth of what is out there. I have discovered that I know too little and it is a scary feeling.

Ordination is licensure to practice within a certain doctrinal/denomination background. Ordained ministers have more clout, make more money, and have better benefits. At the very least, they have more job security than those who are not ordained.The economist in me says that there is a strong incentive for institutions to preserve their interests and put money behind people who they feel will best preserve and perpetuate their agendas.  The cynic in me asks, that’s not necessarily a license from God now, is it?

But the realists around me respond, exactly how do you think people will give you the right to do any ministry at all when they don’t really know what doctrines you espouse?

The cynic retorts, the right to ministry? God called me to ministry, I don’t need people to give me a calling I already have. Does a singer require a certificate to sing? Or a marketer to advertise? As for doctrines, ordination assumes I know them, it doesn’t say that I believe them or live them.

The realist, but don’t you think some minimum proof of at least “knowing” them is required?

Cynic: I see. it’s like a driver’s license. You’ll let me drive the bus because the state of Georgia says I can. but what if God has a history of off-roading?

Realist: there are too many wolves in sheep’s clothing, we are trying to protect the community of believers with validation by other larger, governing bodies.

cynic: and you think there are no wolves there? you think that will keep the wolves out? maybe the reason why these denominations are dying is because they are trying to protect something that cannot / should not be protected. kind of like Christian radio “safe for the whole family” stuff. who said God was “safe”?

the lover in me, who couldn’t stand any more of it, shouted, Jesus laid down his life for the sheep! …if you were a shepherd of a flock, wouldn’t you do whatever requirement, however petty, to be around them?

Yes, but where do I start? I am the son of a baptist preacher gone charismatic, then gone methodist; redeemed in an ex-church of Christ church, married in a presbyterian church and now a student at a presbyterian seminary while attending an evangelical free church. Who will have this doctrinal mutt? I don’t have to be a shepherd, I’d be satisfied to be a sheep dog, but aren’t these questions about ordination too farfetched?

People ask to see if their doctors are board-certified. Even a massage therapist needs a license. Certainly forklift operators. Who am I to operate without one? Even if it is from an institution that is struggling in its growth. Even if I know that none of these things actually qualify me, wouldn’t I myself get confused at what really qualifies me to serve the people? There is no certification for love, ok, maybe marriage, but not love. there is for madness, but not love.

Can We Change?

Fun class today asking the question for church, is change possible?

Here are a couple of quick videos we saw in class regarding different aspects of change:

the easiest route to take is to apply technical solutions when what is necessary is change of heart, behavior and value. We need to change how we live…

And what changing an organization often feels like:

In Class Today: Mosaic Churches

 

Some notes again from my class, “Emerging Models of Church” with Prof. Steve Hayner. Today, we’re discussing Mosaic or intentionally multi-ethnic churches. I’m not going to try transcribing every word like I did last time, but I will be trying to get the high points. Enjoy~

We started today’s class with a viewing of “King of the Hill” looking for a new church (h/t: pomomusings).

Point #1: Everyone is ethnic. And by ethnic we mean:

ethnicity describes the characteristics of our origins – our family, tribe or national identity—our customs and characteristics—our corporate identity as a member of a unique people group.

Culture is one of those weird words. Anyone who has studied anthropology may know how slippery this word is. Some definitions then…

• Culture: variously defined–all culture participates in both the dignity of humanity created in God’s image AND in the brokenness of humanity.
• Multiculture: either pluralistic, where each culture contributes to the whole, or particularistic, where concern is to preserve the particular characteristics of each.
• Multiethnic: consisting of people from various “people groups” (cultural, tribal, national identities = “the ethnos”)
  • Preference not to use the word, race. Race is a 20th century invention that is designed around external characteristics…race is not a good enough indicator of who a person is as is ethnicity.
• Counterculture: intentionally discerning direction contrary to norm based on faith .If multicultural ministry is not countercultural, it is simply political correctness.

Globalization, tribalization (aka balkanization), immigration are huge phenomenons affecting the world we live in.

John Long, Director of US Census Bureau. By 2040, we can extrapolate these demographic changes:

• White 54%
• Black 14%
• Hispanic 22%
• Asian 7%
• Multiracial 2%

Emerging Models Of Church – Lecture 3 / 3rd Hour

Man, this is a long class…there might be gaps in the notetaking…but I’m doing my best to get as much as I can.

Steve Hayner (cont’d)

Hour 3

one of the big issues, probably generational as much as anything else, is the relationship between Chrsitan faith and other faiths. it would arise occasionally — what about people who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ?

one of the things that emergents have really struggled with, it’s not an exclusivist position, meaning that it is not Jesus is the only way and anyone who doesn’t mention the name of Jesus is going to hell. they say, ‘no, we don’t really see it that way’ but neither do they think that it doesn’t matter. it’s a particular universalist view, but not the universalist view.

emergents think about an inclusive Jesus, a Jesus who died for the whole world, a Jesus who at the same time says, ‘come to me.’ emergents are not eager to walk into conversations where they say all other religions are false. the very fact that people struggle with their faith shows that utimatly these things will come to their conclusion in Jesus Christ.

in “Listening to the beliefs of emerging churches” – these five writers interact and they talk about each other’s chapters. they have quite a lot about Jesus for the global village. there is a very real sense that the portal to faith in the emergent world is that people belong before they believe. they are not likely, especially as people are not likely to wrestle through all of the issues of faith before entering the community. more likely is that they are part of the community first and come to faith. again it is an embodied conversation. it really matters, but you find a lot of consistency about it either.

the patterns of evangelism involve building relationships of trust. because of this sense that we are sent into the world and this emphasis on authenticity, there is this sense that we build friendships. we build friendships with anyone, NOT so that they will become Christian, but because people who are created by God are worthy of friendship. in the context of those friendships, we can talk about faith, we are going to engage it. we are going to listen a lot to one another.

there is also evangelism that is proclamation…evangelism as life, word, deed, and sign. this is holistic in witness involves all of those kinds of things. emergents would not say that it is a bad thing at all to do confrontational evangelism, but that is not their preferred modality, because that’s not the way life works mostly. again, they would point to Jesus’ life. most of Jesus’ interactions were evangelistic in nature, but not necessarily confrontation.

Emerging Models Of Church – Lecture 3 / 2nd Hour

Steve Hayner (cont’d)

Hour 2

a lot of this so reminds me of kaleidoscopic input. there isnt’ anything systematic about this book (An Emergent Manifesto of Hope). it reminds me about “Wikikklesia“. read more here…

let’s look at a variety of theological pieces here, as kind of a kaleidoscope. these are some places, snapshots of some of the conversations. i’m in a rather long conversation with ed stetzer…but the very fact that you can have these conversations is a remarkable kind of thing….

one piece is that emergent church have a kind of incarnational paradigm about the world. which means, they are neither world-fearing, nor embracing all culture. a world-fearing stance has given rise to the culture wars. the world is a bad place means that if we can’t change it, we need to guard ourselves against it. home schooling and a variety of movements lead to protecting ourselves against it.

another stance is culture-embracing. anything that is out there is good and we embrace it all. that is a stance that religious people have taken.

the emergent people have taken the stance that says we are going to engage the world. this is going to sound very reformed. the emergent world talks about creatively engaging the world. acknowledging that evil does exist and the world is a challenging place. sin is individual and corporate, but God in Jesus, moved into the neighborhood. God took a risk and incarnated. when God came there was an understanding that this was dangerous, there was a war going on, but that change could take place.

it’s not about sacred on the one hand, and secular on the other. it’s about ‘this is my father’s world’, therefore the image of God can be seen in certain ways in the world and in creation itself. and god is in the process of redeeming this world.

secondly, there is a holistic view of salvation. neither salvation as saving souls. there is a whole chunk of the world that talks about salvation as saving souls. the emerging church doesn’t talk much about souls, but about people. neither is salvation as liberating the oppressed.” neither conservatives – souls, or liberal – oppressed. salvation is about a bigger picture, rather healing all that is broken.restoration of God’s kingdom and redeem creation. the fall has more implications than between humanity in God. those who care about salvation, to talk about salvation only in terms of a broken relationship with God, as only alienation with God is that there are other consequences of the fall. in Gen 2-3, other consequences are deprivation, suddenly humanity experiences want – no food, no clothing. the essentials of life become difficult to work with. it’s hard to survive. in addition to that, it’s also a world of oppression. there is a misuse of power….

reconciliation is God’s answer to alienation.

compassion is God’s answer to deprivation

God’s answer to oppression is justice.

salvation is defined in a more holistic way. it’s not just getting people right with God. Not just Jesus saved my soul, we’re done, but until all of creation is done, then we’re not done.

Live-blogging: Emerging Models of Church Life – Lecture 3 / first hour

Emerging / Emergent / postmodern — all these words have become so loaded in our views of church and individual faith. I have the opportunity to take a class this fall, “Emerging Models of Church Life” that explains some of the new trends taught by Steve Hayner, who was once president of InterVarsity, but now is on faculty at Columbia Theological Seminary.

I got his permission to live-blog today’s lecture (3 hours!) regarding the Emergent movement.  I found it informative and balanced. Hope you find it helpful…

Steve Hayner’s lecture at Columbia Theological:

Hour 1:

An introduction to Emergent Church –

once you sort of get whatever it is in your sights, it’s not there anymore. if something is emerging, we are always in the journey and it is hard to nail it down. it is hard for us, modernists, to put it under the microscope. i get a kick out of watching these various movements and moreso watching others outside the movements. The Christian Century has an article about Jacob’s Well, an emergent church in Kansas City. the author goes to figure out what this thing is and how it is different than and similar to…it’s an interesting article. that’s kind of what we’re about here.

if we really want to understand all this, we’re going to have to hold it all very lightly. today, we’re going to focus in on some of the characteristics of the emergent church. all of what i say is going to require more nuance than I’m willing to give it, but it’s the best we can do…

one of the things to understand, it was probably in the early 90’s, that we began to see appearing various articles related to the effect of postmodernism on the church and churchgoers, particularly on youth. it was not so long ago after that, when we had new experiments. these weren’t the first experiments, but some of what we began to see in the early and mid 90’s a rather wholesale new look at the idea of church.

most of the people who wrote about this movement, wrote about worship styles, things that we were easier to see. and the questions that people were asking were about ‘why does this work’ and ‘why does that work?’ we know it in our presbyterian services as a “contemporary worship services’. not a very helpful description, by the way.