Here I Stand

From time to time, I hear from some that my preaching and teaching is too liberal and that it doesn’t reflect the views of some in the congregation. Others have said that I’ve been rather conservative and the message doesn’t seem prophetic enough. Every now and then someone will ask, sometimes seriously and other times playfully, pastor, why don’t you tell us what you’re really thinking. So it is the dilemma of serious preaching today – where do you draw the line when dealing with a message of the gospel that seems to speak to the marginal, the rejected, the powerless, the forgotten and the folks nobody else wants for their friends. The art of good preaching is being able to say something to everyone each and every week. Sometimes I feel I do this well, while other times it feels shallow and empty. I am, of course, my own worst critic. 

Let me tell you what guides my preaching and teaching. There are three scriptures that guide my sermon preparation and are the lenses in which I filter my message.  The first lens comes from the prophet Micah, “…O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.” Micah 6:8.  A second scripture comes from Jesus’ first sermon. The gospel of Luke says it best, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” Luke 4:18. A little further Jesus rolls up the scroll and says, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” Luke 4:22. The final lens in which I preach the good news comes from the gospel of Matthew, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” Matthew 28:19-20. 

These are the scriptures which challenge me each week as I prepare to preach, to teach, and to proclaim the good news. The prophet Micah is like the North Star, the scripture that brings teaching and living together – an important part of the integrity of preaching. Jesus’ words in his first sermon gives me the vision to see what is possible.  When good preaching, good mission, and good ministry happen – lives are changed and that is the test of good preaching and Christian leadership. And, finally, Matthew describes for me the urgency of sharing the good news in this age and in the age to come. Each passage gives me the guidance and excitement to do what I do and why I continue in this ministry – the one I have been called to follow before I knew God. 

As I babble on about preaching and teaching, it seems that there should be a response to the observations that many have made about my preaching. Here would be my answer: I do not preach from either a liberal or a conservative perspective. Rather my preaching is biblical and depending upon your own personal understanding I may be too liberal, too conservative, or not transparent enough. This is not to suggest that my interpretation of scripture is anymore correct, orthodox, or meaningful than your way of understanding scripture. It is just my perspective and the embodiment of what I sincerely believe. My guide and my principles for preaching and teaching are bound by the scriptures – especially as they relate to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. As Martin Luther so famously said, “Here I stand, I can do no other. So help me God” and so it is true with me too.

Spirituality and the Great Emergence

In her book,  "The Great Emergence", Phyllis Tickle reflects on this notion that every five hundred years, or so,  the church has a huge rummage sale to determine what is still essential for the church today and what needs to be set aside for a time, or perhaps, even forgotten.   She does a wonderful job reflecting on a timeline where this "rummage sale" has happened historically and culturally within the Christian Church. She, of course, believes that the church is going through such a sale now in the form of  emergent and post-modern scholarship and conversation. I would agree with her. I think that  the progressive, orthodox, and conservative congregations are clarifying their positions by what they are choosing to retain or to throw out as far as doctrine and dogma that has defined the theology, liturgy and understanding of this historical faith.  In a time of pluralism and more and more familiarity with other religions and other spiritual disciplines, we are no longer seeking to be the monolithic people we once were, and consequently,  we are freer to choose what means something to us and what has lost its relevance without the fear of being judged a heretic or fearing for our lives. In this time, it has become easier to disagree with theological principles and to choose principles that are relevant and life-giving.

I see this happening very specifically in the use or lack of use of the creeds in many of our American churches. More and more Protestant churches are moving away from creedal expressions. The  churches that seem to keep the creeds within the context of their week to week services are  the Catholics, Orthodox and what might be called the higher liturgical traditions.  The fundamentalist have rejected outright creeds for most of their history. The Methodist, Presbyterians, Reformed Congregations, and newer denominations such as the United Church of Christ, have been inconsistent with  the use or non-use of historical creeds. I think for the UCC, this practice depends upon the pastor and the specific theological training that the pastors  may have received.

I think the movement of the Jesus Seminar, and scholars, theologians, and authors  like Spong, Crossan, Borg, and Myers have examined with great scholarship and much writing the limitations of such doctrines as the Trinity, the Virgin birth, Incarnation, Bodily Resurrection and the doctrine of Christ's divinity and humanity as somehow equal with Spirit God. For obvious reasons to the rational mind these traditionally orthodox understandings of Jesus Christ and the Christian faith have been called into question and all of them have worked hard to breath new life into the human Jesus and the Spirit God without all the doctrine and dogma that has been a barrier to Christian faith and maturity. I think their efforts have been appealing to younger, more rational people who see themselves as spiritual, but cannot "buy into" the notion of some of the third and fourth century ideas that really did more to remove the humanity of Jesus and inadvertently also "watered down" the power of Spirit God in an attempt to legitimize and embrace the doctrine of the Trinity and this notion of Jesus as both truly divine and truly human. In the end, I don't believe that this has helped the cause of the Christian faith and scholars like Phyllis Tickle and  the emergent church are reclaiming, what perhaps the first century Christians believed about Jesus Christ. For Phyllis Tickle and the emergent culture this is the great divide of the Christian faith as it is understood between newer and older Christians. I think there is some merit in their observations and scholarship.

As I prepare my discipleship lectures, Sunday School lessons, and sermons, I have been very aware of the current scholarship that is available as it relates to the Christian faith and have been weaving the progressive threads through the holes that have been left by the modern church fathers and mothers, trying to reclaim the original Christian community as best we can in a culture that thrives on capitalism, consumerism,  and irresponsible freedom. As I babble on, I have found new and renewing energy in freeing the gospel to live by removing the "old layers" of ancient scholarship and am finding new freedom that had been stifling and breathless. Phyllis Tickle and many others have given for me both permission and a lens to explore the faith that has much more meaning to me than ancient ways of interpretation and understanding. .