This past Sunday our youth pastor, Matt Kennedy, preached a very fine sermon on Job. Personal, biblical, clear but not simple. I had the privilege of leading worship with him and to offer the "Prayers of the Church." I realized that I love to pray on behalf of the church. I am not always quick to offer prayer when I am meeting with individuals. I think prayer for me has a deep intimacy attached to it that I am not always willing to enter into one on one. I also generally struggle in my own personal prayer life. Answers usually don't come quickly. Comfort is not always present. And it is not always comfortable to lay yourself bare before God.
But for some reason, leading prayer is something I love. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that leading "prayers for the church" was one of the first pastoral acts I was asked to perform when I was an intern. Each month the staff and interns would meet with the pastor to plan Sunday morning worship and often we were asked to read scripture or lead the prayers of the church. Perhaps it has to with the fact that leading "prayers of the church" was one of the few ways I could exercise my pastoral gifts when I was serving as a Minister of Christian Education. As a woman I was not allowed to preach or lead the sacraments, but I was allowed to pray... from the pulpit... during Sunday worship.
And so, today, I offer that prayer to all of you.
Prayers of the Church
North Park Covenant Church, October 4, 2009
Gracious and Loving God… we come before you this morning.
For some those words… gracious and loving God… flow easily from our lips. Our hearts are full of praise and celebration. We rest secure in the knowledge of your presence and your care in our lives. For such faith and confidence, we give you thanks.
For some, those words… gracious and loving God… are acts of faith this day. We thank you for the foundation of faith that you have laid in our lives through the work of your Holy Spirit, through our families through this congregation. We thank you for the person and work of Jesus, for the words of Scripture, for the communion of saints, for all those things that make it possible to believe that you are a gracious and loving God even when circumstances are trying, even when there is pain and suffering, even when we have doubts.
We give thanks this day for those who work full-time to laying that foundation of faith in our lives and the lives of those around the world thinking especially of our missionaries, David and Gwendolyn Mark.
For some, those words… gracious and loving God… are almost impossible this day. May we rest in the knowledge that God welcomes our tough question, that God is bigger than all of our doubts and fears. That God hears the brokenhearted. And may we allow others to have faith for us this day. May we rest in their faith as they walk alongside us.
This day we lift up a number of people in our congregation who seem to be in “Job-like” seasons in their lives. We think of Lucille Anderson and her family, Roy and Helen Olson, and the parents of John Coomes. Make your presence known in these families. Bring healing. Bring hope.
And we think especially this morning of those individuals, so many of them women and children, who live “Job-like” existences because of the presence of domestic violence in their homes. Be with ministries like Wellspring and give us eyes to see where such pain exists and courage to respond.
Bring healing to those who are ill. Bring comfort to those who mourn. Bring hope to those who are hopeless.
We gather together this day with all the saints around the world, all who are gathered around your table this morning, offering our concerns, offering our praise, offering our thanksgiving, and offering together the prayer that you, our friend and brother, taught your disciples to pray saying:
Our Father, who art in heaven
Hallowed by thy name.
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
And forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us,
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, and the power
and the glory forever. Amen.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Gender and Work: The Case of the Clergy
In 1993, Ed Lehman published a sociological study entitled Gender and Work: The Case of the Clergy. Lehman’s research focused on whether male and female clergy had different approaches to pastoral ministry. Lehman’s work was a response to the assertion by cultural feminists that women were inherently different in their leadership styles and understanding of pastoral ministry than men. He used the cultural feminists definitions of male and female styles of leadership to frame his research questions. Lehman’s study focused on approximately 500 clergy from 4 primarily white mainline denominations in the United States. The sample was comprised of half male and half female clergy with about 20% of the sample representing non-white ethnic groups. His primary research method was a phone survey to clergy. In addition, surveys were mailed to laity in a number of congregations to see if clergy self-perceptions were similar to that of laity perceptions.
Lehman’s work did not produce very clear results. Differences were often minimal and rarely located along lines of gender. While Lehman did find that female clergy are slightly more empowering than male clergy and tend to lead with rather than lead over, he found that both male and female clergy tend to use more feminine approaches to leadership. In addition, both male and female clergy were incredibly varied in their approaches. Lehman’s work highlighted the complexity of the issue of leadership. Unfortunately, his work is often cited as proof that women lead differently than men using a more empowering and relational approach. Lehman would most likely not support this assertion. Instead, he would shift the question from whether male and female clergy approached pastoral ministry differently and begin asking under what conditions gender differences emerged.
Lehman found the clearest differences among clergy of large congregations. He found that female senior pastors with multiple staff members often led in more feminine ways while male clergy in the same positions led in more masculine ways. He suggests that these female clergy had more freedom to express their true style of leadership while those in smaller congregations were more limited to cultural expectations of male roles. This has been one of the more challenged findings in his work. Zikmund, Lummis and Chang in their work Clergy Women found few differences between male and female clergy in large congregations. At the moment, it is difficult to find a large enough sample of female senior pastors in large congregations to come up with any definitive themes or conclusions. What is interesting is that Lehman’s work challenges stereotypes that suggest that women must lead like men in order to move ahead and be successful in ministry. If what Lehman suggests is true, I have wondered if these women lead in ways that are more acceptable to the culture. By not challenging gender roles, they are seen as “safer” and less threatening even though as pastors of large churches they occupy positions of power. Must you be a certain type of woman leader to get ahead? It seems that further research in this area would be helpful.
Lehman also found differences among those right out of seminary and more veteran pastors. New pastors tended to exert more power over the congregation while veteran pastors were more empowering. This perhaps suggests that new pastors are trying to establish their authority or that seminaries are training them in more masculine styles of leadership. Lehman also found more differences between white clergy and African American clergy, both male and female, than between male and female clergy of either race. African American clergy as a whole were less empowering and more likely to exert power over the congregation. Lehman does not expand much further on either of these results, suggesting that further research would be helpful. In particular, Lehman’s results suggest that the cultural context in which pastoral identity is formed would be an important site for further research. This includes seminaries, the congregations that form pastors, and other significant forces such as race and class. One of the aims of my research is to include these variables more explicitly in my work.
Lehman's work is clearly difficult to interpret, but it provides a good starting point for discussions regarding gender and pastoral leadership. Whether you agree or disagree with his results, they are worthy of being engaged and discussed. Where have your experiences supported his findings? Where do they contradict what he has said? The next post will consider some additional studies on women clergy that build on Lehamn's work.
Lehman’s work did not produce very clear results. Differences were often minimal and rarely located along lines of gender. While Lehman did find that female clergy are slightly more empowering than male clergy and tend to lead with rather than lead over, he found that both male and female clergy tend to use more feminine approaches to leadership. In addition, both male and female clergy were incredibly varied in their approaches. Lehman’s work highlighted the complexity of the issue of leadership. Unfortunately, his work is often cited as proof that women lead differently than men using a more empowering and relational approach. Lehman would most likely not support this assertion. Instead, he would shift the question from whether male and female clergy approached pastoral ministry differently and begin asking under what conditions gender differences emerged.
Lehman found the clearest differences among clergy of large congregations. He found that female senior pastors with multiple staff members often led in more feminine ways while male clergy in the same positions led in more masculine ways. He suggests that these female clergy had more freedom to express their true style of leadership while those in smaller congregations were more limited to cultural expectations of male roles. This has been one of the more challenged findings in his work. Zikmund, Lummis and Chang in their work Clergy Women found few differences between male and female clergy in large congregations. At the moment, it is difficult to find a large enough sample of female senior pastors in large congregations to come up with any definitive themes or conclusions. What is interesting is that Lehman’s work challenges stereotypes that suggest that women must lead like men in order to move ahead and be successful in ministry. If what Lehman suggests is true, I have wondered if these women lead in ways that are more acceptable to the culture. By not challenging gender roles, they are seen as “safer” and less threatening even though as pastors of large churches they occupy positions of power. Must you be a certain type of woman leader to get ahead? It seems that further research in this area would be helpful.
Lehman also found differences among those right out of seminary and more veteran pastors. New pastors tended to exert more power over the congregation while veteran pastors were more empowering. This perhaps suggests that new pastors are trying to establish their authority or that seminaries are training them in more masculine styles of leadership. Lehman also found more differences between white clergy and African American clergy, both male and female, than between male and female clergy of either race. African American clergy as a whole were less empowering and more likely to exert power over the congregation. Lehman does not expand much further on either of these results, suggesting that further research would be helpful. In particular, Lehman’s results suggest that the cultural context in which pastoral identity is formed would be an important site for further research. This includes seminaries, the congregations that form pastors, and other significant forces such as race and class. One of the aims of my research is to include these variables more explicitly in my work.
Lehman's work is clearly difficult to interpret, but it provides a good starting point for discussions regarding gender and pastoral leadership. Whether you agree or disagree with his results, they are worthy of being engaged and discussed. Where have your experiences supported his findings? Where do they contradict what he has said? The next post will consider some additional studies on women clergy that build on Lehamn's work.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Mission and Liberation in Four Ecclesiologies
My last post gave a very brief overview of the ecclesiologies of Boff, Ruether, Volf, and Russell. This post will provide some critique of their works focusing on the practical implications of their theologies for the church.
For Boff and Ruether, liberation is an essential aspect of the gospel, though defined with different emphases. For Volf, new life is essential. There is a liberation aspect, but Volf sees justice as a culturally constructed reality. He is unwilling to make universal statements about what is just. Unfortunately, in failing to do so, he often loses any liberating edge in his work. Gutiérrez describes two separate approaches to ecclesiology: the new Christendom model and the distinction of planes model. The new Christendom model centers on the work of the church in creating a just society in this world. The distinction of planes model sees a radical disjunction between the church and world. While Volf would argue for a culturally sensitive and critical gospel, he is also seeking to reclaim a gospel that is above the influence of the culture. His ecclesiology focuses on this aspect of the gospel while failing to provide significant tools to help congregations construct meanings that are socially located. As such, it often becomes unreflective on how the gospel itself has been culturally constructed.
Russell’s eschatological vision of the church contains aspects significant to all of the others. Along with Boff and Ruether, her work has a liberating emphasis focusing on both economic issues and issues of gender. Her work Church in the Round argues that the church can only be understood through the eyes of the poor and oppressed. The round table serves as the central image of her church where are all gathered equally around the table. There are no margins, or rather everyone is at the margins and Christ is at the center. The table itself draws on the eschatological image of the banquet table where Christ serves as the host and all nations and tongues are gathered for fellowship and worship. All are to be welcomed to the table and hospitality serves as a central image. This hospitality is not to simply welcome people into the church. Instead, the church is to take that hospitality out into the world, bringing liberation and fighting against injustice. At times, Russell fails to analyze the power dynamics around the table itself. Her image of hospitality can begin to sound patronizing as those who already have a seat reach out to those less fortunate and bring them into their world. None of the theologians addressed here attend to issues of race and the attendant cultural differences that must be addressed in order to create a church community that is truly welcoming and hospitable.
In addition to a missional focus, eschatology radically shapes the structure of the church for all four theologians. All have a more functional understanding of the pastoral office and an emphasis on the priesthood of all believers. Interestingly, Volf, the Free Church theologian, is less radically egalitarian than the other three theologians. While he emphasizes the priesthood of all believers, he holds to the threefold offices of the church: deacon, elder, and pastor. He says that these offices are not constitutive of the church, but are a socially necessary form of leadership for the church to function in this society. Volf provides no critique of the current internal hierarchies of the church and the way that they serve to marginalize many from leadership. Russell spends significant time on issues of leadership and authority in both Church in the Round and Household of Freedom. She argues for a more egalitarian leadership structure. Leadership is exercised with the congregation rather than over the congregation. She feels that ordination has been irredeemably corrupted by patriarchy and argues for a radical restructuring of the pastoral office. For Boff, the base communities are also radically egalitarian. While the priestly office still exists, his emphasis on the priesthood of all believers leads to a community without alienating structures in which individuals share decision-making, share material goods, and form a deep attachment for one another.
A final short note on the role of scripture in each of the ecclesiologies. For each of the theologians, the Word of God is a significant resource for the community. Volf seems to assume the centrality of the Word rather than argue for it. The others take a more critical approach. Russell sees scripture and the tradition of the church as the primary sources of theology since it is through these sources that Christ is revealed. She does take a critical approach to scripture, seeing it corrupted by patriarchy, and calls on a reading of scripture from the margins. Boff seeks to restructure his community around the axes of Word and laity rather than the current axes of sacrament and clergy operative in the Roman Catholic Church. The base communities themselves were formed around the reading of scriptures and the scriptures are seen as the source of liberation for the church. Ruether is the most critical of the scriptures and Christian tradition. While they are a source for theology, they are just one source. She also draws on the religions of the Ancient Near East and of the Hebrews. Liturgy is central for Ruether and much of her liturgies focus on recontextualizing, liberating, and exorcising various texts from the canon of scripture.
For Boff and Ruether, liberation is an essential aspect of the gospel, though defined with different emphases. For Volf, new life is essential. There is a liberation aspect, but Volf sees justice as a culturally constructed reality. He is unwilling to make universal statements about what is just. Unfortunately, in failing to do so, he often loses any liberating edge in his work. Gutiérrez describes two separate approaches to ecclesiology: the new Christendom model and the distinction of planes model. The new Christendom model centers on the work of the church in creating a just society in this world. The distinction of planes model sees a radical disjunction between the church and world. While Volf would argue for a culturally sensitive and critical gospel, he is also seeking to reclaim a gospel that is above the influence of the culture. His ecclesiology focuses on this aspect of the gospel while failing to provide significant tools to help congregations construct meanings that are socially located. As such, it often becomes unreflective on how the gospel itself has been culturally constructed.
Russell’s eschatological vision of the church contains aspects significant to all of the others. Along with Boff and Ruether, her work has a liberating emphasis focusing on both economic issues and issues of gender. Her work Church in the Round argues that the church can only be understood through the eyes of the poor and oppressed. The round table serves as the central image of her church where are all gathered equally around the table. There are no margins, or rather everyone is at the margins and Christ is at the center. The table itself draws on the eschatological image of the banquet table where Christ serves as the host and all nations and tongues are gathered for fellowship and worship. All are to be welcomed to the table and hospitality serves as a central image. This hospitality is not to simply welcome people into the church. Instead, the church is to take that hospitality out into the world, bringing liberation and fighting against injustice. At times, Russell fails to analyze the power dynamics around the table itself. Her image of hospitality can begin to sound patronizing as those who already have a seat reach out to those less fortunate and bring them into their world. None of the theologians addressed here attend to issues of race and the attendant cultural differences that must be addressed in order to create a church community that is truly welcoming and hospitable.
In addition to a missional focus, eschatology radically shapes the structure of the church for all four theologians. All have a more functional understanding of the pastoral office and an emphasis on the priesthood of all believers. Interestingly, Volf, the Free Church theologian, is less radically egalitarian than the other three theologians. While he emphasizes the priesthood of all believers, he holds to the threefold offices of the church: deacon, elder, and pastor. He says that these offices are not constitutive of the church, but are a socially necessary form of leadership for the church to function in this society. Volf provides no critique of the current internal hierarchies of the church and the way that they serve to marginalize many from leadership. Russell spends significant time on issues of leadership and authority in both Church in the Round and Household of Freedom. She argues for a more egalitarian leadership structure. Leadership is exercised with the congregation rather than over the congregation. She feels that ordination has been irredeemably corrupted by patriarchy and argues for a radical restructuring of the pastoral office. For Boff, the base communities are also radically egalitarian. While the priestly office still exists, his emphasis on the priesthood of all believers leads to a community without alienating structures in which individuals share decision-making, share material goods, and form a deep attachment for one another.
A final short note on the role of scripture in each of the ecclesiologies. For each of the theologians, the Word of God is a significant resource for the community. Volf seems to assume the centrality of the Word rather than argue for it. The others take a more critical approach. Russell sees scripture and the tradition of the church as the primary sources of theology since it is through these sources that Christ is revealed. She does take a critical approach to scripture, seeing it corrupted by patriarchy, and calls on a reading of scripture from the margins. Boff seeks to restructure his community around the axes of Word and laity rather than the current axes of sacrament and clergy operative in the Roman Catholic Church. The base communities themselves were formed around the reading of scriptures and the scriptures are seen as the source of liberation for the church. Ruether is the most critical of the scriptures and Christian tradition. While they are a source for theology, they are just one source. She also draws on the religions of the Ancient Near East and of the Hebrews. Liturgy is central for Ruether and much of her liturgies focus on recontextualizing, liberating, and exorcising various texts from the canon of scripture.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
An Overview of Four Ecclesiologies
While historical approaches to pastoral theology have helped me gain a greater understanding of where the church has come from, some contemporary ecclesiologies have helped to shape my understanding of where the church might be heading. "Ecclesiology" is simply theology that tries to understand what the church is. Three significant theologians writing about ecclesiology are Miraslov Volf, Leonardo Boff, Rosemary Radford Ruether, and Letty Russell. Below is a brief overview of each of their ecclesiologies. The next entry will attempt to compare and contrast the four.
The ecclesiologies of Volf, Boff, Ruether and Russell find their groundings in significantly different contexts. Volf writes from the tradition of the Free Church drawing on the work of John Smyth and the Baptist tradition. He seeks to create an ecclesiology that counters the individualism of most Free Church ecclesiologies while attending to both the person and the individual. He also seeks to create an ecclesiology that is respectable in the world, establishing the Free Church movement as a recognized witness to the gospel. Boff, Ruether, and Russell are not concerned with creating an acceptable theology. Rather, their theologies have been developed as critical responses to the greater church body. Boff writes as a liberation theologian in Latin America critiquing the Roman Catholic Church that has served as the cultural center of his community. His critique emerges out of the irruption of the poor in his country and focuses on the elite capitalist establishment and its relationship to the church. Ruether writes as a Catholic in the United States and emerges out of the women’s movement in this country. Her critique focuses on the patriarchal nature of the church. Both seek to create communities that are set apart in order to renew the larger institution of the church.
Russell writes as a Protestant in the United States. She draws on feminist and liberation theologies to critique patriarchy and create a church that is understood through the eyes of the oppressed and marginalized. To use Volf’s definition, each are striving to create a culturally sensitive, culturally critical social embodiment of the gospel.
Each theologian draws on an eschatological vision to shape their ecclesiology. Volf focuses on the new creation. In the new creation there is a mutual indwelling of the Trinitarian community and the glorified church. The church anticipates this new creation and participates in it through the faith of individual believers within the community. Through faith in Jesus Christ, by the work of the Holy Spirit, individual believers are even now in relationship with the trinity. Since all believers are in relationship to the same trinity, they are also in relationship with one another. This unity in the Spirit is central to his understanding of the church. The church is where Christ is present through faith and through the work of the Spirit in constituting the ecclesial community. Volf’s eschatological emphasis is in part a response to the charge that Free Church ecclesiology is separatist and does not recognize the catholicity of the faith. Volf responds by pushing catholicity into the eschatological realm rather than as a present reality. There are some present aspects. At a minimum, all churches must recognize the legitimacy of all other churches that believe in the gospel. This is part justification and part judgment on the Roman Catholic Church. At a maximum, the church should strive to reflect the eschatological reality where all nations and tongues together confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. For Volf, though, complete unity will not take place until the new creation.
Volf’s eschatology highlights the deficiencies in the historic church that will not be redeemed until the end times. He highlights the spiritual reality over the material reality of the church. As such, his sense of mission in the church often remains at a spiritual level. He critiques those who only emphasize the actions of the gospel arguing that there must be a verbal assent and a cognitive understanding of Christ. Boff, Ruether and Russell also have eschatological frameworks that shape their ecclesiologies, but their eschatological frameworks drives them towards a more materially focused mission seeking to create more just societies in this world.
Ruether draws on the New Testament church in Women-Church to shape her structure of the church. For Ruether, the New Testament church was an eschatological community. It was a charismatic community whose ministry was empowered by the gifting of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps most central for Ruether, the gender relations within the New Testament church were modeled after the eschatological reality rather than on the order of creation. As such, men and women served equally in the early church. It was not until the church began to develop a structure and institutionalize that patriarchy set in and women were pushed out of leadership. Ruether’s ecclesiology focuses on returning to the eschatological structure of the church by creating an egalitarian community that resists patriarchy. While Volf’s new creation is grounded in relationship to the trinity, Ruether’s new creation is a feminist vision of the church in which women are equally valued in the culture. As with Volf, her ecclesiology focuses on the creation of such a community more than on an outward vision. While for Volf, such a community is the church itself, for Ruether such a community is only one aspect of the church. Ruether sees her Women-Church functioning as a renewal movement within the greater church. A separate community is needed for critical distance, but should remain in conversation with the wider institution. The Church, for Ruether, is not made up of individual congregations, but following Catholic ecclesiology, is a single entity. The church consists of the institutional Church as well as spirit-filled communities such as Women-Church whose role is to call the institutional Church back to its New Testament roots.
Boff has a similar understanding of the church in his work Ecclesiogenesis. Perhaps this is due to a similar grounding in Catholic theology. He sees the base communities in Latin America as spirit-filled communities who are to serve as renewal movements within the larger institutional Church. His eschatological vision, though, is slightly different than that of Ruether or Volf. Ruether focuses on liberation through the dismantling of patriarchy. Boff focuses on the dismantling of alienating structures, especially the global capitalism that has oppressed the people of Latin America. The differences between Volf and Boff can be illustrated by their understanding of friendship. For Volf, the church is characterized by “sibling friend” relationships. These sibling friend relationships among the believers are modeled after the relationships among the persons of the trinity. They are characterized by mutuality, equality, and love. For Volf, the focus of the new creation is community and relationship. Here he draws on Moltmann’s understanding of the relational trinity. He differs from his mentor, though, and with Boff, on how those relationships work themselves out in the world. Rather than focusing on relationships with one another, though they are also essential, Boff and Moltmann focus on Christ’s relationship to the world. The image of friendship in liberation theology is that of Christ as the friend of the oppressed, coming alongside the poor and the least of these, bringing new life and liberation from injustice. While Volf focuses on the spiritual unity of the community, Boff and Moltmann focus on demonstrating friendship to the world by working against injustice.
The ecclesiologies of Volf, Boff, Ruether and Russell find their groundings in significantly different contexts. Volf writes from the tradition of the Free Church drawing on the work of John Smyth and the Baptist tradition. He seeks to create an ecclesiology that counters the individualism of most Free Church ecclesiologies while attending to both the person and the individual. He also seeks to create an ecclesiology that is respectable in the world, establishing the Free Church movement as a recognized witness to the gospel. Boff, Ruether, and Russell are not concerned with creating an acceptable theology. Rather, their theologies have been developed as critical responses to the greater church body. Boff writes as a liberation theologian in Latin America critiquing the Roman Catholic Church that has served as the cultural center of his community. His critique emerges out of the irruption of the poor in his country and focuses on the elite capitalist establishment and its relationship to the church. Ruether writes as a Catholic in the United States and emerges out of the women’s movement in this country. Her critique focuses on the patriarchal nature of the church. Both seek to create communities that are set apart in order to renew the larger institution of the church.
Russell writes as a Protestant in the United States. She draws on feminist and liberation theologies to critique patriarchy and create a church that is understood through the eyes of the oppressed and marginalized. To use Volf’s definition, each are striving to create a culturally sensitive, culturally critical social embodiment of the gospel.
Each theologian draws on an eschatological vision to shape their ecclesiology. Volf focuses on the new creation. In the new creation there is a mutual indwelling of the Trinitarian community and the glorified church. The church anticipates this new creation and participates in it through the faith of individual believers within the community. Through faith in Jesus Christ, by the work of the Holy Spirit, individual believers are even now in relationship with the trinity. Since all believers are in relationship to the same trinity, they are also in relationship with one another. This unity in the Spirit is central to his understanding of the church. The church is where Christ is present through faith and through the work of the Spirit in constituting the ecclesial community. Volf’s eschatological emphasis is in part a response to the charge that Free Church ecclesiology is separatist and does not recognize the catholicity of the faith. Volf responds by pushing catholicity into the eschatological realm rather than as a present reality. There are some present aspects. At a minimum, all churches must recognize the legitimacy of all other churches that believe in the gospel. This is part justification and part judgment on the Roman Catholic Church. At a maximum, the church should strive to reflect the eschatological reality where all nations and tongues together confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. For Volf, though, complete unity will not take place until the new creation.
Volf’s eschatology highlights the deficiencies in the historic church that will not be redeemed until the end times. He highlights the spiritual reality over the material reality of the church. As such, his sense of mission in the church often remains at a spiritual level. He critiques those who only emphasize the actions of the gospel arguing that there must be a verbal assent and a cognitive understanding of Christ. Boff, Ruether and Russell also have eschatological frameworks that shape their ecclesiologies, but their eschatological frameworks drives them towards a more materially focused mission seeking to create more just societies in this world.
Ruether draws on the New Testament church in Women-Church to shape her structure of the church. For Ruether, the New Testament church was an eschatological community. It was a charismatic community whose ministry was empowered by the gifting of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps most central for Ruether, the gender relations within the New Testament church were modeled after the eschatological reality rather than on the order of creation. As such, men and women served equally in the early church. It was not until the church began to develop a structure and institutionalize that patriarchy set in and women were pushed out of leadership. Ruether’s ecclesiology focuses on returning to the eschatological structure of the church by creating an egalitarian community that resists patriarchy. While Volf’s new creation is grounded in relationship to the trinity, Ruether’s new creation is a feminist vision of the church in which women are equally valued in the culture. As with Volf, her ecclesiology focuses on the creation of such a community more than on an outward vision. While for Volf, such a community is the church itself, for Ruether such a community is only one aspect of the church. Ruether sees her Women-Church functioning as a renewal movement within the greater church. A separate community is needed for critical distance, but should remain in conversation with the wider institution. The Church, for Ruether, is not made up of individual congregations, but following Catholic ecclesiology, is a single entity. The church consists of the institutional Church as well as spirit-filled communities such as Women-Church whose role is to call the institutional Church back to its New Testament roots.
Boff has a similar understanding of the church in his work Ecclesiogenesis. Perhaps this is due to a similar grounding in Catholic theology. He sees the base communities in Latin America as spirit-filled communities who are to serve as renewal movements within the larger institutional Church. His eschatological vision, though, is slightly different than that of Ruether or Volf. Ruether focuses on liberation through the dismantling of patriarchy. Boff focuses on the dismantling of alienating structures, especially the global capitalism that has oppressed the people of Latin America. The differences between Volf and Boff can be illustrated by their understanding of friendship. For Volf, the church is characterized by “sibling friend” relationships. These sibling friend relationships among the believers are modeled after the relationships among the persons of the trinity. They are characterized by mutuality, equality, and love. For Volf, the focus of the new creation is community and relationship. Here he draws on Moltmann’s understanding of the relational trinity. He differs from his mentor, though, and with Boff, on how those relationships work themselves out in the world. Rather than focusing on relationships with one another, though they are also essential, Boff and Moltmann focus on Christ’s relationship to the world. The image of friendship in liberation theology is that of Christ as the friend of the oppressed, coming alongside the poor and the least of these, bringing new life and liberation from injustice. While Volf focuses on the spiritual unity of the community, Boff and Moltmann focus on demonstrating friendship to the world by working against injustice.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Luther and the Pastoral Office
Yes, I am back to sharing some of my essays from my doctoral exams from last August. If you remember from March, I have been tracing some of the historical understandings of the pastoral office. This post focuses on the work of Martin Luther. Within my own denomination, Luther's work is extremely significant as if lays the foundation for the structure of the state church that was present in Sweden at the founding of the Evangelical Covenant Church. Our heritage is drawn from those who were not only shaped by Lutheranism, but sought to reform it. In many ways they were seeking not to reform Luther, but to reclaim Luther and to complete the reforming work that he had started many years before.
A large number of Luther’s letters and treatises have been published and many focus on ecclesiology as one of his central concerns. Perhaps two that address such issues most directly are his works Concerning the Ministry and The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.
Concerning the Ministry was written to the churches in Bohemia who were currently in dissent from Rome over the issue of serving wine to the laity during the Eucharist. The Roman Catholic Church had adopted the practice of withholding the wine from the laity, only allowing the priest to partake. The Bohemians felt that the laity should be able to partake in both the bread and the wine. In response to their dissent, Rome had refused to appoint an archbishop in Bohemia. The Bohemians began sending their clergy to sympathetic bishops in Italy for ordination. During the ordination, Bohemian clergy were asked if they would withhold wine during communion. They would verbally assent, but upon returning to Bohemia would continue their dissent.
Luther was asked to write a letter advising the Bohemians how to proceed. His answer highlights his understanding of ordination. Luther argued that the Bohemians had every right to begin ordaining their own clergy. For Luther, the efficacy of ordination was not located in Rome but in the faith of the congregation and the character of the
minister. It was appalling to Luther that Italian bishops would ordain priests without any knowledge of their character and with the understanding that they would compromise their vows to withhold the wine. Ordination must be placed within the congregation and under the authority of bishops elected by the people who could judge the character of the clergy.
This understanding of ordination was tied to Luther’s understanding of the functional nature of the clergy and the priesthood of all believers. For Luther, Christ alone was the great high priest. By virtue of baptism all believers were a part of the priesthood. To set any individuals apart as priests was to do violence to the nature of Christ as the singular high priest. Luther further elaborates his understanding of the high priesthood of Christ in his work The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. In this work, Luther outlines his understanding of the sacraments. He argues for three sacraments: baptism, Eucharist, and penitence over against the seven sacraments present in the Roman Catholic Church. He reframes each of these sacraments in light of the high priesthood of Christ.
The Roman Catholic Church, as highlighted in Gregory the Great’s Pastoral Rule, understood the Eucharist as an act of sacrifice. During the Eucharist, the priest once again offered the sacrifice of Christ to God on behalf of the people. Luther argued that Christ in his work on the cross offered the only sacrifice necessary. As the great high priest, Christ’s work was sufficient and there was no need for further sacrifice on the part of the people. The priest no longer did the work of sacrifice. Instead the Eucharist became a promise and testimony to the work already accomplished in Christ. The priest only served to offer up prayers on behalf of the people.
Luther’s concepts of ordination and the pastoral office were central to the Protestant Reformation. They shifted efficacy from the institution of the church to the local congregation. Ministry was placed into the hands of the people. All were called to teach, pray, and work as part of the priesthood of all believers. The church was the gathered people of God where the Word was preached and the sacraments rightly administered. Luther did not do away with hierarchy. He challenged the efficacy of the existing hierarchy and argued for its reform. The world was still divided into three estates: civil authorities, the clergy, and the laity. Luther’s work initiated the building of a new church structure with a new hierarchy, and 100 years later another group of clergy would challenge its efficacy.
A large number of Luther’s letters and treatises have been published and many focus on ecclesiology as one of his central concerns. Perhaps two that address such issues most directly are his works Concerning the Ministry and The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.
Concerning the Ministry was written to the churches in Bohemia who were currently in dissent from Rome over the issue of serving wine to the laity during the Eucharist. The Roman Catholic Church had adopted the practice of withholding the wine from the laity, only allowing the priest to partake. The Bohemians felt that the laity should be able to partake in both the bread and the wine. In response to their dissent, Rome had refused to appoint an archbishop in Bohemia. The Bohemians began sending their clergy to sympathetic bishops in Italy for ordination. During the ordination, Bohemian clergy were asked if they would withhold wine during communion. They would verbally assent, but upon returning to Bohemia would continue their dissent.
Luther was asked to write a letter advising the Bohemians how to proceed. His answer highlights his understanding of ordination. Luther argued that the Bohemians had every right to begin ordaining their own clergy. For Luther, the efficacy of ordination was not located in Rome but in the faith of the congregation and the character of the
minister. It was appalling to Luther that Italian bishops would ordain priests without any knowledge of their character and with the understanding that they would compromise their vows to withhold the wine. Ordination must be placed within the congregation and under the authority of bishops elected by the people who could judge the character of the clergy.
This understanding of ordination was tied to Luther’s understanding of the functional nature of the clergy and the priesthood of all believers. For Luther, Christ alone was the great high priest. By virtue of baptism all believers were a part of the priesthood. To set any individuals apart as priests was to do violence to the nature of Christ as the singular high priest. Luther further elaborates his understanding of the high priesthood of Christ in his work The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. In this work, Luther outlines his understanding of the sacraments. He argues for three sacraments: baptism, Eucharist, and penitence over against the seven sacraments present in the Roman Catholic Church. He reframes each of these sacraments in light of the high priesthood of Christ.
The Roman Catholic Church, as highlighted in Gregory the Great’s Pastoral Rule, understood the Eucharist as an act of sacrifice. During the Eucharist, the priest once again offered the sacrifice of Christ to God on behalf of the people. Luther argued that Christ in his work on the cross offered the only sacrifice necessary. As the great high priest, Christ’s work was sufficient and there was no need for further sacrifice on the part of the people. The priest no longer did the work of sacrifice. Instead the Eucharist became a promise and testimony to the work already accomplished in Christ. The priest only served to offer up prayers on behalf of the people.
Luther’s concepts of ordination and the pastoral office were central to the Protestant Reformation. They shifted efficacy from the institution of the church to the local congregation. Ministry was placed into the hands of the people. All were called to teach, pray, and work as part of the priesthood of all believers. The church was the gathered people of God where the Word was preached and the sacraments rightly administered. Luther did not do away with hierarchy. He challenged the efficacy of the existing hierarchy and argued for its reform. The world was still divided into three estates: civil authorities, the clergy, and the laity. Luther’s work initiated the building of a new church structure with a new hierarchy, and 100 years later another group of clergy would challenge its efficacy.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Lenten 3: The Suffering to Come
Mark 8:31 Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering...
The disciples were just beginning to grasp who this was that they were following. Peter had declared, "You are the Messiah!" But with that declaration came the full weight of what was to come. The Messiah was to suffer greatly... As our faith deepens and grows, we are faced with the complexity of the one we follow and the depth of suffering involved. How will we respond?
Mark 8: 31 Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must... be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes...
Rejected... thrown out, discarded, discounted, perceived as useless. Those who rejected Jesus would eventually do more than just ignore him. How do we in our own lives reject Jesus in subtle and not so subtle ways? When do I perceive Jesus as useless in my own life? Are there times when I place Jesus on the curb? Or simply fail to see his presence?
Mark 8:31b ... the Son of Man must undergo great suffering... and be killed, and after three days rise again.
Three days... why was there a waiting period between Christ's death and resurrection? Thank goodness we had a warning. A reason not to give up all hope. Not that very many people remembered it at the time. What are the glimpses of hope God gives us? Clues to what will unfold? And how often do we lose sight of them in the midst of life's crises?
Mark 8:33b... "Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things."
So, here are a few of my "human things." I don't think this verse should ever be taken to me that God does not care about our physical bodies or our material needs. It does, however, remind us that we can sometimes lose perspective when God does things that don't fit with our plans for this world. What are the "human things" that I am thinking of these days that I need to put aside?
Mark 8:34b "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me."
Stop! You're going in the wrong direction! Jesus calls to the crowd and challenges them to follow him. Generally, I like to choose my own path... follow my own directions. I hate one way streets. They force you to go where you don't want to... and to be honest, the path that Jesus is calling his disciples to doesn't sound very appealing. Taking up crosses, denying self, losing life. Lent is a time to walk in the anxiety of the disciples... followers before the assurance of the resurrection. And to seek again the direction we are called to go.
Mark 8:35 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake... will save it.
We have created a society that says it strives to save lives... Unfortunately, with all our technological advances, we seem to only save a portion of our world. Those with wealth and means, access to resources. Perhaps this is what Christ was speaking against when he called his followers... those who sought to save only their own lives.
Mark 8:36 For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life?
A graveyard in the shadow of the city... reminding us that now matter what we gain in this world it is temporary. Christ challenges us to live in the light of eternity rather than this world. A reordering of our perspectives...
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Lenten 2: Jesus Baptism and Wilderness Experience
Mark 1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan...
I wonder what the Jordan River was like when Jesus was baptized? Namaan didn't think much of the Jordan when he was told to wash seven times in it to cure his leprosy... For some reason we assume the water must be clean... and yet it is not the water that cleans in baptism, but the Spirit of God which can make all things clean.
Mark 1:11 And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved: with you I am well pleased."
It is when I behold the beauty of creation that I most clearly hear God's voice saying to me that I am beloved... What a gift it is that God gave us such beauty!
Mark 1:11 And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased."
My nieces... beloved daughters of God.I cannot imagine what it must have been like for Jesus. The adopted son of Joseph, had he ever heard his father's voice before? Was this the first time his father had told him he was beloved? That he was pleased with the man he had grown up to be? I long for that audible voice from God myself at times... I know we are to walk by faith, not by sight or sound, and yet... Am I beloved by God? Christ's death and resurrection assure me of this. Is God well pleased? I suppose that is part of what Lent is about. Searching our hearts and asking if we are living a life that is pleasing to God.
Into the Wilderness....
Mark 1:13 He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.
I must admit that I understand very little about angels. What I do know is that when we are in the wilderness, whether for forty days or forty years, God tends to us. The temptations are not removed. The anguish does not necessarily subside. Yet we are not left alone in our grieve or our trials.
Mark 1:14-15 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news."
It's no wonder John had questions for Jesus (Matt. 11:7ff). Soon after realizing his cousin was the coming Messiah, he ends up in jail. His ministry has, in effect, come to an end. I wonder what John thought when, from behind bars, he heard "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near"? The kingdom is rarely what we expect it to be... and so we often miss the signs. During this season of Lent, my we have eyes to see the nearness of the kingdom among us.
Mark 1:15 "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news."
First John's proclamation... then Christ, himself. Now we too are to carry on the work of proclaiming the good news. The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
