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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

Lenten Reflections

Many people give something up for Lent. A few years ago a friend suggested that instead of giving something up we commit to a spiritual discipline. We committed to taking photographs each day. Over the years, this practice grew so that our photos became a reflection on Lenten themes and texts. I have been posting the photos and my reflections each day on my facebook page, but I will also be including some here over the next few weeks.

Our first photos focused on Matthew 6:1-6, 16-21.



Matthew 6:5 And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others...

I doubt that I am in danger of proclaiming my piety too loudly on street corners... It seems that for me standing in the church and praying can be way of hiding from the world rather. I am in danger of hypocrisy not for my public proclamations but rather for my silence. Perhaps I need a little more street corner prayer in my life.



Matthew 6:6 But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret....



Matthew 6:19 Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth where moth and rust consume...

This seems even more pertinent given our current economy where homes and retirement accounts are no longer places of financial security...

The Pastor as Administrator

Following Chrysostom, over the next several decades a high view of the priesthood would continue to develop in the work of Ambrose and Augustine. Priests were called to separate themselves from the world. They were not to participate in affairs of state, in business, or in the military. They were to remain firmly rooted in the heavenly realm. With the rise of the Middle Ages however, all this would change. While the priesthood was still held in high regard, responsibilities shifted towards more administrative duties. The barbarian invasions threw the entire world into chaos, including the church. The church was forced to become self-sustaining financially and so became involved in business and land management. The church gained significant material resources and power. Priests began to serve as civic leaders involved in government and the caring for the material needs of the people. When regional governments did not have power, the Pope was often able to step in and provide order.
Gregory the Great’s work The Pastoral Rule reflects the changing responsibilities of the priesthood and the concern for order. His work draws on the rule of St. Benedict that structured the life of monastic communities at the time. He concern was for order and balance in the pastoral office. In particular, he was concerned that priests were becoming overwhelmed with civic duties and losing sight of their roles as spiritual leaders. He recognized the difficulties and challenges inherent in the work of the priest, including the temptation to focus on immediate and pressing needs among the people. He called priests to the practice of consideratio, an attempt to balance body and soul through reason and reflection. Priests were to attend to their own spiritual lives, balancing contemplation and action. They were to attend to the material and spiritual needs of the people. For Gregory, the priest was to be a neighbor of all in compassion, but to remain exalted above all others in thought.
While balance is a central theme in his work, a majority of the text focuses on issues of pastoral care. In particular, The Pastoral Rule calls priests to care for each parishioner individually providing care that fits their station, their character, and their immediate emotional state. He provides specific unique instructions for the care of men, women, slaves, masters, rich, poor, those in mourning, those rejoicing, those remorsely, and those unpenitent. He presents dozens of case studies and the appropriate response. His focus is on attending to the spiritual needs of the people and he may be accused of overspiritualizing pastoral care. This is in part due to the worldview of the day with its emphasis on the supernatural as a real and present reality in the day-to-day workings of the world. It may also have to do with his focus on calling pastors who were consumed by material needs back to the care of souls.
Gregory’s work was considered one of the seminal texts on pastoral leadership for almost 1,000 years. There would be significant debates in ecclesiology with the Great Schism in the 11th century and the development of the Eastern Orthodox Church, yet the high view of the priesthood and the central role of the Eucharist remained. Many consider the work of Martin Luther in the 16th century as the next major shift in pastoral theology. The next entry will look at two of his texts, “Concerning the Ministry” and “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.”

Holy Fear in the Priesthood

The last post focused on a text from the first decades of the church. Over the next two centuries, the church would formalize its structures becoming more institutionalized and centralized. Aspects of the ministry formerly held by the entire congregation became focused in the office of the priesthood. Bishops took on the central roles of presiding at the Eucharist and baptism, preaching, teaching, providing pastoral care, and judging the soundness of teachers and prophets. Bishops generally served as leaders of large churches while presbyters served at smaller parishes and reported to the local bishop.
The writings of John Chrysostom, especially his Six Books on the Priesthood reflect many of these significant changes in the ministry and the church. Chrysostom’s work begins with the story of his fleeing from those who had come to elect him bishop while at the same time tricking his best friend into assuming the role. There is little remorse in his work, for he feels his actions were justified. He sees his friend as far more worthy of the position than he is. Chrysostom holds an extremely high view of the priesthood and approaches such work with fear and trembling. He sees the office as working itself out in this world but equal to the angelic offices. The basis of his fear is grounded in his understanding of the priest’s role in the sacrament of communion. For Chrysostom, the priest holds the physical body and blood of Jesus in his hands during the Eucharist and it is the priest who calls forth the Holy Spirit’s presence. The priests offer the sacrifice of Christ to God on behalf of the people.
To hold the body and blood of Christ, the priest must be worthy. For Chrysostom, the priesthood almost transcends human nature. It is as if the priest has already entered the heavenly realm. To demonstrate their worthiness, Chrysostom calls priests to a rigid asceticism. He argues that any who seek the position should be immediately seen as unworthy because they are seeking glory rather than to serve God. He warns of the dangers inherent in the priesthood and warns that the priest must be above suspicion. They must not listen to envy or slander. They must not believe praise and so give in to pride. They must avoid the temptations of women. It is clear by this time that any female leadership that might have been present in the early church is no longer operative.
While the priests hold absolute authority in the congregation, their ministry to the people should not be characterized by the exercise of power but rather by grace and love. For Chrysostom, Christ’s call to Peter, “If you love me, feed my sheep” is the central image of ministry. In Christ’s call, Christ demonstrates his love for his sheep. In Peter’s response, Peter demonstrates that ministry is an act of love towards God as well as towards the people. Chrysostom calls for a priesthood characterized by patience and compassion. Rather than an exercise of power, discipline and teaching should take place by persuasion since no one, not even a priest, can truly judge the heart of another. Punishment for sin should not be characterized by the sin but instead by the character of the sinner. What will persuade the sinner to repent and change their ways? The priest, while almost situated in the heavenly realm is to be approachable to the people.
The priest’s main responsibility was care of souls through teaching, preaching, and administration of the sacraments. Teaching was particularly important in a time of great theological debate. The priests were called to preserve the orthodox faith and pass it on to their people. There is much we can learn from Chrysostom’s work, however his work also illustrates the great chasm that developed between the priests and the laity. Ministry and orthodox were placed in the hands of a few set apart by ordination to the priesthood. Lost was the priesthood of all believers.

Controlled Chaos... The Early Church

For several of my last posts I’ve focused on congregational studies and practical theology, the first of four major areas that served as the focus on my doctoral exams. This next set of posts will focus on the second area: ecclesiology. Ecclesiology focuses on the nature of the church and pastoral leadership from a theological perspective. These first posts will focus on some key historical texts for pastoral theology. They will be followed by posts that focus on contemporary approaches to ecclesiology and then some possible directions for a contemporary ecclesiology for my denomination, the Evangelical Covenant Church. We begin with one of the earliest documents written regarding the nature of the early church, the Didaché.
Written in the first century, the Didaché reflects a nascent community not yet formed into any one definitive structure. The community met in homes for worship and teaching and was united in its common faith in the gospel message as handed down by the apostles. The apostles, those who had been eye witnesses to the life and teachings of Jesus, provided leadership and guidance to the local churches. They generally did so at a distance, making visits and writing letters. They would form a council in Jerusalem to adjudicate issues arising in the interpretation of the gospel as the home churches lived out their faith.
The Didaché reflects the centrality of the gospel message for shaping the early Christian communities. Their mission focused on preserving and passing on the gospel through preaching, teaching, evangelism, and worship. The Didaché focuses on preparing Gentile converts for full participation in the life of the community through a program of mentorship and discipleship. Each convert was assigned a mentor to teach them and walk alongside them. It is assumed that men mentored men and women mentored women, though there is no mention of this in the Didaché. Mentors held no specific office in the church. Rather, mentoring others was seen as a function of the priesthood of all believers. These mentors, as bearers of the gospel, were to be highly respected, but they were also to be tested, along with prophets, to assure that their message remained true to the apostolic witness. Mentoring and other ministries were a function of the gifting of the Spirit as recognized by the local community. For these early house churches charismatic and institutional forms of leadership overlapped.
Ministry was seen as the work of the entire community. All were called to teach, to pray, to serve. They were called to share their goods with one another. They were called to judge the soundness of teaching. The sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist were seen as the work of the entire community. The Didaché calls the community itself to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Leadership of baptism and the Eucharist was shared among many members of the community. Mentors often presided at the first baptism of those they were mentoring. There is debate about leadership of the Eucharist. Some suggest that mentors also presided at this rite, but others suggest that prophets and/or bishops served in this role. Bishops at this time were often tied to the administrative functions of the church, but would soon move into more liturgical forms of leadership.
The Didaché reminds us of the excitement of new church plants. But within it we see hints of things to come. Structures that would eventually be put into place. Offices that would eventually centralized authority. The desire, whether in these early days of controlled chaos or in the first years of centralized authority, was to preserve the gospel. How do you preserve the message when you no longer have the eye-witnesses among you? How do you sustain ministry for the long haul? The next few historical texts will show how the church eventually structured to sustain the faith. It will also illustrate the ways that very structure can at times get in the way of the message itself. In our efforts to preserve the gospel, we at times hide it behind layers of bureaucracy and find ourselves separated from the very God we seek to worship.

Ammerman's Congregations

Jackson Carroll and Nancy Ammerman are two central figures in congregational studies. Carroll is one of the founding fathers of the field in the United States. He has served as the director of the congregational research center at Hartford Seminary as well as the Pulpit and Pew Project focusing on pastoral leadership. Ammerman has made her name known among the second generation of congregational studies scholars as well as in the field of sociology of religion. Her work Congregation & Community is well respected. They taught together at Hartford and are currently on the faculties of two schools known for their work in practical theology. Ammerman is at Boston University and Carroll at Duke. Ammerman and Carroll do not represent the breadth of congregational studies but rather the main thrust of the field over the last several decades.
The last posting focused on the work of Jackson Carroll and his focus on pastoral leadership. Rather than focusing on pastoral leadership, Nancy Ammerman’s work focuses on organizations such as denominations and congregations in the midst of cultural transitions. As such, she approaches congregations as more open systems than Carroll. Her view of congregations is similar to Carroll’s in its emphasis on sites of cultural production and the pastor’s role in preserving values and traditions. Her emphasis, though, is on how congregations respond to outside cultural forces and her work includes the entire congregation in the process.
One of her earlier works focused on the conservative shift in the Southern Baptist Convention. While Carroll often relies on surveys, focus groups, and interviews, Ammerman’s work often has an ethnographic emphasis focusing on participant observation. Her work on the Southern Baptists focused on observing several of the Annual Conventions that led to the transition. Ammerman emphasized the intersection of ideologies and structures within the organization. With a focus on ideology, Ammerman’s work has a more theological emphasis than that of Carroll. She considers how theology matters in the choices made by an organization. What she found, though, was that societal factors generally had a stronger influence on people’s actions and positions than that of theology. Theology becomes a cultural construct.
While Carroll is more committed to dominant discourses, Ammerman often focuses on the clash between the dominant and the marginal discourses within an organization. In Congregations & Community, Ammerman focuses on congregations in transitional neighborhoods. In particular, she studies sites where marginal groups are challenging the dominant group. Neighborhoods are seeing an increase in the gay and lesbian community. A new wave of immigrants is moving in. Racial transitions are taking place, communities are shifting from rural to suburban, class conflicts and economic transitions are being faced. Ammerman’s choices to reflect on such neighborhoods reveal her commitment to congregations as places that should embrace those on the margins. As sites of cultural capital, she calls on congregations to help the subaltern communities develop civic skills and built their place within the culture. It is not clear what drives Ammerman’s commitments, but they are central to her work.

Carroll's "Pastor"

Many of you know that I am in a PhD program in congregational studies. For those of you who are curious about what that means, this post and the next will highlight two central figures in the field. This is a continuation of the posts drawn from my PhD exams.

Jackson Carroll is one of the central figures in congregational studies. He has served as the director of the center for congregational research at Hartford Seminary as well as the Pulpit and Pew Project at Duke University focusing on pastoral leadership.
Jackson Carroll’s early work focused on cultural shifts in mainline congregations in the United States since the 1950’s. In addition, his more recent emphasis has been on pastoral leadership. His work in this area has been central to my own research. One of his significant works is As One with Authority. The book focuses on the development of reflexive leadership among pastors. Reflexive leadership involves using socio-analytic tools to analyze situations, putting them in conversation with the Christian story, and suggesting responses. He sees this work as central to the pastoral role. For Carroll, the pastor is a cultural leader, called to shape ideas and values rather than actions. The pastor has been entrusted with the culture of the congregation through the act of ordination.
It is essential for Carroll that the pastor claim the authority that has been given to them through ordination. Just as Jesus spoke as one with authority, so too should the pastor speak as one with authority. Carroll recognizes the crisis of authority that pastors have faced in recent years. He blames the crisis on widespread questions about God, the marginalization of the church, the voluntary nature of the church, and the emphasis on shared ministry. Carroll does believe in shared ministry. He argues that ministry belongs equally to the pastor and to the laity, but there is a clear differentiation of roles. The pastor is called to steward the congregation’s goals and values. In order for the community to function effectively and live out these goals, the congregation must submit to the pastor.
Carroll sees the professionalization of the clergy in recent years as an attempt to reclaim authority within the church. Such professionalization, though, has often meant an overemphasis on actions and on pleasing the laity. Carroll calls the clergy to reclaim their role as the primary constructors of culture within the church through a focus on the organizational tasks of the pastor. In his article on leadership in the book Studying Congregations Carroll highlights the role of pastor in setting goals and creating vision statements for the congregation. While he values the priestly functions of the office, he sees them as secondary to the administrative duties. This emphasis on organization may be due to a Protestant ecclesiology that emphasizes mission to the world rather than the centrality of sacramental worship, but it seems more likely that it is a by-product of emphasizing a sociological view of the church rather than a theological view. Sociology emphasizes human action which can be observed over that of divine action which cannot be scientifically studied.
While Carroll argues for an equality between the pastor and the laity, it is clear that he favors a hierarchical structure of the church with the clergy at the top. The congregation is the people gathered around the pastor. His more recent book on pastoral ministry is entitled God’s Potters where the congregation is envisioned as jars of clay and the pastors as the potters. The pastors are God’s representatives to whom the congregation is supposed to submit. Granted, the congregation has a role in granting authority to the pastor through ordination. He assumes such a hierarchical structure as normative for the church. In fact, he seems to have a single normative view of pastor that is operative in his work but not adequately reflected upon. “Pastor” seems to refer to someone similar to himself: a white, male, middle- to upper-class, ordained clergyperson within a mainline denomination. While he values the ministry of the laity, the emphasis on shared ministry has help create a crisis of authority. While he includes women in his examples and has a chapter on women ministers in God’s Potters, the increase of women in the workforce has created significant problems for the church. There is little reflection on communities where women have always been in the workforce and have served as significant members of congregations. While he acknowledges racial diversity among the clergy, the shift from a young, white, all-male clergy pool has also contributed to the crisis authority and a confusion in the pastoral role.
Carroll’s work is significant because he is currently seen as one of the leading scholars on pastoral ministry in the United States. His work with Pulpit and Pew is being disseminated to denominations throughout the country, including my own. His work serves to highlight the hegemonic discourse regarding pastor that I am trying to dismantle in my own work. While I am willing to learn from his work, its significance is limited for me by Carroll’s blind spots. What I do appreciate is his image of the pastor as playing a significant role as a producer of culture within a congregation. The pastor does often construct one of the dominant discourses within a congregation and laity are often forced to make choices and compromises in response to its power.

New Year's Letter 2009

Happy New Years 2009!

I am usually a Christmas letter person, but this year I waited until New Years. Not because I was super busy before Christmas, but because I wanted to have some recent pictures to send of all my nieces whom I had not seen in a year! What would keep me away from them for so long? Well, here is an update on the last year.
By December 07 I was finished with all my coursework for my PhD. Believe it or not, my full-time job from February to August was studying for my comprehensive exams. I was tested in four areas: Congregational Research as Practical Theology, Congregational Leadership, Women’s Developmental Theories, and Ecclesiology. I completed them in mid-August. A week later I successfully defended them before my doctoral committee and was officially pronounced “ABD” (All But Dissertation).

This last year I also added a new title to my resume: Adjunct Professor. Last January I taught Women, the Bible, and the Church with Klyne Snodgrass (New Testament Professor) and in the fall Congregational Leadership with Soong Chan Rah (Ministry). I have also been co-teaching Covenant History class for the denomination’s orientation program. This fall I also had the chance to develop my own online version of the Leadership class and will begin teaching that in February of this year.

Exams meant less travel this year. I did make it to Minnesota in the Spring to visit my friend Kirsten and her family in Ranier. Her mom owns a great little bed and breakfast right on the lake. During the visit, Kirsten opened her new shop featuring art and crafts from various Covenanters including me! Several of my photographs sold as framed prints, coasters, and cards. Kirsten runs the shop in the summer and then brings her stock on the road to various Covenant events or sets up shop for a day in the front room of my house.




Following exams, I finally found time to visit family. In October I spent a week with my mom in Maine. We wandered through nature preserves, walked on the beach, and explored the local cemetery.
We also had a chance to drive down to Pennsylvania to visit my grandparents where I was reminded of their love of horses and our shared love of art. My Grandmother and I finally made it to the Barnes Museum. It is an old estate filled from floor to ceiling with paintings mostly from the Impressionist era.





November found me in Nashville with my sister and her family. Sienna was just barely crawling last year and is now running all over the place. She is full of energy and personality at 2 years old. Amber is growing up fast! At 5, she loves to help bake with Mom, read books, sing with her sister, and play dress-up. I got my first spontaneous “I’ll miss you!” out of her as we left this year.

In December, I flew to San Diego to see Jim and his family. My 8 year old nieces and I had been e-mailing about the trip since Thanksgiving. Jordan is quite the artist. She loves to draw and has created a web page of mythical creatures. She also loves reading and can beat us all on Mario Mart (a driving game on the Wii). Brenna started karate and won first prize with the Bo (a long staff). Her dad loves that it helps her focus, because outside of karate Brenna is all emotion and expression. She never stops moving or talking!

The next few months will be focused on completing my dissertation and finding and job. My dissertation will consider how young women’s understandings of gender and pastoral leadership are being formed in a local congregation. I began interviews before Christmas and hope to complete those in January. I am hoping to be done by June 2009. I began searching for jobs in November hoping to find a teaching position that would begin Fall 2009. For many different reasons, none of the positions worked out. While I am still considering teaching positions, I have been wondering if God is perhaps calling me back into church ministry. With that in mind, I have recently also started looking for positions as a pastor in a local congregation. I would ask your prayers for wisdom and discernment during this process and that God would provide work and finances as needed.

The search process has found me entering a season of waiting again… perhaps the PhD is a bit like Christmas, waiting for something new to begin. The job search feels a bit more like epiphany, trying to follow where God is leading with only a star and perhaps a few cryptic prophecies to guide me. May we all be faithful in whatever journey God is leading us on… and may we be blessed with a star that shines bright to guide us.

God's Gracious Choice

Sermon for St. Paul’s, December 21, 2008
2 Samuel 7:1-11 16, Luke 1:26-38

Last week in the sermon, we talked about being called to be the people of God. Isaiah 61, gave us a picture of what God’s people look like. They are a people in which there is no oppression, where the brokenhearted are bound up, where those falsely imprisoned are set free, where the mourning are comforted. They are a people who are blessed richly by God and are a blessing to those around them. They are a people of justice and generosity. And we heard that we are called to be such people. We are the people that God is forming into a community that reflects these values, that reflects God’s glory, that reflects the kingdom of God. God realizes that this will not be an easy task and so God sends one who will show us the way, a Messiah, God’s own Son, to model for us and teach us, to strengthen and encourage. God, through the work of Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, God will bind up the brokenhearted, set free the captives, and comfort the mourning. When we fail, God calls us to repentance. God forgives us and recreates us. God reforms us once again into God’s people.

But there is always a bit of doubt in our minds. Are we really the ones who are to be God’s people? Are we really the ones God has chosen? Why would God call us? Why would God choose you? Why would God choose this small little community to be God’s people? During my time here last week, several people mentioned the significant decline in this congregation over the last few years. In the building here, there are pictures of large youth groups. There are memories of two services. There are longings for a time when the sanctuary felt full to overflowing, when the congregation felt alive and vibrant. People seem to wonder, “Has God left us? Are we still God’s chosen people? Are we worthy of God’s presence? “

Who is it that God calls to be God’s people? What criteria does God use? And what does God desire from us?

If I was choosing a group of people to represent me, who would I choose? Who would you choose? At the moment, there are a number of television shows where famous people are choosing their successors, their prodigies, their best friends. Donald Trump is finding apprentices, Elle magazine its next junior editor, Heidi Klum the next great designer, Gordon Ramsey the next great chef. They look for the best and the brightest. Someone with talent, intelligence, creativity, and a great personality to match. They are not looking for someone who is simply great. They are looking for someone who is spectacular.

Our society seems to worship the spectacular… those who are big and bold and splashy. Those who are beautiful, rich, young, and healthy. And at times the church does not seem much different. Pastors often lament the fact that when they go to minister’s conferences, all anyone seems to talk about is size. How many people attend your church? How big is your sanctuary? Do you have the latest sound system? Are you reaching the “emergent” generation? Henri Nouwen, a priest whose ministry focuses on the handicapped, writes:

“When you look at today’s Church, it is easy to see the prevalence of individualism among ministers and priests. Not too many of us have a vast repertoire of skills to be proud of but most of us feel that, if we have anything at all to show, it is something we have to do solo. You could say that many of us feel like failed tightrope walkers who discovered that we did not have the power to draw thousands of people, that we could not make many conversions, that we did not have the talents to create beautiful liturgies, that we were not as popular with the youth, the young adults, or the elderly as we had hoped, and that we were not able to respond to the needs of our people as we had expected. But most of us still feel that, ideally, we should have been able to do it all and do it successfully.”

Nouwen calls this the temptation to be spectacular, the belief that in order to please God we must be a star, gifted in all things and successful in anything we put our mind to. And pastors are not the only ones who fall to such temptations. Churches, too, feel that they must have a vast repertoire of skills and to be good at all of them. They feel the need to be popular, to attract large numbers of people, and to be professional and polished in all that they do.

Spectacular is what the world is looking for. Spectacular is what we believe we should be. But is spectacular what God is looking for? Does God only choose the best and the brightest?

In the book of 1 Samuel, we find Israel in need of a ruler. For several generations they had been led by Judges, men and women sent by God to provide wisdom and leadership for the people. Israel, though, was tired of judges. They wanted a real leader. They wanted a king like all of the other nations. And they wanted someone spectacular. So, they chose Saul. Saul was the son of a wealthy family and the most handsome man in all of Israel. He was big, tall, and strong and he looked like a king. Everyone believed that Saul would be a great king and, with the Lord’s help, in those first months he was. Saul won his first battle against the Ammonites. His second battle, however, did not go as well. The Israelites were in distress under the attacks of the Philistines. The people were hidden in caves and among the rocks and tombs. Saul was awaiting Samuel, the priest, who would bring an offering to the Lord on their behalf, but Samuel was taking too long. The people were leaving. Saul was losing his followers and losing the battle. So, Saul decided to present the offering himself… disobeying the Lord’s command. Saul lost patience and rather than waiting on the Lord and on Samuel, he attempted to do it all alone. Saul gave in to the temptation to be spectacular, believing that God would want him to win the battle at all costs, even disobedience to the Lord’s commands.

Saul would continue this pattern of relying on himself rather than relying on God… and so, God would eventually reject him as king. Instead. God would turn to another… a less spectacular choice for king, but one described as “a man after God’s own heart.” The prophet Samuel had been sent to choose a new king, this time from among the sons of Jesse. When he saw the oldest son he thought, “Surely the Lord’s anointed is now before us.” But the Lord replied, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” Samuel examined all of Jesse’s sons one by one starting with the eldest, but the Lord rejected them all. Finally, only the youngest remained. David was almost as handsome as Saul, but there was a great difference between the two men. Saul, when given the choice between being spectacular and obeying God, consistently chose to be spectacular. David, however, would consistently resist the temptation to be spectacular. David’s greatest desire was not popularity or success, but rather obedience. David’s greatest desire was to please God. And because of that, the Spirit of the Lord rested upon him. The Lord chose David as the new king over Israel, the least of his brothers would become the first among them. God’s choice was not the spectacular, but rather the one after God’s own heart.

In Luke, Chapter 1, we come upon a young girl in the town of Galilee. She was from a working class family and engaged to a local carpenter. She was a faithful Jewish woman, but there is nothing in the text to indicate that she was spectacular. Instead, many commentators believe she was rather ordinary. Faithful, but ordinary. A lot like you and me. Even less is said about her husband. He, too, can be described as faithful but ordinary. This time God was not choosing a king. God was choosing something much more important. God was searching for a woman to bear the Christ child. God was looking for a family to raise God’s son.

There is nothing in the text to indicate that God scoured the land for the most spectacular couple to raise this child. There was no competition to determine who would be the most worthy. There was no genetic testing to pick the woman who was the wisest or healthiest or most spiritual. There was no application process. No search criteria. In fact, the text tells us nothing about how God made the choice of Mary. Instead, we enter the story when the choice has already been made. Mary sits alone in small room and suddenly an angel of the Lord appears to her and says, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you… Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High.”

As the commentator, Robert Stein points out, the point of the text is not Mary’s worthiness. Instead, the focus of the text is on God’s gracious choice. God chooses a young girl, a young girl just like one of us, to be the mother of the Messiah, to bear the Christ child. Mary is not spectacular, but because of God’s gracious choice, she will take part in spectacular things.

A young shepherd boy, the least of his brothers… a young Jewish girl from a working class family not yet married… these are the types of people God chooses. God chooses people like you and me. God does not look for the spectacular. God does not look at outward appearances. Rather, God looks at the heart. These are the types of people God chooses. All that God asks is that our hearts are right with God.

Advent gives us a chance once again to get our hearts right with God. To prepare for the coming of the Lord. I don’t know what happened in this congregation over the last five years or so. I don’t know if it is something that you need to confess or something you need to offer forgiveness for. Perhaps you were simply victims of circumstances beyond your control. What I do know, is that God still chooses you.

There is a little children’s book by John Trent entitled, “I’d Choose You.” The story is about little Norbert the Elephant who has had a particularly bad day. He was picked last for the team. Nobody wanted to sit next to him on the roller coaster. His friend, Heidi Hippo, embarrassed him in front of everybody. But when he arrives home, his mom opens her arms and says, “And if I could honor one child who has an exciting and wonderful future...and if I could teach him each day that he is God's special gift, especially on those days when he doesn't get picked...Guess which one I'd choose every time? I'd choose YOU!" Just as Norbert’s mom opened her arms to her son, so God’s arms are open to us. God chooses you.

All God desires is that our hearts are right with God. If you need forgiveness, confess your sins and they will be forgiven. If you need to forgive, lay your grievances before the Lord and ask for the strength needed. If you are in the midst of circumstances beyond your control, know that God is with you. God chooses you. God chooses the ordinary faithful to be a part of God’s spectacular work in the world.

God is with you right now. Dwelling in your midst. God does not care if you are great or small as a congregation. God does not care if you are rich or poor. God does not care if you have a magnificent sanctuary or a professional choir. God simply desire to dwell with God’s people.

In the text from 2 Samuel read this morning, we find David concerned about building a spectacular house for God. When God first came to dwell with the people of Israel, God’s presence was a great pillar of fire, a great cloud of smoke that traveled with them through the wilderness. Eventually, the people built a beautiful ark that they carried with them everywhere. The ark looked like a throne and when God spoke to the people of Israel, God would often settle in a cloud of glory on the ark. This ark came to symbolize God’s presence among the people. The ark was kept in the tabernacle, a great tent-like structure that could easily move with the people wherever they went. David, however, felt that the tabernacle was no longer appropriate as a house for God. Israel was in a time of peace and people were building permanent homes, no longer dwelling in portable tents. David himself had a beautiful house of cedar and felt that the Lord should have a beautiful house as well. David wanted to build God a great temple.

David shared his dream of building a great temple with Nathan the priest and Nathan, of course, approved. Obviously God needs a beautiful temple to live in. God is a spectacular being and God needs a spectacular building. But God had other ideas. God came to Nathan with a message for David saying, “I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day but I have been moving about in a tent and a tabernacle. Wherever I have moved about among all the people of Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of them… saying, ‘Why have you not built me a house of cedar?’”

God was not angry with David for his desire to build a great temple. God recognized that David’s desire came from his love for God. But God did not need a spectacular house to dwell in. God was not concerned about a spectacular building. God did not need David to build him such a dwelling place. God would do the building. God would make a spectacular temple to dwell in. However, this temple would not be made of cedar. It would not be made of brick or stone. God’s temple would be made of people. It would be made of God’s people. And God would make them spectacular.

God goes on to say in 2 Samuel, “… I have been with you wherever you went and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth… Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever.” God did not need David to build a temple. Instead, God would do the building, forming Israel into the people of God, a beautiful temple that would serve as God’s dwelling place.

God chooses you to be God’s people. God calls you to prepare your hearts to receive Christ anew this Advent season. For God desires to dwell in you and among you. God desires to make you into people who reflect God’s glory, the kingdom of God. We now know that God’s kingdom will not look like anything we could have imaged, for it begins not in glory, but in a manger, with a young girl, chosen by God. It begins with God’s choice to dwell on this earth, in a humble human body. It continues with God’s choice to dwell in and among God’s humble people, God’s ordinary faithful people. For out of these humble beginnings, God will bring forth a great kingdom… God will build a beautiful temple, and God’s work will be spectacular.

Isaiah 61: Blessed to be A Blessing

Sermon for St. Paul’s United Church of Christ
Third Sunday in Advent, Dec. 14, 2008
Intro and thank you

The young man had not been at temple for several months. This was the temple he grew up in and attended faithfully ever since he was a small boy. But today he had returned… amidst rumors and gossip about what had taken place since we had last seen him. There were stories about his being baptized by his cousin John in the Jordan River. Something strange had happened that day… John had refused to baptize him at first, but when he eventually did so, some saw a bright light or a dove descending on him. Some wondered if this had anything to do with John’s prophecies about the coming Messiah, but they could not ask Jesus, for shortly after his baptism he disappeared into the wilderness. He was gone for over 40 days and no one is sure what happened to him, but when he came back he was changed. He had always attended synagogue, but now he was teaching regularly and everyone was praising him.

And today, he finally came home. Today, on the Sabbath, Jesus was here and we would all see for ourselves just what changes had taken place.

At that moment, he was handed a scroll to read. He stood, unrolled it, and seemed to search for a particular passage. What would this son of Joseph, this carpenter’s son, one of our own…. What would this young man read to us this day? Jesus stood and began to read:

“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 Lord’s favor.”

From the book of Isaiah. Interesting. Wasn’t John the Baptist also quoting from Isaiah recently? Wasn’t that the book that was full of promises about the coming Messiah? It had been many generations since there had been a prophet in Israel. People had stopped waiting, stopped hoping for the coming Messiah. But John’s words had renewed the hope of some. John was coming to prepare the way for the Lord and now, now Jesus stands up and reads this passage. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me..” Could he be another prophet? Or was it possible? And then Jesus sat down and said, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

What exactly did Jesus mean by that?
In order to understand what was really happening at this moment, we have to understand a bit more about what this passage in Isaiah meant to the Jewish people at the time.

The book of Isaiah begins with the Jewish kingdom of Judah in a time of great prosperity and wealth under King Hezekiah. Unfortunately, in the midst of their great wealth, their hearts had turned from the Lord. Though they continue to worship God in the temple, Isaiah 29 says that they “drew near to God with their mouths and honored God with their lips, but their hearts were far from God and their worship of God was a human commandment learned by rote.” They were condemned for their worship of idols (2.8), for their arrogance (2.12), for their greed (5.8) and for their injustice. They were judged for their inhumane treatment of the poor (3.14-15) and the working classes and for not attending to orphans and widows (1.17).

Isaiah’s spoke a word of warning to the people of Judah to repent and return to the Lord. Repentance meant a turning away from idols, humbling themselves before God and others, and bringing economic justice to their land. If they would not repent, if they would not humble themselves, they would be made humble, brought down by foreign armies, and led into captivity. This would be God’s judgment upon them. This would be God’s way of getting through to them, of reminding them who was in charge, of reminding them of God’s love.

It seems strange to understand the bringing about of such suffering as an act of love. And yet, when we read the words of Isaiah, we see that God does not desire to bring about such judgment. God desires repentance. God desired repentance, because God was trying to fashion a people… a people who would reflect the glory of God’s kingdom, a people who would be blessed, but also a people who would be a blessing to others … and God will do whatever it takes to make that happen… because of God’s love for us.

Throughout the book of Isaiah, we see the love of God in hints of child named Immanuel, a Wonderful Counselor, a Prince of Peace, a shoot that will come out from the branch of Jesse full of wisdom and understanding, a suffering servant, a light to the nations. God made a promise to the people of Judah, a Covenant with them and with all the Israelites that they would be the people of God, that they would be blessed and they would be a blessing. And God would fulfill that promise, both through the people of Israel and sometimes in spite of them. God would send someone, filled with the Spirit of the Lord, to come alongside the people and shape them into nation that reflected the glory of God.

In Isaiah 61, we have a picture of what God’s people look like. They are a people in which there is no oppression, where the brokenhearted are bound up, where those falsely imprisoned are set free, where the mourning are comforted. They are a people who are blessed richly by God and are a blessing to those around them.

This passage, however, is not written to a people in prosperity. Judah had already heard Isaiah’s words of warning and they did not listened. They had been taken over by foreign armies. They were sent into exile. Despite their hard-heartedness, God still called out to them. God still loved them. God still desired to fashion them into a nation that would bring glory to God, that would bless and be blessed. In the midst of their suffering, God offered a promise of restoration and renewal. God offered to recreate them into the nation that they were originally meant to be. In this new nation there would be no more oppression, no more broken hearts, no more prisoners, no more mourning. Those who have suffered in exile will be restored. They will be called “oaks of righteousness, the planting of the Lord to display his glory.” Isaiah writes, “Their descendants shall be known among the nations, and their offspring among the peoples; all who see them shall acknowledge that they are a people whom the Lord has blessed.”

Some have called the promises in this passage “the great reversal,” a complete reordering of society where the last shall be first and the first shall be last. While to some extent, this is true, I prefer to simply call this a picture of the kingdom of God. This is the people God has called Judah to be. This is the people God has called us to be. Just as Isaiah called to Judah so long ago, God is still calling to us today. God wants our hearts to be humble. God wants our worship to be more than a human commandment learned by rote, but rather a response to the rich blessings that God has bestowed upon us. God wants us to treat one another with justice, to care for the widows and orphans, to bind up the brokenhearted, and to comfort those who mourn. Central is the recognition that all we have is from God and that all that we have is to used as a blessing to those around us. The people of Judah forgot that the Lord had provided for them. They forgot to share that blessing with the world around them. Yet God continued to pursue them, continued to fashion them into a people that would reflect the kingdom of God.

These words from Isaiah were the words that Jesus spoke when he stood up in the temple hundreds of years later. Those who heard him were impressed. The text says that they were amazed. They were ready to welcome this young profit into their midst and perhaps to believe that he was the coming Messiah. They wanted to believe that Jesus would bring the kingdom of God to the Jewish people. Unfortunately, like Judah, many of them focused on the blessings God would bring them and not the call to be a blessing. They were hoping God would bring them prosperity and power. But Jesus continued his teaching… and his words made the crowd so angry that they attempted to throw him off a mountainside. What made them so angry?

It was not the words he read from Isaiah. Instead, it was his contention that the words were not meant for Israel alone. Jesus tells of the prophet Elijah going to feed the Gentile widow of Zarephath and of the prophet Elisha going to heal Naaman the Syrian illustrating how God had always reached out beyond the Jewish people. One of Judah’s greatest sins, the sin that Isaiah spoke out so strongly about, was the hoarding of God’s blessings. God had blessed Judah tremendously and they had forgotten… forgotten that what they had come from God and instead they turned to idols, forgotten that all their great blessing was a gift and instead they arrogantly claimed it as their own, forgotten that what they had been given was meant to be shared with others, a blessing to the nations. Instead, they mistreated those in need, the poor, the widows, the orphans. God came to create a just and generous nation, a nation that would bring that justice to those around them, and who through their generosity would shine a light to the world.

With the words of Isaiah, spoken by Jesus the Messiah, God was once again calling the people of Israel to repentance, calling them once again to live into the people God desired them to be. And this time, God was sending a great helper. God was sending a son into the world, God’s self, to walk among us, to eat and drink with us, to model for us and teach us what the people of God were to be. Jesus was coming to usher in the kingdom and to guarantee that the great work begun would be brought to completion.

Perhaps it seems as if we gotten a little ahead of ourselves in the Church year. We are in the midst of Advent, a time to focus on the coming of Jesus as a little baby in a manger in Bethlehem. It will be another 30 years before Jesus stands up in the synagogue and reads this passage from Isaiah. Another 30 years until he begins his ministry. And yet Mary knew even before Christ was born who this Messiah was that she would give birth to. While Mary is pregnant with Jesus, she goes to see her relative, Elizabeth. When she enters the room Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and proclaims a blessing on Mary and the child. Mary responds with a song of praise to God, a God who “has brought down the powerful from their thrones and lifted up the lowly; who has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty.” The one who promises “his mercy from generation to generation.”

Mary knew that the little baby to come would bring both judgment and blessing, not just for our sakes, but for the entire world all to the glory of God.

During this Advent season, God is once again calling us to be fashioned into God’s people. To be a community that lives kingdom values. God calls us to recognize that all we have is from God. It has been given to us as a blessing… and so that we may be a blessing to the world around us. In this particular holiday season, it may be difficult at times to recognize the blessings we have been given in this world. Many are struggling financially, worried about putting food on the table, paying their mortgages, the cost of health care, whether or not they will be able to retire. When it seems most difficult to see that God has blessed us, when it seems most difficult to offer that blessing to those around us, that is when the message of this Christmas season is the most important. God did not leave us to accomplish this task along. God sent Christ into the world, the one upon whom the Spirit of the Lord rests. Christ himself will bind up the brokenhearted, feed the hungry, and set the captives free… through the work of his people. When we fail, God will call us once again to repentance. God will recreate us. God will love us and pursue us. As Advent reminds us, each year Christ comes again into our midst to fashion us into kingdom.