Who gets to speak for God?

Early in ministry I wrote a graduate school paper on women in ministry. I learned what wading into controversial waters meant because my professor flunked half of my paper for the theological pre-supposition of starting the argument with eschatology, although he gave me an “A” for my logic from there. At the same time, my conference minister made the paper available to the pastors of the conference because he found it to offer refreshing insight. Go figure. It was about this time that the theologian Tom Finger published his two-volume theology that started with eschatology. Go figure again.

Although the argument of gender roles in ministry is well settled for some into either conservative or progressive camps, it continues heartily for other congregations. Here is a sermon presented recently for one such family of believers:

WHO GETS TO SPEAK FOR GOD?

In our Scripture readings this morning, two texts are placed side by side. Acts 2 presents the apostle Peter’s explanation of what the Holy Spirit did and will do. People of all genders and ages who are filled with this Spirit will prophesy, proclaiming the good news of God’s saving work through Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit’s action was the fuel behind the spectacular wonder of the Pentecost event.   The second text, near the end of 2 Corinthians 14, comes at the end of a substantial lecture from the apostle Paul on the use of spiritual gifts so that orderly worship might be maintained. Corinthian Christians, to whom he writes, had numerous issues that affected worship-competing over their favorite teachers, abandoning their marriages and getting drunk at the Lord’s table, for instance. Plenty of disorder there! Apparently some women were disorderly as well, although we are not told the why or what in a direct way. To address this Paul wants women not to speak and to restrict their discourse to conversation with their husbands at home. He appeals to the order of creation and the penalty of sin handed out at the Garden of Eden as the reason why.

Studied individually, these texts might seem to provide entirely different pictures. Studied side by side, we end up with a question: Who gets to speak for God, especially when the church meets for worship?

A pastor faced with controversial questions in their congregation knows immediately that their relationships are in jeopardy. No matter what they say someone will take offense. Say nothing and someone is offended. Say something and people in the congregation look to have their views confirmed. If not, there is offense.

With many such questions, Christian people are uninterested in how the Bible is interpreted in a faithful manner. They simply want their views confirmed. We are considering such a question today. As we work through the material it is important that we proceed with your understanding that I intend to be faithful not provocative, and with a commitment on your part not to be easily provoked. Together we might then consider the witness of Scripture.

The accompanying chicken-scratched diagram taken from one of my journals shows three ways many faithful Christians approach scriptural interpretation. Each one leads to a different response to the question, “Who gets to speak for God?” A fourth, that of disregarding the biblical text altogether, is not for our consideration in this study even though this is an approach many of us take for many dimensions of our lives.

I.   This first approach tends not to trust human experience as a reliable guide. Instead, the Bible provides a corral fence that governs one’s life. This type of biblical structure helps many people whose lives were wild and godless find forgiveness, health and help. This corralled point of view looks for biblical commands and tries to follow them without question because a person gets better results following these instructions than when they were their own moral guide. It isn’t necessarily legalistic, although a corral can become like a second type of law for some, and an inappropriate platform from which to judge the faithfulness of others.

II.  The second approach (the middle one in the diagram) brings a person’s life experience or their important questions to Scripture, looking for principles that helps them understand what happened to them, how they should live, or what answers they might find. You might map this as life–to faith–to life. the person starts with life experience, moves to the Scriptures for specific counsel, then seeks to apply what they learn (which makes for new life experiences). The Scriptures, then, are a funnel through which a person passes, hoping for guidance. This approach can get very topical and subjective, especially when the interpreter slices and dices rather than stepping back to look at the overall guidance of Scripture.

As a preacher, I normally avoid the second approach because I am committed to explaining biblical passages far more than preaching on pet topics. Even still, important concerns come before us that drive us to discover what Scripture says–this question of who speaks for God, for instance. As I trained for ministry, Dr. David Biberstine taught me a method of working with the whole of the biblical message in such a case. Once the related passages are considered in their entirety, the student of the scriptures drills down to guiding principles. This style brings this second style of biblical interpretation into the orbit of the third which I will show you now.

III.  The third style can be described as faith to life (the bottom picture in the diagram). In this case the Scripture funnels through me as I make myself open to receive it. Rather than conform myself to the Scriptures without discernment as in the first style, or choosing which Scripture to study based on my felt desire or need as in the second style, the Scriptures form me as I systematically study, ask questions, discern and am open to the insights of others.

This third style has its own danger–that of reverencing the Bible ahead of the God who gives us its message. Someone with my commitment to biblical exposition must keep their guard against bibliolatry.

To use this third style well I start with the whole of scripture, not parts in isolation. Even when working with a specific text, I labor to keep the perspective of the larger scriptural narrative. I must also do my best to suspend my preferences and pray for insight that God’s Spirit will guide my preparation.

This style works well with systematic exposition of the Scriptures, The difference between it and the first style is that style 1 expects questions to be settled and no longer questioned, whereas style 3 assumes we are never done learning, discerning and finding new light. The difference between it and the second style is that style 2 expects that my questions determine which Scriptures will be studied, whereas style 3 puts the Scriptures in the position of examining me.

All three come with intentions to be faithful but lead believers to different conclusions about our question of who speaks for God. The first approach usually concludes that until Jesus returns men do the speaking for God–especially among a worshiping community. Paul tells women to keep quiet after all. The second approach tends to follow the dominant set of experiences within the congregation, often alienating those who do not share those experiences. If there are no women leaders, then men continue to lead. If women have positive experiences in leadership elsewhere, and tell the stories of how they sensed God working through them, then over time the Scriptures begin to be discerned differently. The third style, which I admit is my style of preference, offers an alternative I invite you to consider this morning–especially as a way for faithful Christians of many preferences to live together in unity and common mission. Let’s dig a little deeper.

**********

Rightly or wrongly, here are three principles of Biblical interpretation I follow as I prepare to preach and teach. They are especially useful when dealing with what appear to be differences within various Biblical texts. I find them to be a consistent and faithful framework. I share them knowing that someone here might disagree with me, and fully aware that other competent Bible teachers use different frameworks in their desire to be faithful.

1.Distinguish between direct and indirect references.

2.Rely on clear intent over implied meaning.

3.Defer to Jesus.

Let’s consider each more carefully.

Distinguish between direct and indirect messages. Let’s return to the two passages we are considering. The Acts passage gives a direct message of explanation of the events of Pentecost:  people of all ages and genders are going to be filled with the Spirit and prophesy. Paul’s long treatise on spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12-14) offers a repeated and direct message: orderly worship takes precedence over the exercise of YOUR spiritual gift. Each correction Paul asks for is in light of this direct message. Paul expects a servanthood that promotes the gospel, even if you or I must set aside our rights to do so. These direct messages are the heart of these texts and should be the heart of our faithful interpretation. They take precedence over any other message we might find there. Indirect messages we draw from passages, such as the role of women or men  in ministry, should not be the base for doctrinal teaching.

Rely on clear intent over implied meaning. This is especially true in trying to understand the connection of a specific text within the full scope of the biblical narrative.

CLEAR INTENT– in Acts 2, Peter’s words about who will prophesy did not originate with him. They come from the prophet Joel, looking ahead to the time after Messiah lives on earth and brings redemption. Passages like this one in Acts and the one that precedes it in Joel, point to God’s redeeming work and how it overcomes the penalties of sin given to men and women after the fall. One of my favorite such passages is Isaiah 65:17-25. It too points to God working to undo the results of Eden. One can even find the apostle Paul preaching this theme:

Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:21-29 NIV).

I cannot locate the original source, but I have a quote written in my bible next to the curses of Eden in Genesis 3. It is from a favorite author of mine, Em Griffin, a former communications professor at Wheaton College. He writes, “there is no question women were relegated to a submissive role as a result of the fall. Pain and childbirth and hard toil in the fields were also tragic outcomes. But there is no reason to perpetuate the fruit of sin. We don’t object to anesthetic during labor or tractors to till the land on theological grounds, why then gulp hard at women giving direction to men?”

By laying these passages of God overcoming the penalty and curses of sin beside one another, we find a clear understanding that the genders are deeply similar but not completely identical. The different genders experience sin and overcoming sin in similar and differing ways. The God we worship offers salvation and the filling of the Holy Spirit to them all.

IMPLIED–Someone studying the Pentecost event of Acts 2 might notice that public, marketplace preaching was effective in 1st century Jerusalem. This is an implication, however, not what the passage was written to convey. That same student, if considering 2 Corinthians 14, might notice that something gender related was happening in the worship services of congregations Paul founded, because Paul otherwise models Jesus’ approach (see below). Even still, trying to use 2 Corinthians 14 to prove or disprove who gets to speak for God moves into implied meaning and away from messages that are direct and clear.  The message about God redeeming women and men that they might carry his message far outweighs the secondary themes of marketplace sermons as a technique, or just what it was the Corinthian women did that was so disruptive.

Defer to Jesus. Jesus is the one to whom we defer when passages seem to offer different directions. Some Christian traditions defer to Moses as the means to interpret Jesus, some traditions start with the apostle Paul as the point of reference. Who you start with makes a difference in the conclusions you reach, even though each one takes Scripture seriously. Deferring to Jesus absolutely does not mean we throw away or disregard what certain biblical texts say, but that we seek to understand them in the light of what Jesus tells us and exemplifies for us.

Here is a practical for instance: let’s say I have an older sister who wants to be the boss of me.  She tells me to mow the lawn and take out the trash because she knows these are my responsibilities, but my mother tells me to take out the trash, mow the lawn and make my bed. These are differing instructions and differing sequences, but they are not opposed to one another. I can do what either one says without being disobedient. Still, one of these voices is the more significant authority in my life and I do best by seeking clarity from mom. The biblical interpretation model I follow is that I seek clarity from Jesus.

Using this principle, we can look at passages like John 4 where Jesus meets the Samaritan woman by the well. We learn that Jesus:

•Engages women and men directly.

•Establishes and offers the kingdom, available to all men and women.

•Works to remove the penalties of sin for all men and women.

•Commissions his disciples to be witnesses and disciple makers everywhere. Although the twelve were men, we are given a clear picture that his community of disciples included many women, that the first witnesses of his resurrection were women carrying the message to the disciples, and that women and men formed the first Jerusalem congregation.

In the case of the Samaritan woman, she becomes the means by which her entire village is introduced to Jesus. She was the primary carrier of the message.

***********

There are many aspects of this conversation we might consider. Perhaps you want to go further and carry this into who gets to be ordained to ministry, or the role of women and men in marriage. The topic at the moment is narrower, however, regardless of the implications. The purpose now is to consider who gets to speak for God, and using this method of trying to grasp the biblical scope and draw related principles before we answer, we discover the answer is those persons filled with the Spirit of God. This is not the conclusion everyone will reach. If you disagree it is incumbent upon you to join me in this search to understand the witness of scripture in our lives. No one need feel alienated or shut out if they want a more conservative or open approach than I have taken.

And let us remember for all controversial conversations such as these:

• Our competition is not Christians who reach different conclusions. Our competition is warmongering, poverty, the theft of freedom, sexual slavery, recruiting people into sinful and destructive lifestyles, and all that we might put in the register of evil.

• Congregations are made up of people who use different approaches to studying scriptures, sometimes even mixing and matching them to suit the conversation. We have to find a way of living together in our diverse approaches to being faithful.

• We bridge these differences in our embrace of the gospel, through submission to Scriptural direction and mutual accountability. Thus, a Christian congregation is well served to not set up an authoritarian structure (which historically has been filled by men), who lord authority over women and the congregation via lifetime appointments to the role. Neither is it well served by a laissez-faire structure where we all have a say to the point that each individual gets to be an autocrat and leadership roles are filled with people who must do what pleases ahead of what is right if they want to be effective. Instead, we must create structures that keep the gospel at the front of everything, and where women and men work together in mutual submission to Jesus Christ who teaches us to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and our neighbors as ourselves.

This is important for a congregation calling its next pastor. Who gets to speak for God here? Some of you feel it must be a man and you are quite vocal about it. Some of you are open to a woman  and are far more silent for fear of bringing tension or offense.  Maybe there are others who feel far more strongly on either side of this than I have described. The call from today’s sermon, is to remember that you  serve Christ and one another before your own rights, to remember that faithful Christian might reach different conclusions based on the approaches they take to Biblical interpretation, and that we are responsible to find ways to live in unity and a unified witness in the face of hideous evil.

Let us do it to the glory of God who makes women and men and fills them with his Spirit that they might prophesy.

-mark l vincent

 

Committing yourself to agreement: reflections from Philippians 2:1-2

My memory of the event about which I am telling you is that Lorie and I were newly married—one of the first times we were able to rent a car. We filled it up as a gas station in Ft. Wayne, Indiana before we returned it, but it simply would not start again. Not even a growl.

It turns out it was a newfangled electronic chip that burned out, a precursor to electronic systems gracing our cars today. It was just a little chip, but its failure to send a signal made the whole big auto in-operational. It looked and felt like a car. It had gas in it. The steering wheel still tilted and the battery could still power the stereo. Air filled the tires. The upholstery was in fine condition and the exterior still gleamed. All appearances looked normal, but the car could not work unless that one necessary circuit functioned.

So many arenas of life work this way. A vacuum cleaner will not work if the plug comes out of the wall or a belt breaks. A well-bound book without the last chapter does not read. Or consider a musical scale minus the last note.  It is no longer a scale is it? Even though it approximates a scale, it is broken and unresolved.  Another example is the many organizations with which I work, trying to figure out what is next. They can do fine planning and work through complicated problems to discover new approaches, but if a key leader feels threatened or inadequate, the new and helpful initiatives come to a screeching halt, no matter how many times others circle back to try to kick-start the process once more.

In our verses today, the Apostle Paul adds to this little list, telling us that when oneness, what we might call agreement, goes missing, the church does not work.

“Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.” (Philippians 2:1-2 NASU)

We can show up for services. We can go through the motions of giving, making decisions and trying to keep program alive, but it no longer functions as it should. In effect, our ability to agree is a circuit that makes the church engine roar to life. It is the way, this oneness, that Jesus tells helps others recognize our Christianity as something real and vital (John 17:20-26).

And here is another dimension we must consider: some broken items eventually become irreplaceable.  If you misplay a scale, for instance, you can quickly fix it. But misplay it at a virtuoso performance and you can never get the moment back. Consider Christina Aguilera singing the national anthem at the 2011 Super Bowl. Web sites posted scathing attacks within minutes of her flubbed lyrics. Her forgettable performance there will live with her always, no matter how powerful her singing voice.

Perhaps you can live beyond a hazardous and tragic first marriage, or find a new and happy church home after abandoning an unhappy situation. Maybe you can retrain for an entirely new vocation. But if you make this your pattern of response to difficulties you reach a point where you can no longer recover. You will be abandoned even as you have abandoned. You will be alone precisely because you chose end of life aloneness over the current pain of working through difficulties in your relationships so that agreement might be reached.

The point here is how precious our relationships are: at work, in our families and most especially in our fundamental units of community—our houses of worship. If we fail to understand their purpose or fail to cherish them, not only do we lose their value for our well-being, but we are guilty of removing the potential of that well-being for others.

The church has been given us by those who struggled through and somehow made it work. Now it is our trust to take care of and hand off to others. It is not someone else’s task from which we benefit. Rather, it is our task from which others get to benefit.

To the heart of a congregation experiencing external persecution and internal conflict, Paul says, “Make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.” From his pen and for our ears, Paul tells us the circuit along which the church keeps running is oneness. Our mental framework (world-view) needs to be the same.  The spirit (passion, energy and perhaps the infilling of the Holy Spirit) needs to be the same. Our purpose (what we hope to achieve in our common ministry vocation) needs to be the same.

If these are not in place we must ask ourselves what is missing. We must seek to discover what is wrong. How shall we proceed to re-establish oneness yet again? And please understand: this is not just a discussion of a past, common experience of professing faith in Jesus Christ. We are pointing to a common focus as we face the future, a common commitment to make church life work, and a mutual encouragement of one another as we do.

Paul’s thoughts run the same here in these verses as he moves from past experience in Christ to the church’s agreement and commonly forged perspective as it does its work.

If you have been encouraged by Christ . . . .

If you have any comfort from love . . . .

If there is any fellowship of the Spirit

If there is any affection and compassion . . . .

If these are the foundation of Christian experience, then we must move forward in oneness, drawing on these things if we are to have any integrity.  And if there is not a deep level of agreement like this, then we need to go back and re-establish the foundation.

Let us assume the foundation is in place for a moment. What would oneness look like for the congregation then? It isn’t hard! Any congregation would agree to a substantial effort to make a difference in the community where they are planted. They would begin to spread out and make new families feel welcome in neighborhoods where they reside. They would offer tutoring to student struggling to make it in school. They would lead neighborhood bible studies and pray for their neighbors. The church would go to people instead of demanding that people must come to church at a specific time and place for it to count.

A church living in agreement:

• Does not criticize nearby churches who may use a different approach to living out the gospel
• Tweaks its organizational structure when needed to keep matters clear and simple, especially to help invite new and younger leaders into positive ministry experiences
• Offers to work alongside the pastor(s) it calls to serve
• Readily enters the process of expanding and renovating facilities needed to carry out kingdom work
• Commits itself to find newer, deeper and more generous ways to offer to the Lord the first and best of income and all other life assets

A church living in agreement does all this and more with joy. Such a people know they received encouragement from Christ. Together, they now offer that encouragement to others.

Committing oneself to agreement is a key way we express our service to Jesus Christ. And if we cannot make such a commitment to agreement, we need to check the foundation of our house. A house might look like a house. It might feel like a home. But if the foundation is missing it cannot last long. How great a fall it will have!

-mark l vincent

 

What is God doing and how can I be part of it?

Storms cancelled church services this past Sunday.  Here is the un-preached sermon.

 

What is God doing and how can I be part of it?

a sermon from Luke 1:67-80

Long-time church members have a pretty good idea of what an endearing and long-tenured pastor of a congregation does. Their mental pictures of what such a pastor looks like might be different. They might have a different gender in mind, but what they think that pastor does is pretty consistent.

Church members want their pastor to be present with them in their community–a fixture so to speak. They want their pastor to preach effectively, intelligent but not overly intellectual, studious but mostly practical in their preaching, friendly to everyone, able to help the congregation focus on outreach and growth without making anyone feel guilty about their fears or lack of involvement. They want someone who develops other leaders, and who is authentic more than anything.

The priest Zechariah seemed to be such a religious leader. And interestingly, it seems that God also looks for and honors leaders like him. You can read about Zechariah in the first chapter of Luke’s gospel. Together, with his wife Elizabeth, they endeared themselves to the people they served in the hill country of Judea.

Background to the text

To understand a bit more about Zechariah and Elizabeth, we do well to start with the book of Malachi, the book that closes the period of the old covenant, what we refer to as the Old Testament.

The prophet Malachi delivers an indictment against a corrupt priesthood. He uses the image of God as a Father who is being dishonored by his son. The rest of the letter tells us how the priests and ultimately the people of God, were dishonoring God, their father.

These priests brought meaningless and worthless offerings to worship — their last and worst instead of their first and best (ch.1). Malachi viewed this terrible example of religious leadership as inappropriate and incomplete instruction, instruction that caused God’s people to stumble. The priests of Malachi’s day were teaching God’s people that inappropriate honoring of God is acceptable (ch.2). Malachi also viewed this as acting treacherously toward God—as if a son acted treacherously toward his father.

Malachi believed that the priests of his day continued this treacherous behavior by treating marriage casually (ch.2), that is, treating the marriage relationship just as casually as they treated their relationship with God. The Hebrew Scriptures are full of comparisons of the husband-wife relationship to that of God and God’s people. These were to be covenants of life-long faithfulness, and once again the priesthood was corrupting the message by casually dismissing their spouses when they tired of them. The priests were doing evil and calling it good.

Malachi concludes this indictment against the priesthood by returning to the theme of giving. In addition to treating worship and marriage casually, the priests were not returning the firstfruits to God. A key if not THE key evidence of a heart relationship with God is participation in the tithe. Jesus affirms this principle in his teaching–not as a matter of legalism, but again, as a sign of living in relationship with God that funds actions of justice and mercy (Matthew 23:23). We see the early church continuing this practice immediately in the opening chapters of Acts as they brought proceeds from their economic activity to fund the work of the church, especially showing mercy to those in extreme need (Acts 4-6).

Malachi ends with a prophecy:

“Behold, I am going to send you Elijah, the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. And he will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.” (4:5,6 NASB)

Malachi is not just referring to fathers/sons in getting their hearts reunited, but God and God’s people. Both are intended. And here is the connection to Zechariah: the angel Gabriel uses these same words (luke 1:16,17) when making the announcement that Zechariah and Elizabeth will have a son after years of infertility and in spite of their advanced age.

* * * * *

In the years after Israel was scattered from its homeland and the original temple was destroyed, the Jews set up communities and places to gather for worship. We call them synagogues to this day, and they are the model on which Christian congregations (the ekklesia) were built. The Jewish priesthood scattered to the villages and nations where the people lived and brought leadership to these synagogues. This is what Zechariah was doing in Judah.

When the second temple was built in the years prior to the birth of Jesus, temple service began again, with priests taking turns coming to Jerusalem to serve for a time at the temple. Zechariah was carrying out just such a special duty when he was visited by Gabriel and told he and Elizabeth would have a son. This son would be the means for Malachi’s prophesy to be fulfilled. Luke 1:6 tells us that Zechariah and Elizabeth stood in contrast to the corrupt priests in Malachi. They were righteous before God and walked blamelessly. They were the type of religious leaders God honored.

* * * * *

By Zechariah’s  day, there was significant tension within Judaism. A Greek translation of what we call the Old Testament, The Septuagint (LXX), was developed for Jews who had not lived in the homeland and who had not learned Hebrew or Aramaic. This felt like cultural accommodation to some, and more traditional Jews looked down their noses at the ones influenced by Greek (Hellenic) culture. We see this same tension in the early church when the Greek speaking widows were not being cared for in the same way that long-time Jerusalem residents were when they become widows (Acts 6). This intercultural and perhaps inter-generational tension was tearing at the fabric of the religion. Yet, here came the promise that God was sending someone who would turn the hearts of sons and fathers back to each other–a renewal most profoundly experienced at the Jordan River when crowds of people came to hear John and then Jesus preach that the kingdom of heaven was at hand.

So, it is in this setting that the angel comes, surprises Zechariah with this news, and then makes him unable to speak until his son is named because Zechariah did not immediately believe the news.

The scene of Zechariah’s first words after being struck mute is at the naming of his son John. Everyone in the village gathers’ round. Perhaps Mary was there also, still visiting her cousin Elizabeth as her own pregnancy developed. The phrase in Luke 1:57 that the neighbors and relatives were “rejoicing with her” paints the scene that this was a beloved couple who had operated faithfully as they served God in this village.

Zechariah surprises everyone by not naming his son after himself, and when asked to confirm that this was indeed the name, Zechariah finds his tongue loosed and he begins to sing. Once again, just like Hannah and Mary, at a moment of high joy, a person who loves God and has aligned their life to participate in what God is doing breaks into song.

Here is what he sang:

“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,

For He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people,

And has raised up a horn of salvation for us

In the house of David His servant —

As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old —

Salvation from our enemies,

And from the hand of all who hate us;

To show mercy toward our fathers,

And to remember His holy covenant,

The oath which He swore to Abraham our father,

To grant us that we, being rescued from the hand of our enemies,

Might serve Him without fear,

In holiness and righteousness before Him all our days.

And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;

For you will go on before the Lord to prepare his ways;

To give to His people the knowledge of salvation

By the forgiveness of their sins,

Because of the tender mercy of our God,

With which the Sunrise from on high will visit us,

To shine upon those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death,

To guide our feet into the way of peace”

-(Luke 1:67-79 NASB)

What is God doing and how can I be part of it?

What enemies leave you in fear? Terrorists who want to destroy your culture? Disease that ravages your body? Mental illness that holds a loved one in slavery? Temptation that won’t leave you alone?

Zechariah knew what God was doing. God was bringing salvation—especially salvation from enemies like these (v.71). In Jesus, fear of your enemies no longer needs to drive you. You now can live in hope. The coming of Jesus — his death, resurrection, ascension, and promised return — ultimately removes these enemies.

Because we live in a fallen world, where the full work of redemption is more our hope than our reality, it is difficult to get our minds around this–especially when the enemy in whatever form is near at hand and seems to be succeeding. Here is how I’ve come to understand it:

• Jesus helps me in the moment of facing an enemy, if I remember to call on him as my Savior and Lord.
• Jesus has helped me in eternity, even when I don’t remember and even if my enemy wins in this life.

There is both a NOW and a NOT YET to this as there are so many things. Perhaps a phrase I use a lot would be of some use here: “I live in the now not the not yet, but the not yet is in my heart now.” I don’t know where I first learned it, but I find it helpful perspective as I participate in God’s saving work now, and while I wait for the full fruit of it to come.

Zechariah also knew that God saves us from unholiness and unrighteousness (v.75) Given Zechariah and Elizabeth’s reputation, this is a subject Zechariah would care about greatly. He knew holiness and righteousness are not determined by whether one worships at the temple or synagogue, speaks Hebrew or Greek, one’s physical location, or the generation one is from. Instead, it is the commitment to set one’s life apart to serve God. Setting apart in this way is done through renewal of one’s heart and changed behavior instead of external trappings and traditions (see Ephesians 4:17-24). Zechariah celebrates that setting oneself apart for God would be more possible than ever.

Zechariah knew that God was offering forgiveness of sin (v.77). Here, even before the gospel message is preached in the Judean countryside by his son John, we see where John might have picked up the message. Forgiveness makes the changed life possible. It is the source of renewal. Forgiveness gives us the needed experience with mercy. Armed with experience and knowledge of mercy, people can become God’s servants, extensions of God’s mercy into the lives of others.

This is what God is doing. This is how we become part of it!  In your embrace of the mercy God offers you become an instrument of God’s holiness and righteousness.

* * * *

So, Once again, we see that asking “what is God doing?” is not a difficult mystery to solve. Neither is asking how we can be part of it. Zechariah, the priest who opens the New Testament along with his wife Elizabeth, provides a family portrait that contrasts with the religious community with which the Old Testament closes. Our life in giving and worship demonstrates whether we have understood the mercy we received from God. When we respond to God’s mercy through our life in giving and worship, we make it possible to provide a community that extends God’s mercy, as we meet together, as we encourage one another, as we sharpen each other, and as we make it possible to care for widows, orphans, strangers, and any other person bereft of what God offers to all of us.

If you have not yet received God’s forgiveness, open your heart and receive it. If you are disconnected from God, then begin the practices of gratitude and love for the people of God once more. And as you do, watch joy and transformation unfold all over again.

-mark l vincent

An ecu network of capital what?

We have been assisting the Ecumenical Stewardship Center, based in Indianapolis, on a number of fronts (www.stewardshipresources.org). One of them is developing a network of capital campaign providers who connect to the Christian denominational families.  We think they need to strengthen their place in the marketplace because their services are excellent and they usually provide a less expensive and supportive alternative to the selling of services and production goals of some commercial firms. Here are some frequently asked questions and answers about this new service available through the Ecumenical Stewardship Center.

Why form a network of capital campaign providers among participating denominations? Denominationally-affiliated congregations make more use of capital campaign assistance than ever before, and from an increasing variety of service providers. These providers may or may not adhere to the standards or expectations set in place by a particular denomination.

Persons and organizations within denominations that provide capital campaign services previously had little knowledge of each other. By linking them together through the Ecumenical Stewardship Center, they can assist one another, discover efficiencies, establish partnerships, improve methodology and create larger pools of consultative help for specialized  situations. It also makes it possible to serve a larger market and make denominationally-connected providers more competitive with para-church and commercial providers.

When money is paid to para-church or commercial providers, that money is no longer available to recirculate within that denomination’s economy. None of that money circulates back as loans to churches, contributions to mission, support of church camps or for covering administrative costs for the denomination. When a denominational provider serves a congregation as capital campaign counsel, the fees circulate within the denominational family, coming back to serve sister congregations and organizations.

The current marketplace of capital campaign providers for congregations can be described as:

Solo operators — Solo operators usually prefer to do the fundraising portion of a campaign alone. These consultants are usually local and part-time. Their fees are usually subsidized via private income.

Loss leaders — These firms provide free or discounted capital campaign service tied to paid services such as architecture, construction or financing debt the campaign does not cover.

Denominational campaign services — They provide process centered and relational fundraising for congregations, with a deep understanding of the denomination’s culture and polity. These services have been subsidized by denominations in the past, but increasingly must earn their own way.

For-profit consulting firms — These firms, whether para-church or commercial, usually employ a sales force and professional campaign consultants. Fees for these firms are usually the highest, usually involving a proprietary method that is sold repeatedly.

Denominational campaign services must compete in this marketplace. Denominational services focus on the congregation and can build on multiple relationships that are already in place because of a common history. This gives the consultants the opportunity to be process-centered and relational, providing an important distinctive within this marketplace. A tighter coordination of denominationally based capital campaign services strengthens this option within the marketplace.

Who plays what role in this network?

• Providers maintain their service while participating in the network. Participation lets them draw on resources available from other providers, even to the point of borrowing other consultants when needed.
• Denominations that do not have their own capital campaign service can participate, recommending this service to their congregations.
• The Ecumenical Stewardship Center serves as the organizational home for this network of providers, and offers a referral service to congregations that contact the Ecumenical Stewardship Center looking for assistance.

What would show that this network is successful?

• Providers of capital campaign services with a denominational connection have a stronger and broader network of resources to call upon. This includes a deeper bench of skilled consultants.
• Those firms with denominational connections gain administrative efficiency, cost controls, similar expectations of consultant qualifications, preferred rates for constituent congregations and increasing similarity of quality and look/feel of campaigns. It also provides a stronger brand differentiation among the variety of providers that seek to sell their services.
• The campaigns serviced by this network of providers would feature the following distinctives that benefit both denominations and congregations:

Access to and involvement of the best in stewardship education providers.

Access to qualified capital campaign consultants with significant experience in fundraising.

Access to remedial resources and organizational development assistance when needed.

Ability to conduct annual campaigns and comprehensive stewardship audits.

Commitment to maintaining denominational distinction and relationships.

 

Where can we locate this service? The Ecumenical Stewardship Center ( www.stewardshipresources.org ), provides a referral service for participating providers. It also convenes providers annually for professional development and coordination of the service.

What is the charge for these services? The typical rate corresponds to a minimum campaign fee or .03 of the congregation’s operational budget, whichever number is greater.  Campaign Readiness Assessments and development of campaign materials are additional.

-mark l vincent

fundraising or raising funds?

Our organizational development firm, Design Group International, lives at the intersection where businesses, non-profits and religious organizations find common ground. The beautiful thing about an intersection is one can then see what is held in common, as well as point of origin and destination–however different they may be.

One area of difference is the raising of funds.

In business it is often preferable for a financier to take a percentage of money raised, and it can feel off-putting for someone to ask for a stipend to raise money. If the financier gets a stipend, their income goes away just as soon as they succeed. If they have to earn their money, however, it is commonly believed they are much more likely to raise it.

In religious organizations, and in many non-profits, it is preferable for a person to be paid a fee to raise money, and it can feel off-putting for someone to ask for a percentage of the money raised. It is believed that if the fundraiser receives a percentage of money raised, their motive will no longer be the mission of the organization, but greed. If, however, they receive a stipend, then the expense to do so can come out of the operations of the organizations and not necessarily the pool of new money being raised.

Some non-profits go either way, theorizing that whatever works to raise money can be done–no matter how much expense goes against raising it.

Interestingly, the hope in each scenario is that those who raise funds will act ethically. Notably, one can act in unethical, greedy ways no matter how the funding scenario is constructed.

It is good to think through the philosophy of how your organizations raises funds for its purpose. But more importantly for the raising of support, it is wise to employ persons in the role whose passion is for your organization’s purpose and not just how or how much they will be paid.

-mark l vincent

The Giving Project Still Gives

From 1995 until 2000, the then General Conference Mennonite Church and Mennonite Church in both Canada and the U.S. put more than $500,000 into The Giving Project, an attempt to identify what Christians believe about earning and using money, and how those beliefs could be embedded within congregational life. Michele Hershberger, now chair of the Bible and Ministry Division at Hesston College, joined me as the associate project director in 1996.

Along the way, others joined in the effort: Mennonite Brethren Foundation, The Brethren in Christ, and The United Church of Canada.

Even more denominations asked us to come and describe what we were learning. Between Michele Hershberger and myself, we addressed audiences among Presbyterians in Canada, American Baptists, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, The Episcopal Church, Grace Communion International, Metropolitan Community Churches, The Christian and Missionary Alliance, The Assemblies of God, Independent, Christian Reformed and Reformed Churches of America, Conservative Mennonite and a variety of inter-denominational and even post-Christian gatherings. We also travelled to Venezuela, Australia, Brazil, Sicily, France and England to present to international gatherings that took the material to even more places. All this was in addition to the hundreds of Mennonite and General Conference Mennonite congregations that invited us to preach, present workshops, or who participated in our annual Giving Project Gatherings. We had access to all these audiences without pressure to change the message.

The Giving Project was so successful among the original sponsoring bodies and their congregations that the five year initiative was expanded to seven, and the materials Michele and I prepared went through several printings and translations. The extension needed to be shortened back to the original five years, however, due to the significant re-organization demanded by the merger when forming what is now Mennonite Church Canada and Mennonite Church USA. As we wrapped up the project, Michele Hershberger wrote of our key findings in the 2001 edition of Giving: growing joyful stewards in your congregation, the annual periodical of the Ecumenical Stewardship Center. They grew from our extensive focus groups, presentations and conferences conducted across Canada and the U.S.

• Wisdom with money and freedom with money are not the same thing, and both are called for in scripture. Together, they provide a creative tension for the life of the steward.
• People talk openly and freely about money. It is not a subject about which we are silent as so many claim. Instead, we are silent about what money means to us as we use it.
• Our life as a steward is first and foremost about receiving from God and responding back in worshipful generosity. Michele wrote, “Worship is the act where that interchange between God’s giving and our own is played out again and again.”
• Our connection to Jesus is the difference between philanthropy and stewardship.
• The ability to live as a steward is made much more possible when one is committed to a faith community.
• We hold to myths about money that prevent us from seeing just how complex is the life of the steward, and thereby prevent us from choosing a more faithful course of action.

A finding we should have included in Michele’s list is that percentage-based money management is a key to living out what Christians believe about earning and using money. This is true of the household and it is true of the household of faith. The intention to return one’s firstfruits as a first and consistent act forces one to save and manage resources so that the firstfruits might be given at all. This promotes fiscal solvency for the family, the church family, and even the denominational institution. Such an approach develops and reinforces practices of generosity in a way no other educational activity can induce.

Some of what The Giving Project developed or partnered to create continues to have a legacy within Mennonite Church Canada and the United States. Mennonite Foundation Canada, in particular, has maintained a significant legacy. Their entire field personnel at the time attended the two weeks of consultant training offered via The Giving Project. Most of these persons remain on Mennonite Foundation Staff today, developing curriculum and offering educational programs used by a number of Canadian denominations.

Tellingly, at the 2009 North American Stewardship Conference held in Toronto, these efforts among Mennonites were lauded by several speakers as having influenced their own efforts, including a recent, ground-breaking D.Min. dissertation by Barbara Fullerton, a United Church of Canada staffer and one of our trainees, on how congregations are able to effectively teach generosity. It is worth noting that many of her findings reinforced much of what she had heard during her own Giving Project consultant’s training nine years earlier.

Here are some other efforts where the material or persons connected to The Giving Project have brought significant influence in the Mennonite world:

• The extension of Lynn Miller’s firstfruits teachings beyond the original five year span, and the development of his work into a video curriculum.
• The itinerant stewardship ministry of Dorothy and Orville Shank that concluded in the late 1990’s.
• The development of a Stewardship Education Department and Stewardship University by Mennonite Mutual Aid.
• Mennonite Mutual Aid’s designation as the stewardship agency of Mennonite Church USA.
• Mennonite Foundation’s (U.S.) continued promotion of developing a Money Autobiography as an advising tool.
• The development of Design Group International™, the organizational development firm to which I am connected, making use of the consultative model developed by The Giving Project.

Many of the benefits in the years during and since are being reaped well beyond the sight of most Mennonites. Here are some examples of what The Giving Project also helped to influence:

 

• The Offering as Worship: songs and related worship and study materials by Ken Medema and myself, breathing life into the offering as an act of worship. This collection has now grown to three volumes. They can be ordered at http://www.kenmedema.com.
• Editorial services for Giving the annual periodical of the Ecumenical Stewardship Center. I was privileged to edit eight of the first eleven annual issues. Several former Giving Project consultants also contributed articles over the years.
• The movement of Grace Communion International (formerly the Worldwide Church of God) from central control of all finances to voluntary contributions from its congregations.
• Commissioned curriculum development for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, American Baptists and Christian and Missionary Alliance. The Evangelical Lutheran Church makes use of the materials for its pastors serving in their first congregations.
• My Ph.D. dissertation on measuring and managing the size of a denomination’s economy for its mission. Two U.S. and one Canadian denomination provided data to prove it could be done.
• The development of The Steward Leaders Game, a simulation training event that teaches congregational leaders how to more effectively manage a congregation’s finances. Learn more about this one at www.stewardleader.com.

As much as The Giving Project accomplished in its heyday, and as much influence as it bears since, Christian people and their congregations remain faced with the enormous monsters of fear and anxiety when it comes to money. Much more remains to be done to help us turn to God with hands raised in worship–whether in plenty or in want–whereby we can both give and receive. We need to do this not just as households, but as congregations and institutions, indeed our whole movement of Anabaptist faith.

-mark l vincent