If you were able to join us on Palm Sunday, we had the wonderful privilege of hosting Dr. Ross Hastings at Intown. He preached for us on Sunday morning and then led an IntownU class afterwards. If you missed these opportunities, or would like to listen again, you can find the audio of both events here:
http://intownchurch.com/listen/
T. Bone Burnett is a Grammy winning record producer, musician, and music curator for films like “Oh Brother Where Art Thou.” He’s a Christian but doesn’t make explicitly Christian music.
Instead, he’s an observer of the human condition, of the loves and wants of humanity and he says, as a Christian, “my ministry is to making doubters of unbelievers.”
That’s fair right? If we’re going to doubt belief, if we’re consistent shouldn’t we doubt our doubts? Shouldn't we be critical of unbelief?
To me, Qohelet - the teacher in Ecclesiastes seems to have the same ministry as T. Bone Burnett. Both are working to undermine the promises of this world. They're trying to tell us that if we're trying to find substantive meaning in this world, we're going to be disappointed.
We'll wrap up our study of Ecclesiastes tomorrow night in our Ash Wednesday service. We'll be looking at chapter 12 under the heading of "One Last Thought."
In the coming months we're hoping to post a series of interviews with Intowners asking them how their faith intersects with their work life. Here's the first installment, an interview of Erick Widman by Pastor Brian Prentiss. (interview below image)
Can you tell us first off a little about your current job and how you came to be doing what you’re doing?
I'm currently practicing immigration law at a new non-profit organization and also at my own (small) law firm. I personally experienced the challenges of the outrageously complex immigration system when I handled the paperwork for my fiance and wife back in 2001. Lots of people end up frustrated, angry, and confused when trying to navigate the system. So it's gratifying to help remove roadblocks and reunite families.
I'm one of the founders of a non-profit called the Center for Immigrant Assistance. Our goal is to provide what can be called "low bono" assistance. The traditional "pro bono" model is where lawyers or non-profits take on cases entirely for free. However, the need for immigration related legal services is huge and far outstrips what is currently available on a pro-bono basis. Also, since many low-income immigrants can't afford to hire a lawyer at a law firm, they often end up unrepresented and make bad legal decisions. At the Center, our model is to keep fees low by reducing overhead costs and assisting clients primarily online and over the phone. We're finding that we can help almost anyone - including people who have never used a computer. This is because these clients often have a daughter or nephew who grew up using computers and are happy to assist.
What is a typical day like?
One of the best parts about working in the immigration field is that you get to interact with lots of fascinating people who are - no surprise - from all over the world. For example, some of my current clients are from Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, France, India, Mexico and the UK. I usually meet with one or two people a day in person and also do a fair number of phone calls.
In general, practicing law can be an unpleasant experience that is somehow mind-numbing and stressful at the same time. Thankfully, helping clients with immigration issues is one of the best types of law out there. Rather than fighting other lawyers you're mainly fighting the bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department.
In addition, I'm grateful I get to be my own boss and feel fortunate that my supportive wife has allowed me to start up my own law firm and non-profit. There is real financial uncertainty starting out. But it is also very satisfying to have clients refer their friends and family to you after helping them become citizens or get a visa. Since there is no "big boss" I report to, I'm the one who has to make sure that accounting, website issues, and paralegal support are handled well. I've found some good people to help me as contractors (rather than employees) in each of these areas. I work with them usually on a daily basis.
Are there specific things about the Christian faith that either prepared you for or maybe even led you into this kind of work?
I think that lots of Christians in the U.S. are recognizing and acting upon the clear biblical call to care for people who are vulnerable in our own society. There are many references in the Bible to welcome and assist "the stranger" or "alien" living among us. This includes helping refugees figure out how to buy groceries or simply being friendly to your neighbors from the Middle East who work in high tech. Also, regarding the controversial illegal immigration issue, it's helpful that Christian teaching on the importance of both law and grace gives us a solid framework to think things through. All of us are imperfect and all of us have broken the law (both moral and civil) in one way or the other. I think this perspective is important as our elected leaders try to figure out the right balance on this issue themselves. In any event, all of us are called to extend kindness and mercy to our neighbors now. A great book I recommend that impacted me a lot a few years ago is Tim Keller's "Generous Justice."
Thanks Erick, God bless you and your family, including the new(ish) little girl pictured below.
Herman Melville tells us in Moby Dick that, "Ecclesiastes is the truest of all books."
That quote grabbed me after I had decided to do a sermon series on Ecclesiastes. The truest of all books? If that's the case then why is it so overlooked? Why do so few Christians read it?
Perhaps because, like most great literature (like Moby Dick!) it's difficult. Ecclesiastes is deceptively complex and it's not easy to interpret. But more than that, the central message is very, very dark and most of us would rather read the more heartwarming passages of scripture than be punched square in the gut with how "vain", "useless", and "profitless" much of our life is.
I'm calling the sermon series "Dark Grace" after reading about the distinction that Fulton Sheen made between "black grace" and "white grace" - revelation by darkness rather than light.
Peter Kreeft said of Ecclesiastes, "in this book God reveals to us exactly what life is when God does not reveal to us what life is. Ecclesiastes frames the Bible as death frames life."
I take this to mean that the Bible's answers only make sense when we adequately assess our situation - that we live in a dark, broken, and often sad world, and that without cosmic intervention we are all consigned to the dustbin of history.
So, are you ready? Are you ready to take an unflinching look at the human condition? Are you willing to take a long hard look at the ways in which we seek to avoid asking important questions because they bring up uncomfortable answers?
Yes? Good.
For the next seven weeks we'll be taking a tour of our world as it is through the eyes of Ecclesiastes.
"It just makes a boy homesick to look ahead like that and see how far off summer is...Don't you know what that is? It's spring fever. That is what the name of it is. And when you've got it, you want -- oh, you don't quite know what it is you DO want, but it just fairly makes your heart ache, you want it so! It seems to you that mainly what you want is to get away; get away from the same old tedious things you're so used to seeing and so tired of, and set something new. That is the idea; you want to go and be a wanderer; you want to go wandering far away to strange countries where everything is mysterious and wonderful and romantic. And if you can't do that, you'll put up with considerable less; you'll go any- where you CAN go, just so as to get away, and be thankful of the chance, too." - Mark Twain in Tom Sawyer, Detective
How often do we go about life with an aching sense, or maybe it's a fully formed question - is there something more? Something that will finally make sense or our work-a-day existence, someone who will make life truly worth living, some new experience or new season that will bring joy to our dreary life.
Huck Finn, the narrator in the passage above, seems to know exactly what it is he longs for - summer! And, yet as he contemplates his longings, it becomes less clear to him that summer alone is what makes his heart ache. Maybe it is swimming in a pond in the heat of summer, or maybe it's getting away, being a wanderer, perhaps mystery or romance...he is no longer certain. All he knows is there is the great longing that "sets" upon him in the spring.
I think Twain writes this with confidence that all of his readers, if they're honest, and the least bit introspective will be able to sympathize with Huck's longing.
I do. And, I think you do as well.
This Advent we're starting a series of sermons entitled "Longing for More." Advent is a time to recognize that we are longing-beings and to consider again the gap between longing and fulfillment that never seems to fully close.
Why is that? Are we destined to forever roam the earth pursuing the satisfaction of our longings only to be frustrated time and time again?
This is what we're considering during Advent, and tomorrow we begin with our Longing for Love. I hope you'll join us at Intown tomorrow morning or if that's not possible, join us online as the sermons are posted in the coming weeks.
God bless!
I've been deeply saddened by the recent revelations of sexual abuse by Bill Cosby. He's been one of our family's favorite people for years; we've watched nearly all of The Cosby Show.
Trying to wrap my head around the idea that the gentle man who parents so wisely on my TV has in his private life abused women in grotesque ways is incredibly saddening to me, and I'd much rather him stay the admirable, hilarious, precocious entertainer and philanthropist that I've seen him as for decades.
But, that would prevent me from hearing the possible truth - that he's been a predator in his private life and that there are voices of oppressed and abused women that my preferred narrative would silence.
So, Ferguson. My heart has ached about this for months but I've chosen not to address it publicly because the way this event has been covered in the media has pitted two "sides" against one another and whatever I might say about it leaves me open to being conscripted into either side of the ideologies in conflict.
This may mean that someone in my congregation might listen more critically and less openly to my sermon on Sunday morning because they've ostensibly been able to pinpoint my political allegiances.
This is incredibly unfortunate and unfair, but it's real.
So, I want to pass on some thoughts as a Pastor, not specifically about the events of the shooting itself, the lack of indictment, or the merits of the grand jury process, but instead to share how I see the "good news" of Jesus directing Christians to act in response to the larger issues brought to light by what's happening in Ferguson.
This posture of humility has relevance to so many more issues than just those being exposed by the events in Ferguson.
Friends, can we listen? Isn't this what we're called to in our own neighborhoods? Aren't we called to listen to the voices of the oppressed, to seek to understand? I pray that I, that the church I lead would choose the challenging way over the easy way.
We had an informal meeting after our worship service on Sunday the 14th to chat about the upcoming fall ministry season. Brian gave a short overview of the "state of the church", some ways that Intowners could get involved, and some challenges and opportunities for the rest of the year.
If you weren't able to attend, or simply want to hear it again, you can link to the audio below:
This coming Sunday, Intown will embark on a sermon series that will examine the meaning and importance of each of the elements of our worship service. Why do we do a Call to Worship? Why is the Confession of Sin where it is? Why Singing and Preaching? Why do have The Lord's Supper every week?
And, how do all these things shape my daily life?
You'll find the outline to our study below. If you'd like to go a little deeper, I suggest Thomas Howard's Evangelical is Not Enough and Robert Webber's Ancient-Future Worship.
September 14, 2014 Colossians 1:15-23 Living the Story (The Christian Year)
September 21, 2014 Ephesians 2:11-22 Brought Into the Story (Call to Worship)
September 28, 2014 1 John 1.5-2.6 Conformed to the Story (Confession and Forgiveness)
October 5, 2014 1 John 4:7-12 One Another in the Story (Fellowship and Encouragement)
October 12, 2014 Psalm 103:1-14 Singing the Story (Song of Praise)
October 19, 2014 Luke 21:1-4 Giving to the Story (The Offertory)
October 26, 2014 Acts 4 Speaking the Story (The Prayers)
November 2, 2014 Hebrews 4:12-13 Hearing the Story (The Sermon)
November 9, 2014 Mark 14:22-26, 1Cor. 11:23-26 Feeding on the Story (The Supper)
November 16, 2014 Numbers 6:22-27 Sent Into the Story (The Benediction and Commission)
I've been surprisingly grieved by Robin Williams' death.
My first memory of him was when I was about 10 years old and my family was visiting my parents' best friends. At some point in the dinner party, my parents' friends wondered where their normally rambunctious son was. They soon realized the reason the house was so quiet was that their 4 year-old had been downstairs watching Robin Williams on HBO for the last hour.
I loved about 2/3rds of Robin Williams movies, especially the serious ones. But, the 2/3rds I loved roughly coincided with the first 2/3rds of his movie career. I lost interest after Good Will Hunting, after which, aside from Insomnia and One Hour Photo, his singular talent seemed to be predicting the worst films of the year and then asking for a starring-role. (I hear that World's Greatest Dad is great but I haven't seen it.)
But, in the mid 2000's, a friend of mine who's a pastor in San Francisco had the privilege of having Mr. Williams attend his church for a time. Though Robin was raised Episcopalian he found himself in a few Presbyterian churches in California and Oregon during this time and according to my friend, "ambled up to communion just like all the other souls in need of grace." How beautiful!
It was partially this image that stuck with me when I heard of his death. But, it was also the image of him sitting on a bench with Matt Damon and somehow managing to simultaneously convey confrontation and empathy, as only the greatest actors, or therapists are able to do.
I've found myself on youtube far too much these last two days watching old clips with misty eyes and a compulsion to share everything I find with friends - you're not going to believe this! He played an alien on TV, but sometimes his ability to make up completely original comedy on the fly, in front of the likes of Carson and Letterman, seem to be other-worldly, once-in-a-universe gifts.
I have listened to interviews with him from Terry Gross (who I normally can't stand) and Mark Maron. Both are gold mines of humor, self-awareness, and insight into the human condition.
He was such a tender, wounded, and lovely soul.
With Mark Maron, he talks about his search for happiness, for approval, and for meaning and when Maron mentions his "superstar status", Williams said, "The Academy Award lasted about a week and then one week later people are saying “Hey Mork!”
There's so much pain, comedy, and honesty in this line.
I wish I could be that real.
Thanks Robin Williams for not only beautifying our world with your unique humor but also for your authenticity. You are a national treasure and you will be missed. May you rest in Jesus' welcome!
I've generally taken the policy of not talking about other churches or other pastors in a public way. Even though there are hucksters out there, I've generally refrained from calling them by name, partially because I don't think my people need my help in spotting and ignoring them.
Mark Driscoll is a bit different. He ministers in a familiar context and sometimes he says things that sound not only orthodox, but orthodox in a new way - and thus exciting.
He's built a megachurch in a very un-churched part of Seattle and so maybe he's not so easily dismissed as the one who builds a huge church in middle America on a dubious foundation.
But, there are problems with Driscoll's ministry. For years I've cringed at his misogynistic comments, his self-congratulatory corner on the truth, his cavalier rejection and caricature of people who think differently than him.
Friends of mine who do ministry in Seattle have been receiving "refugees" for years and we've been wondering when the wheels were gonna come off this "ministry."
Well apparently they have...or they are. Recently there have been accusations of emotional abuse from former members, a lack of accountability, misappropriation of funds, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote his latest book, and completely inappropriate comments on an early 2000's web forum.
In my weakest moments I've reveled in these revelations with an "I told you so" sneer. I'm not sure who I was sneering at, but it felt so good to be right in my own mind.
I've been convicted however to attempt the opposite, to forgo my reveling in the downfall of another minister and instead pray for him.
I do think he's a bully. I do think he's hurt people. I do think he's empowered other people to see their harmful behavior as spiritually-necessary. I do think he's profaned the name of Christ.
And, I think he needs Jesus, just like I do.
This does not mean that Driscoll should not be held accountable and even made to answer to his accusers. This isn't to say that every church, because it's imperfect, is as harmful and oppressive as Mars Hill has apparently been.
But, as I say every Sunday (in some way or another) that God's grace is never outrun by our sin and even an abusive, confused, self-righteous pastor can receive grace.
And this is what I pray for him...and for me.
Here's a sermon that I think best strikes the balance between accountability and grace. Enjoy:
http://tamedcynic.org/mark-driscoll-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-pastor-2/
We started a new series on the First Epistle of Peter on Sunday, but who is the author?
Here is Steve's intro about the person of Peter.
Peter identifies himself as Peter, the Apostle of Jesus Christ. An apostle was a witness to the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth, someone who had been called and appointed by Jesus to lead this first generation of the new thing called the Church.
This means, Peter isn’t writing this as “friend” or even “pastor” or “leader”. He’s writing this letter under an immense weight of authority - he’s writing it as a called out, appointed, chosen witness of the most disruptive person and event of human history: God become flesh, God dead, God resurrected, in the person of Jesus.
Peter had been with Jesus since the beginning. Jesus came along and called him out of his career as a fisherman.
Peter’s the one who always spoke first among the followers of Jesus. Peter’s the one who, through the revealing work of the Holy Spirit, spoke the words that Jesus was God’s Messiah, the chosen, anointed One of promise that the Jewish nation had been longing for.
Peter is the one who has the audacity to walk on water, and the failure of nerve once he’s out of the boat. Peter is one of three who experienced the transfiguration of Jesus, when the primary prophets of Israel appeared, talking with Jesus, when the voice of God thundered across the mountain that Jesus was his beloved Son, when the appearance of Jesus was changed and made radiant with the glory of God. Peter was there.
Peter was the one who upon hearing Jesus speak of the death that awaited him in Jerusalem vows that it should never be so. The one to whom Jesus says, get behind me satan--you do not have the concerns of God.
Peter was the one who refused to let Jesus wash his feet, but upon hearing that without this washing he’d have no part of Jesus, begs for his entire being to be washed. Peter was the one who vowed never to desert Jesus, even if it meant death.
Tradition has it that Peter was the one who struck off the ear of the High Priest’s servant at the arrest scene of Jesus. Peter was the one who fled, but followed at a distance. Peter was the one who denied Jesus three times, fearing even the penetrating stare of a young girl, cursing up a storm in an attempt to distance himself from the strange God-Man Jesus.
Peter was the one who wept bitterly at his own failure, his own disowning of Jesus. Peter was the one who ran to the empty tomb. Peter was the one who encountered the risen Jesus and was asked, “Peter, do you love me?” Do you love me. Do you love me. Feed my sheep. Feed my sheep.
Peter was the one that Jesus said would be the stone upon which the Church would be built. Peter was the one who, filled with the Holy Spirit, stood up among his brothers and preached the gospel of Jesus crucified and risen.
Peter was the one who had a vision of unclean things being made clean, the one who was told to speak the name of Jesus to Gentiles. Peter was the one who would eventually be dragged to Rome and crucified upside down, a final, gruesome testament to the upending of his entire life by Jesus of Nazareth.
From Pentecost on, Peter wandered among his own people as a stranger, embodying the very exile that he now attributes to the churches scattered throughout Asia Minor.
Peter, the one who’s entire life has been marked by reconciliation to Jesus, the one who’s entire life is now wrapped up in the task Jesus has given to him: to feed the sheep of God, begins to kneed the dough of spiritual bread in this letter to exiles, dispersed throughout the empire.
Many of you were able to join us a few weeks ago for a Parenting Seminar. Rev. Martin Ban was the speaker. He did two sessions that were very informal and question-and-answer oriented.
This was great because participants got their particular questions answered, but in other settings Martin and his wife Mari-Anne have taught Parenting seminars with principles and proverbs for various stages of child development.
So, if you're interested, you can find a summary of these here.
Back in December I promised to write some thoughts on The Reformation and how we should celebrate it. Well, I failed.
Many blogs languish in inattention for months, but I've actually thought about this post many times and have even written 3-4 drafts.
But, each time I was unhappy with my own writing, or I thought of a dozen things left unsaid that could create fodder for people who might be discontent with the post.
But, the other night I read a few blog posts from Peter Leithart on the future of Protestantism that seemed to say a lot of the things that I would have said. I don't agree with everything he said, but he was able to say some of the things I was hoping to with more brevity.
He was delivering a paper at an academic conference which I didn't attend and have not had the chance to watch the videos, but these two posts, after the fact, captured the gist of some of my thoughts about the Reformation.
So, give these a read.
I follow conservative, progressive, and liberal blogs and twitter feeds, believing that reading broadly rather than narrowly gives me the best opportunity to encounter the truth.
So, for the last three weeks or so, after the Ken Ham v. Bill Nye debate, I've been reading summaries of this event that come from very different perspectives. One concludes that "even though I don't agree with Ken Ham's timeline, at least he stands for truth!" Another says that Bill Nye, "exposed the poverty of the creationist perspective as anti-science." Still others think the event was simply a publicity stunt and a coup for Ken Ham because he got to play the role of the silenced minority and thus raise a lot of money.
My response has been to agree with a bit of all of these perspectives. I know, I know, that's the easy way out, but as I consider: the beauty and complexity of the first few chapters of Genesis, the challenges posed to some traditional interpretations of Genesis by broad scientific consensus, the way in which special revelation is meant to interact with general revelation, and as a pastor who wants to teach his people to read and live the Bible well - no sound-bite summary of this debate seems to be adequate.
Ken Ham wants to afford the Bible a special, preeminent place in the life of the church, and that is to be applauded. But, he employs interpretive decisions that are suspect and end up making Bible-believing Christians look like obscurantists who are bound and determined to believe their interpretation of the truth no matter what the facts say.
Bill Nye on the other hand wants to educate us, primarily he wants to educate us obscurantist Christians about what science really teaches. As the argument goes, if we'll reckon with the scientific consensus then we'll have to jettison these faith claims about how God created the world.
But, as our media outlets generally do for us, presenting these two options as the only viable perspectives saves us the trouble of complex thinking - either we can believe that science or the Bible is providing us with the facts and there is no third way.
But you see, scientific practitioners don't do their work in a vacuum where faith is a meaningless abstraction. Nor do the best biblical interpreters cordon off their pursuits from the insights of science. The scientific method is it's own faith commitment and the Bible as special revelation is best read in light of general revelation - of what is discovered as truth outside the Bible.
This should caution scientists from just assuming that their discoveries are THE TRUTH, while at the same time coloring our biblical insights with humility because the Bible doesn't drop down from the sky as THE TRUTH but must be interpreted in light of historical context, the subjectivity of the reader, and inquiry into general revelation.
In a proper quest for truth, neither should get to dismiss the other.
A lack of awareness for our a priori commitments makes us less trustworthy scientists and a lack of appreciation for the insights of our brothers and sisters doing scientific inquiry makes us less nuanced and accurate Bible readers.
So, getting back to the debate, Ken Ham appears to live within a worldview that says, "no matter how air-tight, how peer-reviewed, how broad the scientific consensus is, if it threatens our present interpretation of the Bible, it must be rejected." And, he raises lots of money with this argument because the adherents of this view feel persecuted and that's a powerful incentive to give money.
But, Bill Nye has chosen to debate the "low hanging fruit" in coming to the Creation Museum. He's debating a Christian perspective that few Christians treat seriously as if it represents the whole. He's yet to grapple with people like Alister McGrath, John Polkinghorne, Francis Collins, or Jennifer Wiseman...just to name a few of the serious scientists who profess Christianity.
So, I guess what bugs me is framing this debate as the Bible v. Science, as well as the fact that many "Bible-believing" Christians love to frame the debate this way. There's a lot of fundraising power in pitting the Bible v. Science but that's not actually very biblical way to look at the world.
Some people refer to Ephesians 5.22 as the sort of passage that made them leave the church, while others cite it as a clarion call to reassert vital distinctions between biblical manhood and womanhood.
Are these the only two options? Is it either a passage that keeps oppressive hierarchies in place, or one of the primary biblical texts that provide us with important distinctions between male and female giving contrast to our culture's tendency to blur gender distinctions?
Well, if you've been around Intown very long, you may be familiar with our reticence to be boxed into binary options and that I'm gonna suggest there's a third way.
If you guessed this, you would be right. There is a third way to be found in this passage. Or, it would be better said that there is a third way to be found between common interpretations of this passage.
There is something important that both "sides" of this argument are tuned into and there are important things that both of them miss.
On one hand, shouldn't we be able to address the way that certain interpretations of biblical passages have been used to support gender-based hierarchies that keep the powerful comfortably in place? And yet, can't we affirm that God created mankind "male" and "female" with all the beautiful distinctions that come with that?
Yes.
That's what we want to explore on Sunday morning. Not only is there a valid way to interpret this passage that takes the best instincts of both of these options, and yet at the same time critiques those who would make an idol of either.
We also want to explore what it means to be a church that welcomes people that lean either way in this discussion, and everywhere in between. We want to take the opportunity of looking at a potentially divisive passage to talk about what it means to be a church that finds unity in diversity rather than sameness.
So, join us this Sunday as we explore these questions.
The "Happy Reformation Day?" post about a month ago generated a lot of healthy discussion in our small groups as well as over email (though strangely, there's only one comment on the post itself!)
Many readers responded with, "yeah, that totally makes sense" or "I've never thought about the unintended consequences of the Reformation before." But a few others, though appreciating the general direction of the post, thought it would be helpful to read a follow-up that expanded on some of the "vital insights" to the Christian gospel that we owe to the Reformers that I alluded to in the post.
I'm happy to do this! After all, I'm a Pastor ordained in a Reformed church, so it is important to me.
Now, one of the weaknesses of the original post was it's length, or or more accurately, it's brevity. You see, when you try to say anything, you can never say everything, or you'll end up saying nothing at all. (hat tip to my professor, Richard Pratt.)
So in any blog post there's bound to be intended and non-intended "gaps" where the reader is left wondering, "well, I wonder what he thinks about that?" This is unavoidable, but when the topic is theology, or heroes of the faith, or the real heirs of the Reformation, those "gaps" can create more heat than light and may need to be addressed.
So, what I'd like to do is to put together a few posts that will help Intowner's (and maybe a few others) understand what it means that we're a Reformed church, why we feel this is important, and what we owe to the theological and political upheaval known as The Reformation.
So, in the coming days I'd like to give a short historical overview of the Reformation, place Intown within this historical context, and then review some of the most salient theological insights that guide our ministry today.
Intown leaders have been working behind the scenes on our budget for 2014 and it prompted me to think through our principles for generosity. This isn't an official pronouncement of new church bylaws or anything like that, just some pastoral reflections on the shape of giving and generosity at our church (or at least what I hope for them to be.)
I think there are also lot of takeaways for individuals and families too so give them a read and let me know what you think!
1) Gratitude for the grace of God is what prompts generosity.
2) We pray for Giving that is: Joyful rather than begrudging, Thoughtful rather than Random, and Sacrificial rather than Negligible.
3) The Offertory is the place in the liturgy where we devote in principle and practice the best of our Time, Talent, and Treasure as Tribute to the God.
4) Intown is a community of people coming from a variety of backgrounds and so we want to help people pastorally and patiently to grow in giving without feeling pressured.
5) We want to develop the idea of the local Church as an agent of personal and social change. Worship through word, sacrament, fellowship, etc. empowers persons toward compassion - toward those who are burdened and hurting.
6) Thus, when we support the "work and worship" of the church we are supporting the transformation of the lives of people who have a network of relationships in which they can be the hands, feet, and words of Christ.
7) All ministries and churches have administrative and operational costs whether they are located in the Upper West Side or Skid Row. We should never try to deflect attention from this reality while at the same time enabling members to see the direct relationship between administration and transformation, operations and service.
8) Local churches have demonstrated long-term impact by building social, relational, emotional, and spiritual capital that translates into long term support of various organizations and ministries and we want to uphold that tradition.
9) We will have to continuously deconstruct our "cultural narrative of consumption" through teaching, service, and discipleship. We long to see “consumers” to be reborn as “contributors.”
10) We want to help people place the "Offertory" in it's proper place in the liturgy, understanding that the weekly offering is as much an act of worship as singing a song or listening to a sermon.
11) The offering is unrepentantly a redistribution of wealth in God’s economy. Americans will inevitably bristle this characterization and yet it may be just this sort of rhetorical flourish that will enable us to see how deeply embodied and communitarian the Christian life is meant to be.
12) People need to be captivated by the vision and mission; people who know how to answer, “Why Intown Church?” will give more graciously and generously!
13) The tithe is not an inviolable law in the New Testament, but should be seen as a helpful guideline because of its longstanding use within the people of God. Perhaps it should be considered the “training wheels” of giving.
13) Giving is the ultimate act of cruciformity - He who was rich, for our sake became poor. So, developing a strategy for giving is one of the primary acts of discipleship, one of most critical pathways of sanctification.
I've been a part of churches that have recognized and celebrated Reformation Day, and not even as a protest against Halloween!
These are churches that don't bind the consciences of their members about Halloween (or as I like to call it, national Meet Your Neighbors Day) but simply recognize Oct. 31st as a symbolic celebration of The Reformation.
I say it's symbolic because the posting of the 95 Theses by Martin Luther on October 31st of 1517 was certainly not the start of the Reformation. The Reformation was maybe 200 years in the making by then, instigated by the work of Wycliffe and Hus.
But, symbolism is important, and what symbolism are we recognizing when we acknowledge or even celebrate Reformation Day?
To me, the reforms of the Reformation are vital insights to the Christian gospel. As Protestant Christians we should never shy away from the fact that Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Bucer, Calvin, Melancthon, etc. were engaged in drawing the Church back to its historic, orthodox roots.
Yet, at the same time, even during the Reformation, we see the seeds of future chasm and sectarianism that has haunted the Christian Church for over 500 years.
In 1529 Phillip of Hesse invited Luther and Ulrich Zwingli to a Colloquy (a conversation). Phillip is an astute politician and he hopes to create concord between emerging theological factions. But Luther comes to the conversation thinking Zwingli is a heretic (not a real good start to a conversation), so that's a challenge! But as they talk about 15 points and sub-points, they find that they're in substantial agreement on almost everything. Agreement and mutuality is in the air!
However, they get to the last point, actually they get to the last 1/3 of the last point. Here's the moment where Western Christianity either stays together or splinters, and they can't come to consensus. On the last 1/3rd of 15 points, regarding the "real presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper, they depart and the Colloquy of Marburg is a failure.
So, should we celebrate this?
Should we commemorate the moment in history when the Christian church became even more splintered and sectarian? It wasn't too many years later that Christianity became a competitive denominational affair, with each sect trying to differentiate itself from the other, and people constantly dividing over the last 1/3 of 15 points.
While there's much to celebrate about what the Reformation reclaimed, it feels a bit misguided to celebrate without caveat the "moment" where the Christian Church began to splinter and differentiate like no other time in its history.
I appreciate the insight of Chuck Degroat as he reflects upon the tremendous insights and the tragic unintended consequences of the Protestant Reformation here.
If only us Calvinists could be more like Calvin.
