Search

Bo Sanders: Public Theology

updating & innovating for today

Open Search
Category

Church

Preaching to the Choir

How should we handle the ‘crisis of the week‘ from the pulpit?

In my year of being a professor I visited lots of churches. I noticed a predictable trend:

  • Evangelicals never preaching on the news
  • Mainliners almost exclusively preached on the news

I made a decision (based on past experience) to go a different direction – and it has led to mixed results.

Do I need to change my sermon every time something happens in the news? If I did that, all I would ever do is respond to the ‘crisis of the week’ … but if I never do it, then I am not speaking to the issues of the day.

I could use some help thinking this through.

0

3 Types of Church

There are three types of churches when it comes to their ‘relationship to power’: [1]

  • Messianic
  • Therapeutic
  • Prophetic

Messianic churches look for ‘help’ from outside the system. Whether it is the 2nd Coming of Christ or intercessory prayer, there is an expectation of an intervention (even salvation) from a source outside of (or beyond) the current order. This is often an unseen realm.

Therapeutic churches help you adjust to the system the way it is. These churches want to help you have your best life now. The priority is to help you be the best citizen you can be (at minimum) or to excel in your field so you can be an influential person within your networks.

Prophetic churches are looking to change the system. They want advocate for those on the margins and the disadvantaged. They utilize advocacy, community organizing, and protest to leverage those in power to change public policy and legislation toward justice and equality.

Here is where it gets more interesting:

Each of the primary expressions has a secondary emphasis … and an unfortunate neglected element.

Messianic churches (change from the outside) seem to have a therapeutic element where they help people to adjust to the system as it is while they wait for deliverance from above (or beyond). Unfortunately, these churches often neglect the prophetic aspect (changing the current system) because it seems like ‘rearranging deck chairs on the titanic’. There can be a resignation or ‘other-world-liness’[2] as a side-effect of this approach.

Therapeutic churches (helping you within the system) seem to have a prophetic element which focuses on issues of  ‘social-justice’ in order to change certain givens in the equation to variables that can be adjusted. Unfortunately, these churches often neglect the messianic component which believes that there are any resources available from outside the system (or established order). This can result in a generational (or personal) crisis that asks “who or what is it exactly that we believe in / pray to ? And what exactly are we hoping for here?”

Prophetic churches (changing the system) seem to have a messianic element which looks to a power ‘beyond’ or ‘above’ that will supply a needed element of transformation in order to bring justice and deliverance to those in need. Unfortunately, these churches can neglect the therapeutic component of religious belief and practice. This lack often leads to participants feeling worn-out or burned-out, depleted and discouraged. Hope in the messianic aspect, without the therapeutic, becomes even more vital.

When I present this in the seminary classroom I give examples of each:

  1. a Therapeutic/prophetic church (like I am at currently) that struggles with messianic spirituality because the ‘interventionist’ view of god seems problematic.
  2. a Prophetic/messianic church that does protest and ‘action’ but struggles with therapeutic spirituality because it is soft or too ‘me’ focused.
  3. Messianic/therapeutic church (like I use to be) that struggles with prophetic action because of ideas like the ‘2 kingdoms’ which has the spiritual realm (or kingdom of god) as over and above the kingdoms of this world.

Here is an introductory video. Please let me know you thoughts, examples, concerns, and questions.

[1] Power is alternatively known as: the ‘system’, the powers that be, the man, institutional power, and the status-quo, among other things.

[2] NoTW – ‘Not of This World’ is an odd consumer expression of passages like Romans 12:1-2, John 15:19, John 17:14 & 16, John 18:36, Colossians 3:2, Philippians 3:20-21, Ephesians 6:12, and 1 John 2:15-17.

1

Time for Church 2.0

Interactive Church is my passion.

This week we finally go all the way to Church 2.0 with my current congregation! We have been practicing the component parts and building a culture of conversational listening for 2 years. This Sunday we put it all together for the first time.

You can find videos for Interactive Church (2.0) here [link]

Each of our Sunday gatherings are conceived of in 3 Acts and each act is centered around something (usually involving a table).

Last week was:

  1. Coffee Table Conversations
  2. Sermon/Homily
  3. Communion Table

This week will be:

  1. Presentation of Seven Passions
  2. Coffee Table Conversations
  3. Comparing Notes ‘at the table’.

Here is a short (7 min) video about ‘putting it all together’ and why it is time for Church 2.0

Please let me know if you have any questions or clarifications

0

Are Denomination (like Methodism) Antiques?

Not all antiques are created equal.

Some are just knick-knacks and mostly just ornamental or conversation starters.

Some are still useful and they come with a novelty factor.

Others need to be repurposed for some use other than their original one.

There even ‘reproductions’ that are designed take the best of the old model but which integrate new technology. These have been updated but in a way that still pays homage to the original purpose.

There are also antiques that don’t know that they are antiquated.

Denominations, like Methodism, are going through a challenging time. Their infrastructure and polity come from a European model leftover from State-Church models that prospered in Christendom. Even backlash movements (like early Methodism) become labored in legislation, politics, and governmental frameworks.

I am asking if they are ‘usable antiques’ or do they need to be repurposed. Are they able to be updated to include new innovation? Are they ornamental or can they be adapted in a way that still pays homage to the original design and vision.

Enjoy this video and let me know what you think.

0

Interactive Church

Church 2.0, Church in the round or Interactive Church is my favorite topic and in the past 5 years I have had the great joy of presenting the idea to large and small groups all over the place.

The two most common initial concerns seem to be

  • A) how do you facilitate the conversation part?
  • B) what about the liturgy?

The conversation part is easy once you get the hang of it. There are lots of little tricks that help keep people on track and to make those small groups of 3-6 people a dynamic engagement.

I have created a page on my church website for those who are interesting in updating and innovating their Sunday morning gatherings. https://vermonthillsumc.org/interactive-church/  “questions” is the bottom video

The liturgy questions, I have figured out, is easily explained by simply showing people our worship guide from the previous week. Once they see that it has a flow and an order – that is is not a chaotic free for all – they get how the different elements come together.

I thought it would be good post this week’s Order of Service to give you a taste.  The sermon is a version of my ‘pep talk’ Be Bold – it probably wont work anyway

_____________

Prelude
Welcome
*Call to Worship
*Song: “The Potter’s Hand”

*Morning Prayer

*Passing of the Peace  Please greet someone new and refill your coffee or tea

Choir Anthem

Pennies From Heaven (offering) We collect spare change to support Neighborhood House

Song “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel” Hymn #211 (v 1,2)

Scripture: Isaiah 42:1-9
Homily: Be Bold, Bullies are Not Subtle
Video

Prayers of the People

*Song: “Doxology”
Conversation

Announcements

Offering

*Song: “Instruments of Peace”

*Benediction

_________________

So you can see that it is basically a mainline liturgical service with ONE BIG difference: the main event is the conversation and not the sermon.

Tomorrow we are using the ‘Talk Back’ style of questions where people first talk in groups of 3-6 about the homily topic (be bold) and then I will go around the room with a cordless mic asking if anyone would like share what their group talked about. This is an emergent component where the smaller conversations give rise to the larger expression. It is unscripted while at the same time directed by the topic. It is not determined  but it is also not a ‘talk about whatever you want’.

It is real. It is live. It is vulnerable. It is electric.

I love doing church this way. I always learn so much from the congregation. They bring such interesting insights, perspectives, experiences, and challenges. This is why it is important to have diversity in the room: different generations, relationship histories, genders, sexual orientations, race, economic and education levels, and religious backgrounds.

Let me know if you have questions, clarifications, concerns, etc. I will let you know how it goes tomorrow. 

2

Formula For Success?

Is this a formula for success?  Not everyone thinks so!
Focused Intensity – over Time – multiplied by the ‘God’ factor
I always pay attention when push-back does not follow a predictable bell-curve.
In this case, the concerns were equally divided into quarters.
Watch this 5 min video and let me know what you think.
0

Favorite & Least Favorite Part Of Church

In the past month I have been told by somebody that each element of our Sunday gatherings is their favorite … and somebody else’s least favorite.

  • Passing of the Peace
  • Music and Singing
  • Prayer
  • Sermon
  • Conversation
  • Communion
  • Videos

This is fascinating to me – and I love that we can talk about it!

This is part of our life together. This is how community works. Each aspect or element connects with some and may not with another. BUT when you put it all together … that is where things become life-giving and dynamic.

0

Interactive Church

I had the opportunity earlier this week to be with leaders who are doing innovative things in their communities and ministry settings.

I got to talk about ‘why we do church this way’. I love to think through how to do and be church in the 21st century. I like to call it ‘a liturgy of listening and learning’.

Interactive church brings together the best of constructive approaches, emergent thought, church 2.0, and church as google. It is not top-down and heavy-handed in a prescriptive way, it is open-minded and open-ended.

Here is the link the podcast audio: http://vermonthillsumc.org/podcast/interactive-church/

Below are my notes if you want to follow along – and at the bottom is the powerpoint

feel free to comment here or email me at VHUMCpastor@gmail.com

 

Interactive Church

An Embodied Practice Of Dialogue As

Prophetic Ministry To Argument Culture

 

Location of Resistance and Transformation (Church In The Round)

 

Context Is Crucial

Interactive Society

Contribution, Collaboration, Conversation

98% of Church Groups and Activities

Except …

 

The Moment is (a)Live

Web 1.0

Web 2.0

Interactive Church is an invitation and an opportunity

People bring their experience, insight, and perspective

Integrated Not Exceptional

Compliment Not Supplement

 

Positive

Methodists are built for it (DNA)

Small Groups

Wesleyan Quad

Communal Discernment

 

Negative

What we do doesn’t make disciples

It makes spectators of Spectacle

Pre-scribed

Re-hearsed

 

Church As Search Engine

Not Warehouse but Journey

Not Encyclopedia but Web

Different Metrics

3 months – 3 years – 3 decades

 

Interactive Church [powerpoint]

0

Skinny Jean Fundamentalists

Broderick Greer, who often writes insightful and sharp critiques on his twitter feed, set off an interesting conversation with his tweet:

“The evangelicals with instagram hipster aesthetics and churches that meet in theatres know EXACTLY what they’re doing: Misleading otherwise-progressive urbanites to adopt fundamentalism in skinny jeans, accompanied by a drum set.”

The conversation took a non-sequitur turn when subtweeted:

“I have personally been duped by churches where the pastors wear traditional stoles with crosses on them, only to find out years later that no one on the pastoral staff affirms the resurrection.”

The opinions that flew in response to her were varied and fascinating.

I have three quick reflections on these tweets that I would love to hear your response to.

First, in my year out of church ministry I had a chance to go to different church services each Sunday. I would mix it up between Evangelical and Mainline congregations mostly. Sometimes I went to multiple churches on the same morning. It was an eye-opening experience.

Perhaps the most interesting trend I saw was that the more conservative an Evangelical church was – the more fashionable the clothing style. It was odd enough that I would comment on it to my students (I was a visiting seminary prof.) They were well aware of this pattern.

Turns out that lots of non-LGBTQ affirming churches dress really hip.

I first noticed the trend about a decade ago, ever since the Mark Driscoll led Mars Hill Church in Seattle was so over the top at it. At first, I thought that maybe it was more pronounce here in the Pacific NW (I live in Portland) but then I asked friends around the country and it is actually probably even worse east of the Rockies.

I now understand why nearly everyone who visits a church has scouted the website first. Rock-n-Roll evangelical churches may say “all are welcome” but if they are not open-and-affirming or don’t support women in ministry … eventually it will come out.

Second, I am not sure how ‘progressive’ is being used in this current debate. When I use progressive (as in ‘Bible Study for Progressives’) I mean that:

  1. History has progressed and the present is not the same as the past.
  2. The arc of history is long and there is a trajectory towards justice.
  3. That trajectory is more inclusive and empowering of formerly marginalized and disadvantaged people and groups.
  4. The future is not found in reclaiming a romanticized notion of the past.

In this sense, I’m not sure that ANY of these ‘hip’ evangelicals would qualify as progressive. Broderick is Anglican so maybe Rock-n-Roll evangelicals are progressive when it comes to worship innovation?

How do you understand ‘progressive’?  I want to make sure I know what others are hearing when I identify as a progressive.

Third, I am amazed how any conversation about ‘the’ resurrection – both for and against it – presume a literalist physical view. The result is that both views miss the point of resurrection entirely.

The resurrection is one of my favorite topics because the either/or options that most people have been provided after the Enlightenment seem to be a real barrier. The conservative versus liberal arguments about a physical versus spiritual resurrection seem to focus on the probability and provability of a resuscitated corpse and sound dangerously close to gnostic notions of body and spirit.

The gospel narratives, on the other hand, point to a Jesus who had a glorified body post-Easter.  It could both walk through walls (for miraculous entrances) but was solid enough to make breakfast on the shore for His disciples. It bore the scars of Calvary so that (doubting) Thomas could touch His side where the spear had entered but different enough that He could be mistaken for strangers at first. He was neither a zombie nor a ghost – we have completely missed the point of Easter: glory.

Resurrection created an Easter people who live into hope, possibility, justice, imagination, and second chances. Life ruptured death. Christ penetrated history and split it in two. Hope overcame darkness.

New life rose up on the other side of this life. This is the proleptic moment. We know the future of every human and of all living things: New Creation.

 

I look forward to your thoughts.

 

0

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑