Street Prophets

Covenant First

Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:52:01 AM PDT

Dude from UCCTruths didn't like what I had to say about First Congregational Marshfield:

Pastor Dan presumes that Rev. Howard's first responibilty is to the denomination rather than the spirtual well being of the church. The denomination (not just ours, but any denominaition) should never be the first priority - our first priority is fellowship in Christ. This sort of 'denomination first' junk leads to the 'herd mentality' where everyone plays follow the leader... which can sometimes lead to bad decisions where critical thinking gets thrown out the window in favor of "the denomination". The perfect example of this was when our denominational leaders were hell bent on passing a divestment from Israel resolution over the objections of the committee charged with studying the issue and the guy in charge of the denomination's investments. The delegates to General Synod (with rings firmly in their noses) voted in favor of the bad resolution because it was the official position of our leadership. Rev. Howard's priority should be on the spirtual well-being of the church, not cheerleading for the denomination.

This is so ignorant I hardly know where to begin.

  • ::

For one thing maintaining ties with the denomination is looking to the congregation's "spiritual well-being".

The Epistle to the Hebrews tells us:

Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings; for it is well for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by regulations about food, which have not benefited those who observe them.

That's in the context of a congregation who are tempted to end their affiliation with the Christian movement and return to Judaism.

Paul instructs his disciple Timothy:

Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

He warns him in another letter:

For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires.

And he reproves the churches in Galatia for wandering away from what he has taught them - in no uncertain terms:

You were running well; who prevented you from obeying the truth? 8Such persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough. 10I am confident about you in the Lord that you will not think otherwise. But whoever it is that is confusing you will pay the penalty. 11But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. 12I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!

And he tells the churches in Ephesus:

We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming.

And Peter says:

Now as an elder myself and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as one who shares in the glory to be revealed, I exhort the elders among you to tend the flock of God that is in your charge, exercising the oversight, not under compulsion but willingly, as God would have you do it—not for sordid gain but eagerly. Do not lord it over those in your charge, but be examples to the flock. And when the chief shepherd appears, you will win the crown of glory that never fades away.

In the same way, you who are younger must accept the authority of the elders. And all of you must clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, so that he may exalt you in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him, because he cares for you.

Discipline yourselves, keep alert. Like a roaring lion your adversary the devil prowls around, looking for someone to devour. Resist him, steadfast in your faith, for you know that your brothers and sisters in all the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering.

And again Peter said:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will even deny the Master who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

And this is without looking at the Exodus story, or the prophets, or Peter's attempt to walk on the water, which has a clear message - disciples are meant to stay in the boat with the other disciples, not wander off on their own.

Need I go on? If you cannot grasp that keeping the community together is spiritual work, you have clearly not understood scripture.

Nevertheless. In the United Church of Christ, pastors sign on to a Code of Ethics which explicitly bans doing harm to the denomination. We are equally responsible to the congregation and to the wider church. It is unethical to lead a congregation out of the denomination, actively or passively, and every minister in the church knows it. That's why I said I'd do my best to get the credentials of any such pastor revoked. It's really no different than if somebody embezzled funds from a parishioner suffering from Alzheimer's. You do not get to do the wrong thing knowing that it's wrong and expect to get off without consequence.

Most important, however, is that this is not a matter of "denomination first." Whatever the faults of John Thomas or the national leadership of the denomination - and I'm sure there are many - the fact is that each congregation has entered into covenant with the wider church. That is what holds our denomination together, and you're damn right I have nothing but scorn for the people who would undermine it. I'd have the same contempt for someone who taught his congregation that the marital covenant meant nothing.

Covenant, I should not need to remind any Christian, is formed and sealed under the watchful eye of God. The relationship of church to church is not a matter of social convenience, but the result of God's calling the community into being. To walk away from that calling over something so trivial as the discomfort caused by a sermon is to spit in the eye of God. If Rev. Howard cannot articulate that basic principle for his congregation, then he is in the wrong business.

Living in the UCC is not always easy, but neither is marriage, and more to the point, neither is living with God. First Congregational Marshfield should get over themselves and start working on what it means to live together in the uneasy life of Christ.


Tags: United Church of Christ, Church, Theology (all tags)

Permalink | 8 comments

    • I heard a rumor (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Thirst

      that some of the churches that joined together to form the UCC had a more connectional polity than others.  Even so, Covenant Theology is a part of all the traditions that joined together.

      In other news, I thought I had seen the editor of UCCTruths say that you were one of the few Progressive bloggers he would consider debating.  Is that supposed to be a compliment?  (I should clarify that the only time I was mentioned on his blog, he called me a "nut")

      When I fall on my face with my knees to the rising sun, oh Lord, have mercy on me.

      by Rusty Pipes on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 05:43:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • Faithful Catholics (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Thirst, Coleridge Lite

    I have a special respect for faithful  progressive Catholics, who don't even regard their Church in the limited sense of a protestant "denomination."  I think they have a  deeper sense of what it's about,  there's no choice of "disaffiliation." They is  or they ain't, & the Church  goes on  with or without them. If they don't like the Pope, they can't take a vote, sue the Diocese for ownership of the building,  then go  out front & repaint the sign.

    "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx http://wfmu.org/playlists/RX

    by Asbury Park on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:47:51 PM PDT

  • When did the notion of being Christian (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Asbury Park, Thirst, Coleridge Lite

    begin to require comfort?  Far too often have I heard that "the Meeting" needs to (or should) do (meet my needs for) X (substitute cause de jour).

    It raises an immediate alarm whenever I hear "the Church" or "the Meeting" should do anything.  The first consideration is the form of the noun, specifically the abstract third person form of the noun.  It is almost never stated as "we should", it is generally stated as the other, "the Church", should.  This is the breaking of covenant, right there, little more need be said.

    However, to polish off the thought, the basic language puts another in putative charge of one's spiritual condition.  Being a Quaker botanist, I am rather quick anymore to refuse such responsibility.

    I believe that it is each of our responsibilities to carry our concerns directly to our brother, and if we are not heard, to carry it to a larger body of brothers, and then to the Church as a whole.  I am no theologian, but I am quite sure that there is scriptural backing for this proposition.

  • Am I missing something? (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Asbury Park, Thirst, Coleridge Lite

    This church wanted to leave the denomination, as I recall, because some presiding official delivered a sermon on global warming on a church anniversary.  That seems to me to be more like a "straw that broke the camel's back" than it does to be the whole story.  Leaving a denomination isn't an easy decision for a congregation - or it shouldn't be.  

    What gives?  Am I alone in thinking that this sounds like the ass-end of some half-told story?

    • Seems about right to me. (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Rusty Pipes, hamletta, Thirst
      There might be more to this story than we know. But of course, the church went to the press with only the part that's been told, so they get to own their actions.
    • It does seem like an overreaction (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Thirst

      Sounds like some people in the congregation were looking for an excuse to break from the denomination.  And if the congregation wants to be a passive audience in church and not be bothered by responsibility to take action on the problems of the world, then I can understand having issues with the UCC.

      It is interesting, though, to see the stories like this that remind me of the range of congregations in the UCC.  If there was a sermon from a denominational bigwig at MY congregation that DIDN'T include a call to action on the issues of the day, we might be similarly upset (but wouldn't dream of leaving the denomination).  But then, we're liberal even by UCC standards...

Permalink | 8 comments