Pastors and Evangelists

In a semi-recent post, the thought-provoking Vice Moderator of our denomination suggested in a "letter" to God that perhaps it was time for the Numinous Font of All Being to stop calling people to be pastors.  With fewer and fewer congregations, the folks who come a-boppin' bright-eyed and bushy tailed out of seminary have a problem.  Here you are, all afire for Jesus and filled with the latest and greatest ideas, and...there's nowhere to go.   Our shrinking congregational ecosystem is already supersaturated with folks who can take your M.Div., and raise you a Doctorate, 25 years of experience, a well-received book, and a deep and broad network of social connections within the denomination.

When it comes to finding a call, you're up [polity] creek without a paddle.

Sure, a few churches will have the boldness to look beyond the siren song of expansive resumes and credentials and publications.  Some will take that risk on a promising new pastor.  But most won't.  We're Presbyterians, after all.  Risk is something we manage, not take on.

The Good Rev. Whitsitt then suggested that perhaps the Great Cloud of Unknowing should call some evangelists instead, and this suggestion was well taken.  But evangelism is not a strength of our system, truth be told.   Take a look at our Ordination Exams, and you get a good sense of what we care about.  We care about Polity, and Worship, and Bible writ both broad and deep.  But ain't no Evangelism Exam for hopeful pastors.

Not that I'm saying there should be.  The last thing we need is yet another Good Idea to stack up on top of our camel's long-broken back.  Lord have mercy.

Still, it's evidently not a priority.  We're oriented towards not what might be, but towards what is and was.

And there, I wonder about how willing we'd be structurally to prioritize calling folks as evangelists.   It does sound great, mind you.  We like talking that talk.  But in practice, how would a system that is already in retreat respond to that call?   As I was personally preparing to transition out of my prior ministry last year, I found myself musing about the possibility of starting something up.  The idea of creating an a-locational gathering was particularly exciting.  

When I did the personal SWOT analysis of weaknesses and threats, though, I looked out at my community...and at the prospect of doing something like that locally...I just couldn't fail to notice that there was already a set of PC(USA) congregations in place.  Most of them are healthy churches.  I know the pastors leading them, and know their aspirations and hopes for growing their communities.

Within the dynamics of the existing Presbyterian landscape, where was there the space to plant?  How could you do something, even something that bore no resemblance to existing congregational structures and expectations, without being perceived as "threatening the system?"  And if you "threaten the system," the odds of getting support from that same system are as likely as Ron Paul becoming the GOP nominee.

But it went deeper.  Knowing those communities of faith and their efforts, I had no desire to compete with them, or to take any actions that might mess with them.   When you conceptualize those in surrounding congregations not as 1) folks who just don't get Jesus in the special magical fashion-forward way you do or 2) competitors in the AmeriChrist marketplace, things get different.   When you see them as brothers, sisters, and fellow walkers of the Way, the task of evangelizing becomes more...complex.

John Calvin Says Scripture is not the Word of God

Recently, there was a minor stirring within the shrinking corner of the Reformed Tradition that I inhabit. Landon Whitsitt, the new Vice-Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), is someone whose blog I've been feeding since well before he got that rather long and impressive title. Up until he was selected for that esteemed position, he was...as I am...more or less invisible to the reactionary wing of our denomination.

Now, though, he's gotten their attention. He's done so by offering up this thought: Sola Scriptura may no longer be the rule of the church, and it's something he's moved away from. This pressed the rather large and well-worn panic button at the headquarters of the Layman, the right-wing publication which polices matters of fundamentalist orthodoxy in our neck of the woods. Claxons and red lights and alarms went off. They printed an actually-rather-fair summary of Whitsitt's conversation, attached to the headline: "Vice Moderator: Scripture is Not the Word of God." This was followed by much irate shouting and stomping around on their response page. How can a church leader suggest that Scripture alone is not adequate? We're going to heck in a handbasket! We're abandoning the core principle of the Reformation! Apostasssseeeeeeeeee!

Problem is, Sola Scriptura as a free-standing and defining principle is simply not adequate. Scripture...meaning the sacred texts and narratives of our faith...is not sufficient in and of itself. It does not stand alone. It can't. It never has. You can know those texts and stories backwards and forwards, and even the most detailed intellectual knowledge of that data will not make you a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth. Spend even 10 minutes in discussion with a committed and studied atheist with a chip on her shoulder, and the truth of that will become clear.

That's because Scripture derives its meaning from the power of the Holy Spirit working in the heart of a reader. It is the Spirit that guides our interpretation of Scripture. It is the Spirit that opens us to the significance of that narrative for our own existence. Scripture does not stand as an authority for us, and cannot stand as the basis for our salvation, without the Spirit at work. Yeah, I know, this is squishy liberal relativism. It's the sort of thing you get from hopeless pomo leftists like, say, John Calvin, who wrote:

The testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men's hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded. (Institutes, I.vii.4)

If what connects us with Scripture is our personal connection to the Spirit of the living God, and what allows us to recognize its authority is that Spirit, then Sola Scriptura cannot be a foundational axiom without making explicit that rather significant caveat.

That, as I see it, is the fundamental failure of Christian fundamentalism.