President Obama offered a few words when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize this week.  He spoke of “just war” and “just peace” and the difficulties of identify or waging both.  Here are three paragraphs that caught my attention.  Click here to read the entire text of his remarks.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there’s nothing weak — nothing passive — nothing naïve — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it’s incompatible with the very purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Clark Williamson was interviewed for Disciplesworld (currently on the website).  It is worth a moment or two.  His answer to one question caught my attention because it captures exactly what I, and a remnant, think is the reason for the decline of our denomination.

Q: What are your hopes and fears for the future of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)?

A: Williamson: The hope has been for a long time that the Disciples could regain their early commitment to genuine theological reflection.  For our founders, unity was important but honestly only one of their deepest commitments.  Another one, which is seldom mentioned any more, was their insistence on the “interpretation principle” — that every Christian has the right and duty to engage in personal interpretation of the Christian faith.  We eschewed creeds in order to free people to think.  What has largely happened, however, is that our lack of dogma has instead had the perverse effect of giving people an excuse to refuse to think.  In my view, it is our lack of theologically creative and critical reflection that lies at the heart of our decline.  Faith is a way of life in which theology is not the basic fact, but to which theological thinking is critically necessary.  I play this out in my theology, Way of Blessing, Way of Life (Chalice Press).  And [CTS professor] Ron Allen and I provide a diagnosis of the argument about “mainstream decline” in The Teaching Minister (Westminster/John Knox), for those inclined to look into these matters.

Click here to read the entire conversation with Williamson by Brian Morse.

When I first heard of, and then read, the Nazareth Consensus document suggesting a rewrite of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) understanding of the Order of Ministry I felt queazy.  Now, four months separated from the General Assembly, where a standing vote was not required to pass the resolution on the Order of Ministry, my motion sickness remains.(1)  What is becoming of our denomination?  How is it that the vocation of ministry has been diminished so much that we are casting aside a unique heritage and mission for a generic purpose driven existence?  Where is the spirit of Stone and Campbell?

My closest peers suggest that I do not blog openly on this topic.  One, they know the ideas and feelings I have about the issue.  Two, they know how easily I break into rant.  Three, Discipledom is a small family and my peers, like me, know that Search and Call is a managed process: Regional Ministers, references, and timely administrative follow through are as much a part of the process as a sense of call to a ministry position where one’s profile might surface.  Given our polity it is a necessary system that protects congregations, the clergy, and in theory speeds the process of sifting and matching candidates with seeking congregations so as to not waste anyone’s time.   Four, there is no way to discuss the issue, on either side of it, without passion or personal investment. Those claiming to be some kind of objective “policy wonk” position, if they are within Christendom, are just kidding themselves.  Thus the reminder: be cautious.

The new Order of Ministry (to go into effect in August 2011) changes the language of “licensed” to “commissioned” ministers.  This semantic change seems fitting for a denomination that considers itself a “people of the book.”  The new Order retains ordained ministry with the Master of Divinity degree, from an accredited academic institution, and adds an alternative track to ordination that does not require the MDiv degree (or any other academic degree).  In short, the new Order takes the accountability granted a congregation and a Regional Commission on the Ministry to make exceptions for a candidate seeking ordination without an MDiv degree and creates an equivalency in language, standing, and theology that will become that “alternative” norm throughout the church.  Moreover, it provides persons ordained through the alternative track access to the Search and Call system beyond the Region that, in concert with a local congregation, approves a candidate’s ordination.  Are we a denomination that practices the “priesthood of all believers?”  Yes.  But, we also practice, or once did, a theology that calls out persons for the particular work of representative Ordained Christian ministry and prepared persons for the vocation of ministry on behalf of the whole Church through theological higher education.  The new Order of Ministry places educational standards and evaluation (that may not include graded evaluation) for the AT to Ordination into the oversight of Regions.  Some already do this with their licensed ministry program, which is admirable, but it does not effect the entire Church because those persons are licensed for service to a particular congregation in a specific Region.(2)

Congregations, Regions and seminaries share in the process of preparation for ordination through call, relationships, education and evaluation.  The language and liturgy of a Disciple ordination service proclaims that we ordain a person into Christian Ministry.  Our theology is ecumenical.   We ordain persons into Christian Ministry on behalf of all of Christendom and not simply our brand of Christian witness.  This act, affirmed by the promises of the one being ordained and the ordaining congregation, connects our expression of Christian witness with the whole body of Christ (even if it is not throughly embraced by denominations claiming historic episcopacy).  If we make changes to the Order of Ministry, MDiv ordination and Alternative Track ordination, doesn’t this necessitate a rewrite of the “promises of the candidate” or require two sets of “promises of the candidate” (see the promises of the candidate below)?  Furthermore, if a congregation wishes to ordain a person for ministry at Gunnyswap Christian Church, it may do so right now with or without the blessing of a Region, because that one ordained is not serving in representative ministry in the life of the whole Church.(3)  Regions are responsible for the relationships and accountability with ministers and congregations within their borders.  One of the “rights, privileges, and responsibilities” that comes with an MDiv degree (or its academic predecessors) and ordination into Christian Ministry in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is participating in the Search and Call system.  Like a law degree and passing the bar exam or a medical degree and certification to practice medicine, the MDiv degree, from an accredited academic institution, should remain the prerequisite for ordination into Christian Ministry if the practice and participation in ministry is intended to cross country or Regional borders during one’s service.  As an ecumenical and interfaith partner this is our responsible act, as a denomination, in participating in the ministry of the whole Church.

Some would argue that the new Order of Ministry is more in touch with the origins of the  Stone/Campbell movement.  I might agree if we still lived on the American frontier.  The mobility, diversity, and complexity of the 21st century requires the spirit of Stone and Campbell rather than trying to recreate a New Testament church that was as flawed and self indulgent as the denominations of our time.  What do I mean when I say “the spirit of Stone and Campbell?”  It is words and ideals more than a complete sentence: education, congregational relationships and accountability, clergy peer relationships and accountability, informed biblical exegesis, service to the poor and outcast, and open dialogue with one another rather than at one another about the hard, divisive issues of the day.

I readily admit that I need to believe that Stone and Campbell would have evolved,  that they would have continued to educate themselves and struggle with the science, the politics, the language, and the culture because that is my interpretation of what they did in their time with the knowledge, resources, and their beliefs.  It is how I make sense of their actions, historical or mythical, that were authentic in their context.  It is how I interpret the actions of those that carved out a niche (practically and theologically) during the second reformation of the Stone/Campbell movement from 1968-1973.  It is why, remembering caution, I blog openly about the new Order of Ministry and other issues embracing our 21st century denomination as we live through the third reformation of the Stone/Campbell movement.

I know some of the people that helped craft the new Order of Ministry, and Iknow a few that are now tasked with creating and writing the guidelines that Regions may, or may not follow, as well as some persons doing the “information sharing” (public relations) on this issue for the OGMP, GCom, and College of Regional Ministers.  I trust that those I know will post at the Intersection or other blog sites where persons can follow along or participate in the conversation.

Ordination Covenant into Christian Ministry – Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
[Small edits to the covenant have changed the language slightly, but retain the spirit. RM = Regional Minister / Commission or Committee on the Ministry Representative.]

RM:  (Candidate’s name), please come forward.  In our baptism all persons who claim Christian faith are called to participate in the corporate ministry of God’s people.  Since the beginning of the Church, God has called individuals from within this corporate ministry to a representative ministry.  The Church is prepared to entrust representative responsibility in you through ordination.  (Candidate’s full name), do you believe that you are called by God to the life and work of ministry?
CANDIDATE: I do.

RM: The Biblical witness tells us that an apostle testified, “It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me.”  Will you be diligent in your practice of Christianity through: the study of scripture, spending time in prayer, and following the teachings of Jesus daily?
CANDIDATE: I will, with the Help of God.

RM:  (Candidate’s Name), the stories of faith tell us that the early Church was devoted to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and prayer.  Will you fulfill your calling among the people in your care: by preaching the word of God, by presiding at the celebration of baptism and welcoming all persons to the Lord’s Supper?
CANDIDATE:  I will, with the Help of God.

RM: (Candidate’s Name), the stories of faith tell us ministers are exhorted to tend the people of God committed to their care, not by constraint but willingly, not for selfish gain but eagerly, not by domineering but by example.  Will you care for the people of God: nourishing, teaching, challenging, and encouraging them; will you give direction to the life of the community; counseling the troubled, declaring God’s forgiveness; and proclaiming the teachings of Jesus whom we call Christ?
CANDIDATE: I will, with the Help of God

RM:  The Spirit of God led Jesus to preach good news to the poor.  Jesus proclaimed release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, and liberty for the oppressed, by proclaiming the kingdom of God.  (Candidate’s Name), will you lead the people of God in our mission to proclaim justice, peace, and freedom for all people; and will you take a responsible place in the governance of the Church and humble service to the world?
CANDIDATE: I will, with the Help of God.

RM: (Candidate’s Name), an apostle described the Church as one body with many members.  Will you live and work in unity with all Christians? Will you be a witness to the unity of the Church; cooperating with Disciple colleagues in the ministries of the congregational, regional, general, and ecumenical church; and leading the Church in fulfilling its ministry of reconciliation?
CANDIDATE: I will, with the Help of God.

RM: An apostle also wrote, “For me to live is Christ.” (Candidate’s Name), will you conduct yourself so that your life is shaped by Jesus of Nazareth, who took the form of a servant; and will you continually rekindle the gift of God that is in you, and make known to all people the grace of God?
CANDIDATE:  I will, with the Help of God.

RM: (Candidate’s Name), God has given you the will to do these things and will also give you grace to perform them.  Remember, God who called you is faithful and will not fail you.

Promises of the People
RM: You have heard the promises of [candidate’s full name].  Will you as members of the [congregation’s name] and representatives of the universal Church affirm this call and accept (Candidate’s full name) as an ordained minister of the Gospel?

Notes
(1) As an aside, I think that a resolution like this one on the Order of Ministry should require a standing, counted vote rather than a voice vote.  I know that the GMP and others associated with the General Commission on the Ministry wanted this to pass, for reasons that I cannot rationalize, but not requiring a standing vote further diminishes the vocation of ministry as well as those that have willingly given their life to ordained Christian ministry.
(2) There are situations in ministry that require more than being able to quote scripture or obtaining a pass/fail in a weekend, week long, or online pastoral care course.
(3) Hat tip to a former professor for the name, Gunnyswamp.  If you took courses from Dr. Cy Rowell you will remember him using this fictitious congregation during his lectures.

Martin Marty is back from his November journey and offers thoughts on the cover story in the current issue of The Atlantic. Marty’s “Sightings” is republished here with permission of the Marty Center.

To explain my disappearance during November: I was enjoying and lecturing on an “Around the World in a Private Jet” tour with alumni from several schools.  Machu Picchu, Tibet, and other high points were high points on our 33,000-mile odyssey.  Now I am glad to be back issuing Sightingson “Public Religion in America” themes.

The current issue of The Atlanticfeatures as a cover story Hanna Rosin’s “Did Christianity Cause the Crash?”  She writes not in the spirit of the Dawkins-Hitchens-Harris “New Atheists,” who blame anything they do not like on religion of any and all sorts.  Instead she focuses on one kind of Christianity that has one kind of bearing on one aspect of “the Crash.”  Trim the implications of the misleading headline down to size and you will find that she is describing the ways a certain sector, a vast and growing sector, of the church demonstrably played a part in the part of the crash we know as the “subprime mortgage” scandal and the “foreclosure follow-up”

These are best observed in connection with what is now known as “the prosperity gospel.”  Talk about multi-million-dollar sales of religious books, multi-thousand-member churches, multi-hundred-thousand-dollar pastors’ incomes, and you are likely to be focusing on proponents of such a gospel.  At its heart is the seizure by its preachers of a theme from a few lines of the Bible, a motif then magnified to encompass and exhaust all other biblical emphases.  As Rosin tells it while focusing on some of those proponents, this Gospel assures that people who give hugely to an evangelist’s cause and church will prosper and may well soon own a “huge” house.  “Huge” is a huge word in the dreams of the victims of the Prosperity Gospel.

Rosin shows how many pastors of this school of thought served as agents of unscrupulous lenders and home-sellers, guiding their parishioners to implausible, burdensome, certain-to-fail investments that did turn out to help occasion the Crash.  While she is careful and as fair as possible to the Prosperity Gospel leaders, is sympathetic to the gullible, and resists being simply snide, it is impossible to read her accounts without giving at least a passing thought to the comparison of this Gospel with the vast majority of biblical texts.  Some do talk about a loving and provident God, and do tell stories about some characters who prospered.  However, most pages in the library called the Bible tell of people who, despite their best efforts, do not prosper; who suffer often-horrible diseases, and all of whom die.  It is a book that describes evil but does not finally account for it.  All of the dark sides, including those of the God of the Bible, get suppressed or explained away by the exploiters, some of whom, no doubt, sincerely believe the gospel they have invented.

It is hard, however, to write about what seems manifestly to be “a stench in the nostrils of God” without being accused of elitism, condescension, classism and racism.  Most of the people about whom Rosin writes are African-American or Latino/Latina, people who were not born to comfort and privilege, for whom reasons to hope are few.

Rosin holds back from making final judgments on her subject.  She does not quote Jeremiah or Jesus to make the point.  Her stories make the point.  Will the Prosperity Gospel outlive the worst times and features of the crash?  She sees it as limited by the new economic realities, but not easily suppressed among gamblers and hopers.

Martin E. Marty’s biography, current projects, publications, and contact information can be found at www.illuminos.com.   ———-

In the November 2009 edition of the Religion and Culture Web Forum, Mark Scott of Concordia University strives to develop a paradigm that frames “new trajectories for research in theodicy in religious studies.”  He develops an analogy–”Theodicy as Navigation”–”a ship caught in a violent storm at sea”–for the function of theodicy within religious experience.  In this way, according to Scott, the conversation may diverge “beyond the ‘what’ of theodicy . . . to the ‘how,’” thus moving to a level of analysis that illuminates “the personal experience of suffering and the effort to render it meaningful.”  With formal responses from Charles Long (UCSB, emeritus), Sally Stamper (University of Chicago Divinity School), Kevin Taylor (Boston University), and Bryan L. Wagoner (Harvard University).  http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/index.shtml

———-
Sightingscomes from the Martin Marty Centerat the University of Chicago Divinity School.

How one views the world depends on the set of filters screening information, emotion, education, and the imagination. Some of us are better than others at recognizing the filters we use and can, for moments, remove a filter to allow the light of Truth into the mind.  That is what I like about John Stewart.  His show has evolved into a filter removal system for the country through the use of humor the same way Cronkite’s twenty-two minutes did with the actual reporting of facts which is what the “news” once was.

My filter on the “news” is MSNBC.  More often than not they get it, mostly, down the middle with the hard news and their “opinion” shows do a better job with the facts than does Fox news.  (My opinion of course).  One of my brother-in-laws is on the other side of the political divide from me.  His filter on the “news” is Fox News.  I think Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, the morning Fox show, and most of what they do at Fox News is designed to keep working class to poor white people anxious and angry.  I think my brother-in-law would characterize MSNBC as elite, politically correct, overly educated people that have never had to do a hard day’s work in their lives.  And so goes the divide in this country as well as the governor’s race here in Virginia that will mercifully end tomorrow.

Enter my favorite filter removing device, The Daily Show.  (A side note that Fake Sharon on twitter was a filter removing device at General Assembly.)  Though John’s people manipulated construction of the clip, they did take Fox News at face-value and reported the news “fair and balanced” so the viewer could decide.  Click here to enjoy the bit titled, For Fox Sake.