Credo ↔ Oratio

Below is a copy of the article I wrote for our monthly newsletter. Thought I’d pass it on….

Lifestyle or Label?

Dallas Willard, one of the foremost authors on discipleship, opens the first chapter of his book entitled The Great Omission with these words:

The word “disciple” occurs 269 times in the New Testament. “Christian” is found three times and was first introduced to refer precisely to disciples of Jesus – in a situation where it was no longer possible to regard them as a sect of the Jews (Acts 11:26). The New Testament is a book about disciples, by disciples, and for disciples of Jesus Christ…. For at least several decades the churches of the Western world have not made discipleship a condition of being a Christian. One is not required to be, or to intend to be, a disciple in order to become Christian, and one may remain a Christian without any signs of progress toward or in discipleship. Contemporary American churches in particular do not require following Christ in his example, spirit, and teachings as a condition of membership – either of entering into or continuing in fellowship of a denomination or local church. I would be glad to learn of any exception ot this claim, but it would only serve to highlight its general validity and make the general rule more glaring. So far as the visible Christian institutions of our day are concerned, discipleship clearly is optional.

Ouch!

Willard’s argument is, at its most basic level, that the contemporary American church has abandoned the lifestyle of being a “follower of Christ” and settled for the label “Christian.” Willard isn’t the only person to recognize this, of course. As a matter of fact, I’d be surprised if most of us, in our most honest moments, didn’t admit to similar thoughts.

My best guess is that it goes back to the early American revivals. Somewhere amidst the several Great Awakenings, American Christians began believing that Christianity was predominantly about a “decision” or a “conversion.” We started to understand the faith as a religion based on “getting saved” or “going to heaven.” During this period, traveling preachers famously held revival meetings where dozens, sometimes hundreds, of people were led through a conversion (or REconversion) process. Whether they admitted it or not, numbers were the goal. The success of such meetings was (and continues to be) the quantity of people who claim they’ve made “a decision for Christ.”

The problem was, the local religious infrastructure to deal with all of these new converts was often either failing or nonexistent. Ministers (if there were any) weren’t prepared to deal with such an influx of so many people who knew so little about the faith, and congregations weren’t prepared to welcome these (often disturbingly familiar) people into their midst merely because they claimed to have had an experience of God’s grace.

Institutional failures were not the only problem or even, perhaps, the biggest problem. Even more destructive was the fact that people actually believed the preaching they heard at these revival meetings. Preachers told them they were saved; they were going to heaven; they didn’t have to worry about hell; God loved them. (All of which was true, of course!) However, these same preachers seldom bothered to teach their audiences that, in thankful response for their salvation, God expected discipleship.

Before long, Christianity became a religion primarily about conversion to a heavenly eternity rather than to an ongoing discipleship within God’s kingdom.

To be fair, even though we perfected “conversion-only” Christianity, we cannot claim to have invented it. It has been a problem since biblical times. The scandalously extreme nature of God’s grace has always been followed with the intense temptation to ignore the only appropriate human response to that free grace: faithfulness. Yet, the church has continued to fight that temptation diligently – or have we?

It is an important question. If Christianity is merely a religion of conversion – why bother with worship? Why have churches? Why bother raising our children in the faith? If Christianity is merely a religion intent on getting the hoards “saved,” why waste time and resources on those who have already converted or those who never will? The answer, of course, is that Christianity is not merely a conversion religion; it is a discipleship religion. To be “Christian” is to be a student (discipulus) of Christ’s teachings – one who increasingly learns how to live as Jesus lived and according to the priorities Jesus taught.

This is where the proverbial rubber hits the road. Discipleship is not accidental; it takes intent and conviction; it takes time and attention. That is what I’d like to leave you thinking about this month: Are you being intentional about discipleship?

I know time is limited and life is busy. You’ll notice I’m not suggesting you spend two hours in prayer and three hours reading the Bible each day or that we start a daily worship service at church (although, neither is historically unheard of!)

The question is far more basic than that: Are you intentional about learning how to live as Jesus lived? Are you a disciple?

If you’d like to talk about discipleship, or if you need help finding resources let me know! That’s what I’m here for!

Grace and Peace,
`tim

The Reformed Church in America’s General Synod starts next week and I’ll be, once again, posting occasional updates and reflections (timer permitting) on my blog.

It’s shaping up to be a busy year for me but, of course, I’m looking forward to it.

If the rest of my blog isn’t of interest to you, you can reach “Synod 2010″ updates at:
http://synod.tenclay.org

Enjoy….

Grace and Peace,
`tim

“Sunday’s Coming” Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.

No, believe it or not, I have not fallen off of the face of the earth. I am still alive. I am still upright taking in sustenance. I simply haven’t been blogging much lately. Sorry about that (for those few of you who actually read what I put up on here!)

We are doing well and recovering from the move. The trip out to Pultneyville took us almost exactly 12 hours. JJ had the girls in the car and I took Carina (the dog) with me in the van. The trip, although long, was relatively uneventful (exactly how a trip like that should be!) We arrived in Pultneyville around 6:30 and were warmly greeted by a group of people from our new congregation. Their hospitality even before we arrived has been unbelievably generous. I told someone the other day that I keep waiting for the shoe to drop – can a real people really be so kind?!

After a few nights of sleeping on the floor in our sleeping bags, we greeted the moving truck Wednesday morning and, by 12:30, everything was “moved in.” Back then, it all looked so organized and together — now, on the other hand, the whole house is filled with half-empty boxes as we’ve been searching for specific items and, at the same time, tried to find places for everything that we’ll be able to remember.

Sophia and Petra are starting to adjust. Petra has even slept through the night several times in the past week.

If you haven’t heard, my installation will be Saturday, May 22nd at 11:00 am. The installation service, in the Reformed Church, is the formal service that “officially” makes me the pastor here. It’s open to the public and, if you’re in the area, I’d love to have you attend!

In any case, someone reminded me this morning that I hadn’t posted anything since my arrival and I thought I’d better rectify that!

We’re well!

Grace and peace,
`tim

Early this morning, official news came from the RCA and those “in the know” that 32 of the RCA’s 46 Classes have affirmatively voted to confirm the General Synod’s 2009 decision to make the Belhar Confession the RCA’s 4th theological standard.

Never, in the history of the Reformed Church, has the denomination added a theological standard (the other three predated the establishment of the RCA). It is a journey we have been walking since 1985 – three short years after the confession was written in South Africa (as, among other things, a theological condemnation of apartheid).

Those who know me know this is a decision I have hoped and prayed for since my days in seminary, however many of my friends and colleagues come from non-confessional traditions and don’t “get” why I would be so excited about the addition of a new “standard.”

Today, I write to you.

Let me admit a little secret that most confessional Christians either don’t know are don’t admit: When push comes to shove, we do not hold entirely to the reformation concept of sola scriptura. To be honest no one does. Everyone uses their own culture, education, experience, and established beliefs to help them understand the scriptures (sometimes faithfully, sometimes not).

The difference between confessional churches and non-confessional ones is that we admit our theological biases, and we have taken the time and energy to create (and/or adopt) denominational standards that help us define what aspects of our culture, education, etc. are appropriate for use in biblical interpretation and what their limits are.

In other words, everyone reads the scriptures through a specific set of lenses (sometimes this is done intentionally, other times accidentally). As a minister in the RCA, the most powerful of those lenses are the standards I affirmed as “faithful” upon my ordination (and will re-affirm every time I transfer to a new Classis).

The addition of the Belhar Confession to our list of standards in the RCA adds a new set of lenses to help us more faithfully embrace the fullness of the scriptures.

I can already hear the question: Why not just read the Bible?

That, unfortunately, is a question with a simple answer: the Bible is all-too often misused and abused.

Confessional standards set up theological fences (tested by time and careful discernment) to help ensure orthodoxy. Standards help clarify that some interpretations are misinterpretations – they help prevent the scriptures being misused (usually by the powerful and wealthy) to abuse (usually the weak and poor).

The Belhar, with it’s deep commitment to unity, justice and reconciliation, sets forth a lens that reflects Jesus’ ministry and teaching more clearly than our other three standards. It draws us out of an over-emphasis on Paul’s writings by calling us to recognize the Kingdom of God (that Jesus so frequently preached) and embrace it’s priorities.

None of this suggests that the other three standards are somehow “lacking” in what they intend to teach us. They simply arose out of different contexts and speak to different issues. As powerful and Spirit-informed as they are, they could not say what the Belhar says because they were not written when the Belhar was written by the people who wrote the Belhar.

By recognizing the Belhar as a confessional standard, the RCA is saying that after an extensive amount of time, thought, discernment and prayer, we believe that the the Belhar’s message speaks to the larger church, not merely to the post-apartheid church in South Africa. These are universal lenses that reflect the priorities Jesus expressed throughout his earthly ministry – and thus, they are lenses that we can – and should – use to faithfully interpret the scriptures.

I don’t expect that I’ll “convert” any of my non-confessional friends and colleagues into confessional Christians, but I hope this helps you understand a bit more why I’m so excited about this historic decision. Maybe you can even celebrate along with me (us)!

Grace and Peace,
`tim

Wow, how’s that for a title?!

When JJ and I started talking about the likelihood of moving, we were immediately faced with a uniquely 21st century dilemma: What to do with our Facebook friends.

On the surface, the answer seems simple: nothing.

The problem is, something seems “wrong” with doing “nothing.”

Here’s what I mean: When I look at my Facebook friends, I notice that they fit into several different categories:

With the possible exception of the first category, each of them contains individuals who’ve “friended” me for various (potentially now-defunct) reasons. There are those who…

Obviously, I want to remain connected with the people in the first category. I may also need to remain connected with the people in the second category (I want to in many cases as well!) The question is, what is the best way of dealing with people in the third category?

You see, there is this strange reciprocity on Facebook. It seems rude to “unfriend” someone after previously “friending” them unless there’s been some kind of obvious break up. On the other hand, it seems equally as rude to put someone in the awkward position of having to “unfriend” me if we’ve been “friended” out of obligation but may not need to (or want to) stay in contact when I move 9 hours away. (This may be particularly true with people who’ve “friended” me because I was their teacher or minister).

(NOTE to Facebook: This is why I think you should set friends to time out in a year if they haven’t interacted at all. In other words, set the software to automatically unfriend people who haven’t written, chatted, or even “liked” each other’s status in 12 months. They can always refriend each other. Or better yet, give them a 1 month warning so that they know they need to get back in touch with one another before the auto-un-friending descends upon them!)

Until Facebook decides to instigate an auto-un-friending policy, we’re left with mitigating these waters on our own. Months of thinking about it have brought me to the conclusion that the best way of handling it is to do a massive-friend-purge when we move.

It isn’t that I don’t like most of the people involved (I do). It isn’t that I don’t want to be friends with them (I do). It’s that I want to give those who’ve “friended” me out of convenience or obligation a gracious way to respond to the fact that they we probably will not stay in contact when I move.

I’m sure it isn’t the perfect way of handling it. I don’t even know if it’s a good way of handling it. I do know that it’s the best option I’ve been able to come up with.

So, if we’re friends now, and you notice in the next few weeks that something happened and you’ve stopped getting my witty and thought-provoking status updates on your News Feed, it isn’t that I don’t like you.

Seriously, if you refriend me, I will eagerly reciprocate the refriendification. If we were somehow connected out of obligation or convenience (and the reasons no longer hold true), you will now have a wonderfully gracious way of opting out.

Don’t worry, the massive-friend-purge will not happen for a few weeks, so the defrendifying, refriending and refrendification will be entirely unnecessary for a while.

I write this now, because I wonder what you think.

How is a situation like this best handled? Leave a comment on my blog… drop me a message on FB… or an e-mail… give me a call… or write on my wall (if it’s appropriate for public consumption). Let me know what you think and what your experiences have been….

Grace and Peace,
`tim

We have been at Dunningville for almost a decade and, although it has been a good place to live and minister, we have increasingly come to believe that it was time to move. After months of discussion, thought, prayer, and discernment, we are pleased to announce that I have been offered and accepted the Call to become the next minister of Pultneyville Reformed Church.

Pultneyville is on the shore of Lake Ontario, north of Rochester – less than two hours from Niagara Falls in one direction and the Finger Lakes in the other. It sits nestled in the middle of hundreds of acres of fruit orchards (many of which are apples).

Thus far, we have found the people to be open and friendly – even the interviews were fair (and, for those of you who don’t know, church interviews can be a real beast!)

It is, of course, a bittersweet move – we have poured our lives into the people of Dunningville, however we are excited about the change and looking forward to a new context and a new congregation to live and minister with.

Unfortunately, we didn’t take any pictures of the people during our candidating weekend, but we did take some of the facility….

Stay tuned, I’m sure I’ll be posting more about the transition in the coming weeks and months!

Grace and Peace,
`tim

I have, for almost a year, been the Vice-President/Acting-President of Zeeland Classis (the regional denominational assembly that Dunningville belongs to).  One of the privileges of that position is the opportunity to address the Classis at the March meeting with a “State of Religion” report.  That meeting was Tuesday Evening.  I didn’t ask for the Classis to take any official actions (although there is precedent for that), but did ask for some sincere thought on how we do what we do and who we are…

Zeeland Classis

Rev. Tim TenClay, D.Min. – Acting President

March 16, 2010

If you would have told me a year ago that I’d be standing here this evening in this capacity, I’m fairly certain I wouldn’t have believed you. While I knew the day would come when I’d take on the presidency, at least in theory, I certainly never imagined it would happen so quickly. Our bylaws, after all, allot for a full year as vice president to ensure adequate time to learn how the system works and gain, at least a basic, understanding of what’s going on in the Classis.

Even now, after almost a year of attending Executive Committee meetings, all-the-while asking questions, and trying to wrap my brain around who’s serving where and what’s going on in at least some of your congregations, I still have to admit an immense ignorance of the state of religion in our Classis.

Having said that, there can be no question that some wonderful things are going on in some of our sister congregations. The past few years have seen a growth in ministries that seek to follow Jesus’ command that we “feed the hungry” and “clothe the naked.” Similarly, while Michigan’s ongoing economic crisis looms large in almost all of our congregations, many of your Annual Consistorial Reports indicated a deep desire to ensure that the people around you are well cared for by helping provide resources, referrals, financial counseling, education, and of course encouragement.

Unfortunately, while Michigan’s economy may have provided ample opportunities for us to reach out to our communities in very tangible ways, it has also burdened our congregations in ways that have often been nearly insurmountable. Some of you have eliminated staff members; others have had to put growth and building projects on hold. Most of us have had to tighten our budget-belts; many of us have seen more red numbers on our accounting sheets than black ones, and a few of us have been forced to adopt an uncomfortable amount of debt in order to simply keep our doors open.

These aren’t merely questions of finance, of course. These are questions of ministry and mission. It isn’t as easy for us to take risks as it was a few years ago – even important ones. Where we were once able to rely on the generosity of our congregations to pull through when worthy opportunities appeared, we’re now faced with the reality that even the deepest pockets in our communities are often empty. It is true congregationally. It is true Classically, and while our regional Synod hasn’t met yet this year and I haven’t seen the General Synod numbers, I imagine it is as true for the upper two assemblies as it is for us.

There is no question that Christ’s church has weathered bigger storms than this – sometimes faithfully other times less so. The difference between the two, as I see it, depends on whether we respond to these hardships by hunkering down inwardly or by opening up outwardly. The temptation, of course, is the former – to turn all of our resources inward on ourselves, to increasingly isolate ourselves as individuals and congregations. Sure, we may be willing to allow others to partner with us when it’s convenient, but only when it’s convenient. It is the temptation to say that the “other” doesn’t matter until we’ve ensured our own comfort and survival.

The other option is the exact opposite – to take our own hardships seriously, but rather than self-isolating, to recognize that God made us a social creatures. Sure, some of us – both as individuals and as congregations – are more introverted than others, and yet the fact remains, God didn’t create us to be entirely isolated as individuals and I believe the same is true for us as congregations. Thus we have Classes.

Just as we are called to live in relationship as brothers and sisters united, by the Holy Spirit, with Christ and with one another in Christ, so too I believe it is our calling as congregations to do the same.

Paul’s “body” theology is as applicable to our assemblies as it is to our people. Each of our congregations are differently gifted and differently skilled. Each of us has different responsibilities and abilities within the larger body. None of us can fully live into God’s calling on our communities alone.

We may, at times, act Congregational. There are even those among us who believe it to be a better system, but as Reformed Churches, we are not. We are congregations within a larger body. We are parts of a bigger whole. Our polity, and our theology, both speak clearly to that simple truth. The only question is whether or not our behavior reflects it.

Few, if any of us, truly imagine the Christian faith to be most faithfully lived out in seclusion from other believers. The same is true for congregations. If each of us hopes to live and minister faithfully into the calling God is placing on our congregations, I can only imagine it will be done in partnership with one another.

We need each other – especially when we find ourselves faced with the kinds of difficulties we’re almost-universally experiencing right now.

That doesn’t mean, of course, that we will always agree with one another. Nor does it mean that we will even always like one another. All of that is irrelevant. At weddings, it is often noted that “what God has joined together” no one has the right to separate. How can that be any less true of us as sister congregations?!

In many ways, the recent past has been one filled with great pain in our Classis. We have laid congregations to rest and seen others barely survive. We have watched relationships between ministers and congregations dissolve with a virulence that rivals Hollywood break-ups – sometimes without doing anything to mitigate the pain and poison experienced by both sides.

I am not prophet-enough to suggest what lies ahead for us in the year to come, but I have no doubt, whatsoever, that it will be best-weathered if we do it together.

• What do you imagine would happen if all the congregations in Zeeland Classis prayed for each other… not just in theory, but from the pulpit… regularly?
• What would it look like if we viewed assessments as a commitment to our common ministry together rather than taxes to pay or withhold depending on whether we like or don’t like what the Classis is doing or whether it’s convenient at the time?
• What if Zeeland Classis, taking a page from the Heidelberg Catechism’s playbook, sought to foster a togetherness among those from different backgrounds and divergent perspectives?
• What if this Classis sought “the things that make for unity.. and peace” as much as the things we believe make for “purity?”¹
• What if we truly lived out the promise we’ve made to “walk in the Spirit of Christ, in love and fellowship” with one another?²

To be honest, I don’t know. I don’t know what that would happen if we were that kind of a Classis, but I do believe it would be something amazing, and I do believe it would make God happy… happier, indeed, than the alternatives, and that is always a good thing.

The Reformed Church in America traces its history in North America back 1628. We are the oldest continuous denomination on the continent, and yet in that time we have never adopted a new confession.

It is no small thing, then, that for the first time ever, we are going through the process of potentially adopting a new confession – the Belhar Confession. You see, the RCA is a confessional denomination. We currently have three standards of unity (the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of the Synod of Dort). We also confess three creeds (the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed).

That sad reality is that, despite our confessional identity, there seems to be very little understanding of what it means to be such a body. Many believe the RCA is, like most pentecostal or baptist churches, a “no creed but Christ” denomination or a merely sola scriptura entity. We are not. Every minister in the RCA, alongside affirming the “Word of God as the only rule for faith and life,” also confirms that they hold our confessional documents to be “historic and faithful witnesses to the Word of God” (Declaration for Ministers of Word and Sacrament).

As far as I know, there is no “industry standard” as to how these statements are to be interpreted. In other words, there is no universal understanding of what it means to be confessional Christians. Some of my colleagues read the Declaration with a heavy emphasis on “historic and faithful witnesses….” Others clearly confess that the standards are “historic and faithful witnesses….” I tend toward the latter… many of my friends toward the former.

So, what does it mean to be confessional Christians? What are “confessions?” What is their authority? How are they related to the scriptures?

Here’s what I think:

I believe the confessions are documents from specific historic times and places. They were originally written to specific people in specific contexts. Unlike many theological documents, however, the creeds and confessions speak outside of their original context. While their authority is not equal to that of the scriptures, as with scriptures, a solid understanding of their original context(s) enables us to appropriately embrace them into our own time and place.

The confessions, while always subservient to the Bible, provide accurate and faithful distillations of the gospel. They offer us with the essential touch points of the Christian faith. These documents help us understand what is most important and give us a solid paradigm within which to interpret the parts of the Bible that are unclear or difficult to understand.

All of this helps explain why I believe the RCA should adopt the Belhar Confession.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I do believe the Belhar’s affirmation of God’s preferential option for the poor. I do believe that a faith which proclaims unity, justice and reconciliation but fails to live them, is no faith at all. If God stands with the “least of these” and all who suffer (and I believe God does!) then God’s people must as well. Failure to do so reveals us as Christian-like, rather than truly Christian.

In many ways, our current confessions handle Paul’s writings well, but they fail to adequately express the life and ministry that Jesus lived and taught. The Belhar helps rectify that.

The next two and a half months will show whether or not the RCA is ready to embrace the aspects of the scriptures that the Belhar lifts up as essential. I couldn’t be more pleased that Zeeland Classis and the other 5 who have currently voted on the issue have followed General Synod’s example and voted to embrace the Belhar.

I hope and dream for a world where Christians confess and live into the realities of unity, reconciliation and justice. This is, I believe, a small – but very important – step in that direction!

Grace and Peace,

`tim

Ok… Here’s the ax I’m grinding. I keep running into Christians who are angry about the use of the “Holiday Season” or “Happy Holidays” rather than saying “Merry Christmas” – which, they insist, is a more “Christ-centered” wish.

Fine, I’ll admit that the word “Christmas” actually includes the word “Christ,” and so at some level, not using the word “Christmas” actually does stop using a word with “Christ” in it… on the other hand, “Holidays” merely means “Holy + Days,” and that is most certainly appropriate for Christians!

Here’s why I think Christians should use the phrase “Happy Holidays:”

it refers to a time in our yearly cycle in which several holidays take place.

“Merry Christmas” ignores Thanksgiving; it ignores St. Nicholas’ Day (a big one in my family); it ignores Old/New Years’ celebrations, and it ignores Epiphany (a far more ancient holiday for Christians than Christmas). Equally as problematic, most people say “Merry Christmas” during the Advent season, not during the Christmas season.

“Happy Holidays” is a far more inclusive wish for one another; it is far more seasonally encompassing, and it is liturgically appropriate for all of the involved seasons.

On top of that, I’d suggest that we use the phrase the “Holidays’ Seasons” instead of the “holiday season;” it is, after all, several seasons of the Christian year.

Referring to the “holidays” doesn’t secularize the Christmas (we’ve done an stand-up job of doing that regardless of what verbiage we prefer); perhaps, indeed, it could help us recapture the real MeaningS of the SeasonS.

Grace and peace,
`tim