Ordination Paper Update

IT IS DONE! Thank you all for your help! I was able to keep my goal of having the paper done by 1/31!

I had to completely re-write part one as many emails were sent saying "Hey, all this is nice, but it says what you're against, not what you're for." So i re-wrote that. I had some great "tweeks" on parts 2 and 3.  i could repost it in it's new form, but feel a little burnt out on it. maybe you do too.

now i can say that i'm done and awaiting my interview by my home church. It looks to be schedule for 2/28/10. I'll keep y'all posted.

thanks for your help!

Part III: My Journey to Ordination

Part III: My Journey Toward Ordination in the UCC

(Part three of the ordination paper is intended to be an integrating statement that invites the

person to relate the faith & practice of the Church to his own pilgrimage of faith and understandings of and intentions for his ministry as a person ordained by the United Church of Christ.)

When asked “What do you want to be when you grow up?” I answered “Priest” up through the 4th grade in my Catholic elementary school. When I learned in 5th grade that priests could not marry I had to choose between women (marriage) or God (ordination) since I wanted to “collect” all seven sacraments. I picked marriage as women were more tangible, and I could not conceive of being alone. After 5th grade I answered “teacher” or “psychologist” when asked that question, but the same sense of these being the correct answer was missing.

My whole life I have felt different—not different as in better or worse than other people, but just different. I sometimes see and connect things more quickly and naturally than others. I seem to have some esoteric understanding of the universe, a poet’s mind and an artist’s eye. I also have a pragmatic ideal that was taught to me by my blue collar upbringing. I cannot create anything that is just art for art’s sake—it must help and do something. To paraphrase John Dewey, action without thinking is thoughtless and thought without action is meaningless.

I met my wife Kate when I was 17. I was struggling to hold onto my faith in the Catholic Church. It was not working. Kate was a United Methodist, and she invited me to her church. I had never been to a Protestant service before, and I had no idea what to expect. The pastor preached and referenced movies, books and philosophers (that particular day was Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and nonviolent resistance, which I was studying in school). I had no idea church could be this way! I was not used to this method in my Catholic church. I much preferred the Methodist church to the Catholic one, so I started going there.

At Ohio University I explored the world religions, especially Buddhism, which I still study to this day. I even surprised myself in accepting leadership roles in various clubs and working as a Resident Assistant. During this time, I had a falling out with what I understood as Protestant Christianity. I tried to join Campus Crusade for Christ to further learn about the Protestant tradition. Instead I found a rather limited view of Christianity: they were certain that they were correct and saved and all others were going to hell. It was their job to save all the unbelievers and misguided Christians, which included Catholics and liberal Christians. In discussions with people from Campus Crusade, I heard distorted views of Catholic dogma and church history that I tried to correct. During this time, I still had a strong presence of God and a relationship with Christ but I was not so sure about Christians.

Kate and I married in January 2004 after I graduated college. We moved to Virginia that month, where I began selling building supplies. I was happy and the money was good, but for the first time in my life something felt off. It was as if I was not doing what I was supposed to be doing. Something was amiss. I wanted to pursue the American dream and get the car and clothes and material things. Kate was not as into that and wanted to find a church.

We found Emmaus United Church of Christ and became involved very quickly. We felt at home at Emmaus because of its openness and willingness to learn about the world instead of shy away from it: the willingness to love humanity and not label and condemn it. Emmaus is one of the few churches I have encountered that truly preaches grace. Years later Reverend Federici stated that upon seeing me, he and Reverend Memrie Cook both thought that I would be a minister. I did not believe him at the time, but deep down I knew he was right. Into the second year of living in the D.C. area, I found that I was not happy in my job, and I met with Reverend Federici to explore my gifts. He brought up the “minister thing” again and asked me to really consider it. When he asked what my favorite job in the past was, he was not surprised when I answered “Resident Assistant in college,” as it was the closest I had been to being a minister. I was floored and had to work out what it means to be ordained.

I thought ordination meant that pastors serve more of a priestly role and have some special mark on them. This would mean that they are straddling the dimensions with one foot in this world and the other in the next. They are God’s mediators who are in line with the apostles and ordination passes on this apostolic descent and gives the pastor Christ-like powers to confer upon and administer the sacraments. I did not feel I fit that model. I believe in the “priesthood of all believers” and that we do not need mediators. God is Immanuel! With us! As a result of being in seminary though, I have realized that this is not the only model of ministry and I even believe some of it.

Historically in the UCC there have been two major models of ordained ministry. The first would be the Reformed idea stated above that pastors have one foot in this world and the other in the next. They make church a “home” that is filled with mystery and symbol, and the pastor embodies the divine. The second model is found in the Congregationalist idea of the pastor. Namely a pastor is someone who comes out of the community and acts as a motivator who fires people up and sends them out into the world to do God’s work of social justice. Church is not a home but a recharging station and the pastor’s primary role is empowerment. I feel that I am a hybrid of these two models of empowerment and embodiment.

I am part of the embodiment model because I feel as though God has guided me. God has given me the gifts of writing, love of learning and interest in others that a good minister needs. God’s spirit permeates my life. I easily fall into discussions about God with co-workers, family, friends and strangers on the street. People can embody other professions as well, like my brother-in-law and his job in sales or my sister-in-law and her job as a community art coordinator. Others are gifted doctors and lawyers. After much searching, I find that I am a minister at heart. I feel that I cannot be anything but a minister and that if I do something else, it just will not feel right.

I exemplify the Congregationalist empowerment model as well because I do not feel that I am above the congregation but come out of it. I have never seen myself as a leader, but rather more of a guide. I have never been comfortable with the word “leader” because it infers hierarchy. In my mind the only thing that separates people is willingness. I see myself as an enthusiastic guide who infects other people with a willingness to change or learn. I am steeped in the ways of the church and have studied scripture, and I can use both to teach others to use these two for practical, everyday use. Given my gift of being able to see the big picture, this makes me sort of a rallying point, a focus, and a witness to the life of the congregation.

Ordination then becomes a community event where people of a certain congregation see the gifts in a person for this position. The candidate has prayerfully examined his or her call and has had that call examined by others “concerning his or her fitness for ministry.” Constitutional Provision #24 states “An Ordained Minister of the UCC is one of its members who has been called by God and ordained to preach and teach the gospel, to administer the sacraments and rites of the church, and to exercise pastoral care and leadership.” This means that the call comes from outside the would-be pastor and not from his or her own ego. By “prayerful examination” the would-be pastor has trained and studied. He or she has formed a working theory of how to preach and teach the gospel, to administer the sacraments and rites of the church, and to exercise pastoral care and leadership.

This does not mean that God transmits some magical powers upon me during ordination. I do not and cannot believe that only ordained people can administer the sacraments. I can believe that only ordained people can teach and administer the sacraments most clearly as they have spent the most time thinking about their meaning and implication. They are able to make visible and tangible the intangible and invisible grace of God. They would be able to best connect the practicing church to the historic church that has gone before. Pastors are able to reinterpret tradition for today’s world.

There are many ways to ordain someone. One way to be ordained is to simply log onto the Internet and pay for ordination. That is not ordination as no one is affirming your call from God within a community—it is just a convenient way to serve the same role that a justice of the peace could serve, or, at worst, a joke. Another way is the apprenticeship model where a pastor takes a potential pastor under his or her wing and teaches through experience and example. While this may be a Biblically referenced model, it has some holes in it as well. This style gives a potential pastor only one example of ministry with all the biases and world view of one person.

The specific path through academia that is proscribed by the UCC is the ordination route that I find the best. In the academic model, a seminarian is flooded with information. While this is initially overwhelming, it opens the seminarian up to a broader view of God’s work in the world. This enables the pastor to be a non-anxious presence as they have a broad frame of reference from church history, ethics, polity, clinical pastoral education (mine was at Lancaster General Hospital), a cross cultural experience (mine was in Egypt), and many other lenses. They are more able to meet their congregation where they are both corporately and as individuals.

In short, a pastor hears God’s call, studies and focuses on this call for years in an academic setting, and then enters into conversation with his or her congregation to see how it all fits together. Ordination then becomes a communal and visible symbol of the invisible gifts that a person has to offer the community. It is a confirmation that the individual does embody Christ as best he or she is able and that others are inspired and empowered to follow their own calls.

Part II: The UCC Polity

Part II: UCC Polity

(Part two of the ordination paper is intended to provide an opportunity for the student to demonstrate her knowledge and understanding of the history, theological roots, polity, and practice of the United Church of Christ.)

The purpose of this paper is to explore my relationship and thoughts about the UCC’s paragraph two in the Preamble to the Constitution. IThe purpose of this section is to explore my relationship and thoughts about the UCC’s paragraph two in the Preamble to the Constitution. I feel this is the theological “meat” of the UCC. I am a cross-pollinated member of the UCC as I find myself affirming parts of all four of the streams of the UCC as well as the many hidden histories that make the UCC what it is today. The preamble is a document rich in history, full of theology, and pregnant with opportunities for a wide variety of interpretations. I love it for not only what it says but for what it does not say.

The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior. It acknowledges as kindred in Christ all who share in this confession.

These first two sentences specifically come from the Christian tradition and its goal of uniting all Christianity without need for denominational strife and division. I like this idea as it also comes out of my Catholic tradition. Obviously, I am no longer Catholic as I did not find them very affirming of the first sentence, although I still acknowledge them as kin. It is easy to place a person or tangible thing, like the pope, a charismatic pastor or even the Bible in place of an invisible presence. This can lead to rigid hierarchies, cults, and a generalized idolatry. I like the ecumenical vision this casts that harkens back to Paul’s thought that, “We are all one in Christ” (Galatians 3:28). It frees up the denomination to follow the Spirit and Christ as they interpret it. It acknowledges the priesthood of all believers, yet alludes to the central idea of autonomy and covenant that is central to the UCC.

I would like to speak briefly of autonomy and convent as I feel they are extremely important in my understanding of UCC polity. Here I write what is in my Autonomy and Covenant Post

It looks to the Word of God in the Scriptures, and to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, to prosper its creative and redemptive work in the world.

Karl Barth stated that when we read the Bible we aren’t reading the word of God, we’re reading for the word of God. This view of the Bible I can really affirm. It resists making an idol out of the Bible and takes into account the modern critical methods. It affirms that God, not the Bible, is the one in charge that sparks the transformation and redeems the world. This means that we read about God’s work in history through the view of a particular people with all the limitations of culture and contexts.

The ancient theologian Origen taught that every text in the Bible could be read at three levels: the literal, the moral and the spiritual level. The spiritual level was discovered by means of allegory and was the most important. He has been severely criticized for this view, but I affirm it. With the modern criticisms we are able to understand context, language, and form. With hermeneutics we are able to access some practical meaning for our lives. By means of allegory, we can draw out particular instances in our lives to further make the point. We are to risk an interpretation by walking as far as reason and experience will take us, and then to live it out having faith that the Holy Spirit will guide and redeem us. This statement in the preamble does not limit the work of the Spirit nor try to remove the church or God from the world as it states “…work in the world.” There is no direct notion of a sacred/secular divide, and that is very important to me.


It claims as its own the faith of the historic Church expressed in the ancient creeds and reclaimed in the basic insights of the Protestant Reformers. It affirms the responsibility of the Church in each generation to make this faith its own in reality of worship, in honesty of thought and expression, and in purity of heart before God.


I just cited Origen in the last section, and I do not think I could do that in too many other denominations. I like this as it affirms the historical track the ancestors of the UCC have taken. We are Protestant in historical tradition and action. This part of the preamble affirms how informed people in the 14th century took responsibility and forged a new vision of church and worship. They did so boldly and creatively. That is the key concept of the preamble for me as it shows what we deeply value in the UCC. We value the ability of each generation to make the faith “its own.” We cannot rest on the laurels of those who have gone before us. We may look back to the 14th or even 18th century in our tradition, but we are not supposed to stay there. We must speak to our context and circumstance that we find ourselves in. We must pay attention to history and be guided by it yet not bound to it. That view does not label Catholics as somehow deficient, just different. We have parted honestly in our expressions of piety and faith. However, I feel an openness in the UCC to Catholicism and those who moved beyond the Protestant reformers our tradition claims (like the Brethren, Hussite, and other “radical reformation” movements), as we see in the examples of Mercersburg theology and Reverend Phillip William Otterbein.


In accordance with the teaching of our Lord and the practice prevailing among evangelical Christians, it recognizes two sacraments: Baptism and the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion.


This can only come from a “sola scriptura” ethic for which Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli argued. The preamble affirms the Protestant view of the sacraments yet it does not outline them. It points to the two sacraments that Jesus specifically started yet does not feel the need to outline them here. I think this is a wise move, as it allows for a variety of interpretations of the sacraments. It starts where the reformers all agreed and builds from there. The spectrum from Zwingli’s “it’s just a symbol” to Calvin’s middle road of “it’s a symbol and more than” to Luther’s “consubstantiation.” I like this as it affirms the history and yet remains open to diverse views of the sacraments.

I affirm the UCC’s preamble in full. It is rare for me to state that, especially in writing, as I often have problems with creeds and religious statements. I usually edit the Nicene Creed to leave out the parts with which I do not agree (the virgin birth, for example). I find I can fully embrace this statement and will attempt to live it out. I view it more as a basis from which the UCC can launch. It is a foundation that each of the streams, hidden histories, and combinations thereof can come back to during times of controversy and conflict. It is good to recognize this affirmation within the preamble to the constitution as it sets up the rest of the document. It is also good to view it as an internal document, meaning it only deals with those within the UCC. It does not mention or refer to atheists, agnostics, or non-Christians, nor should it. It is a great touchstone for our denomination and a reminder of the history and principles upon which we are founded.

Part I: Sacraments and the Good News

Sacramentology


I have no use for dual natures of things. I have no knowledge of how God is present in the elements at communion or baptism, nor should I know. That is part of the Divine Mystery. What I do know is that the church marks time for its people while reminding them of the Gospel. Baptism is a symbol of being loved even though we are powerless to do anything to earn this love. Communion is the joy and celebration of gathered friends and family with recognition that the table will change and people will die and yet we hope to one day share the table again with them. There could be more sacraments similar to the Catholic sacramental model, but I affirm the Protestant argument for two sacraments. I do, however, see the need for the church to observe other “markers” of an individual’s passage through a community and life. Events like confirmation (passage into young adulthood), blessing of vocation (an “ordination” if you will), marriage, blessing of the sick, and funeral rites should all be observed and marked for the good of the individual and the community. All things we do in remembrance of the Triune God.

Good News for Today

The early church’s radical inclusivity broke with the social conventions and traditional spirituality of its era but struck a responsive chord within the souls of people who had been marginalized and minimized by the in crowd. The vision and words of Christ are always attractive: Come unto me all ye who are tired and heavy laden; Come to me all who feel burned out on religion, and I will give you rest in the unforced rhythms of grace.

That means that our words have to look like Jesus: a mother nursing her babes, a father holding the hand of his loved ones and whispering real encouragement, a servant who steps down so that there is room for another to step up. Like Christ, the church should not be judge and jury, gatekeeper or the morals police but rather the incarnated Christ of its age, for without him there is only the stink of arrogance in the room.

Every church has to face challenges and deal with them with clarity and conviction. We know that we will never get it totally right all the time because we are only human. But we cannot pretend that the church’s actions do not cripple us sometimes and violate our best intentions as disciples. And unless we are practicing and proclaiming a Word that lifts the burdens of others with our music, our worship, our liturgy, our organization, and the way we share information as well as in acts of living compassion, then we are living under the judgment of Christ as exposed in scripture.

With this doctrine of the church, the church can do away with its competitive nature and live in celebration of diversity. The church can do away with the fear of change and live in the assurance of God’s grace through Christ as sustained to us by the Holy Spirit. This view honors the vision of Christ that the community brings good news to the economically and spiritually poor, sets captives free, and proclaims the Jubilee that is grace (Luke 4:18-21). This view honors the past traditions and spiritual practices, but does not hold one above the other. Each denomination adds a part to the full understanding of the Gospel. Luther, Calvin, Erasmus, and the other reformers are honored and their spirit of reform is followed, as the church cannot rest upon their answers but adapt their model to time and context.

Most of all the church should be about articulation and interpretation of grace. It is the proclaimer and not the source of grace. The church is a gift from God to the world, but it is not the conduit from which grace comes. What history has taught us about this view is that the church gets power hungry and corrupts the Gospel through dividing people in its definitions, doctrines, and creeds. As Justo L. Gonzalez wrote, “And because we believe, we commit ourselves: to believe for those who do not believe, to love for those who do not love, to dream for those who do not dream, until the day when hope becomes a reality. ” The church can no longer afford to divide people—it must bring them together. The church must honor that many colors and ideas are needed to paint a single landscape. The church will then have many generations with many income levels. The church will affirm diversity and cultivate a “Generous Orthodoxy” that includes all races, sexual preferences, and abilities. It will know its history and have a communal memory and vision not just a pastoral or consistory’s view. It will be a place of divine guidance.

Part I: Sin and Salvation

Sin and Salvation


It is this simple. We are saved through Christ’s life and subsequent death on the cross. Jesus did not die for us—anyone can die for something, but to LIVE for something: WOW! That in and of itself is divine. The death is only meaningful if the life was worth knowing about! There is suffering and evil in the world, and the church should not try to explain how they were created. Suffering and evil just exist, and we must deal with them. We can provide new insights, we can remind people of philosophical and moral ideals, but pastors should not be in the absolute answer business but rather in the questions and insight business.

“The church is not in the morals business. The world is in the morals business… and it has done a fine job of it, all things considered. The history of the world's moral codes is a monument to the labors of many philosophers, and it is a monument of striking unity and beauty. She is not in the business of telling the world what's right and wrong so that it can do good and avoid evil. She is in the business of offering, to a world which knows all about that tiresome subject, forgiveness for its chronic unwillingness to take its own advice…But the minute she even hints that morals, and not forgiveness, is the name of her game, she instantly corrupts the Gospel and runs headlong into blatant nonsense. Then the church becomes, not Ms. Forgiven Sinner, but Ms. Right and Christianity becomes the good guys in here versus the bad guys out there. Which, of course, is pure garbage for the church is nothing but the world under the sign of baptism.” (Capon, Hunting the Divine Fox 132-133).

If grace is true and to be trusted, we must have faith in it. We cannot worry that this will lead to all sorts of permissiveness and such open minds that our collective brains will fall out. We are to take the example of the parable of the prodigal son. Jesus tells us that the son gets a kiss instead of a lecture, a party instead of probation. By bringing in the elder brother at the end of the story and having him raise objections Jesus gives a great example to the church. The brother is angry about the party. He complains that his father is lowering standards and ignoring virtue—that music, dancing, and a fattened calf are, in effect, just so many permissions to break the law. And to that, Jesus has the father say only one thing: “Cut that out! We’re not playing good boys and bad boys anymore. Your brother was dead and he’s alive again. The name of the game from now on is resurrection, not bookkeeping.”

This view renders all saved through Christ period. I view all need for justification as largely a human need of reassurance. The church provides this but keeps this in check by saying to the concerned parishioner “Yes, you’re saved in Christ and given the grace of God, just like everyone else.” The church is to make no distinction or try to step into God’s role and come up with formulas as to figure out who is in heaven and who isn’t. As far as the church is concerned, everyone is getting into heaven because of Christ’s saving life and this is the Good News to be preached to the world. The church is at its best when it’s in a Universalist mindset. What God has done through the incarnation and the death and resurrection of Jesus conquers and saves all (NO Limited Atonement!). However, there is still room for a hell, which would be a disbelief and self-exile from God’s grace. Jesus came for the sick, not for the healthy (Mark 2:17), so it is a mistake to think that everyone will come through the doors of the church. That doesn’t mean the church should keep quiet, but instead proclaim without anxiety and with confidence.

Part I: Historical Church

Part I: THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

(The purpose of part I of the ordination paper is to provide a way for the student to share his present grasp and understanding of the teaching and traditions of the Christian Church down through the ages and to relate this to his own theological perspective.)

I always try to go with the simplest answer. When Asked what The Greek word used for “church” in the New Testament, “ekklēsia” just means “assembly, congregation, council.” In other words, a church is a group of people, a community. This entails everything it means to be human—being sinners and yet a little lower than angels. The church, like humanity, is a living paradox, limited and sinful yet hopeful and the continued incarnation of Christ on earth.

I have no need of Nestorian ecclesiology, which is the error dividing the church into two distinct things or states of being: namely the heavenly and invisible and the earthly and temporal. I instead favor a unified view that it is in the church’s best interest to focus on the here and now knowing that grace flows from God and everyone makes it to “the Pearly Gates.”

For too long the church has had no purpose and has been content to rest on its old answers. It felt that if it challenged too much, it would alienate people, lose its members, and die. It has done the opposite, and this has alienated people, lost the children and grandchildren of its members, and started the downfall of the church. The institution as it is cannot stand, and it must be resurrected into something new. The church should become a new institution that is localized and flexible. The church should be controlled by its members and guided by its pastor. This model is a side by side model, not a top down nor a pastor leading and people following. If someone stumbles, the best position to be in to help is at the person’s side. A top down model is not the model Jesus used. He never brandished his power, he led by serving. It has been shown that the pastor out front will focus on the supposed destination and will not check to see if anyone is following his or her lead.

This church I have in mind is not a religious institution. "I want you to set aside the notion of the Christian religion, because it's a contradiction in terms. You won't learn anything positive about religion from Christianity, and if you look for Christianity in religion, you'll never find it. To be sure, Christianity uses the forms of religion, and, to be dismally honest, too many of its adherents act as if it were a religion; but it isn't one, and that's that. The church is not in the religion business; it is in the Gospel-proclaiming business. And the gospel is the good news that all man's fuss and feathers over his relationship with God is unnecessary because God, in the mystery of the Word who is Jesus, has gone and fixed it up Himself. So let that pass" (Capon, Between Noon and Three: Romance, Law, and the Outrage of Grace 163). Instead it is a practical institution. It does not spend time on high theological language and theories because Christ talked in everyday language and images. “When Jesus told his parables to the people, his disciples asked, ‘Why do you talk to them in riddles?’ And his answer was: ‘So they won’t catch on. Because anything they could catch on to would be the wrong thing. As Isaiah said, seeing they don't see and hearing they don't hear, neither do they understand [Matthew 13:10-17]. That’s why I talk to them like this: because I don’t want them to have little lights go on in their heads. I want to put out all the lights they’ve got, so that in the darkness they can listen to me.’” (Capon, Hunting the Divine Fox 78-79).

Above all, the church needs to be relevant and simplistic, giving a new and unexpected light to the world that is both warm and inviting as it is bright and blinding. The church should be practical and full of purpose. Its purpose should not be to prevent people from sinning or to tell people what to do. God in Jesus did not prevent sinners from sinning. He went around forgiving them right and left. If the church wants to represent him, it should not misrepresent his methods. Instead the church should focus on forgiveness and healing.

The church should not rest. It should always seek answers to questions it knows will never be solved completely. The church should know where it comes from but be “theologica reformata et simper reformanda”—reformed and always reforming. It should not seek the answers as much as the correct question for any given situation.

The church should take joy in the gift of the scriptures. It should not place claims that the Bible itself does not claim nor that our Jewish brothers and sisters make (as they have had the TaNaK longer). Thus the scriptures are not inerrant, infallible, or to be taken literally. Gifts are to be loved, celebrated, and used responsibly and with great care.

The church should not be an enclave of refugees from the world; it is the sacrament of God's presence in the world by the mystery of the incarnation. It looks just like the world but with a slant and twist that turn everything upside down. It is at once totally familiar but totally disorienting. The church should exemplify what H. Richard Niebuhr labeled “Christ Transforming Culture.”

The church should not await a “second coming of Christ.” Christ has already come again. He was born into this world (the first time) and then again at Easter (the second time). Christ comes again every time a stranger is fed, a prisoner is visited, and the least of these being cared for (Matthew 25:31-46). The Gospel of Thomas states, “His disciples said to him, ‘When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?’ He said to them, ‘What you are looking forward to has come, but you don’t know it.’” (Gospel of Thomas #34). Nor are we waiting for the kingdom of God, for Jesus said, “If your leaders say to you, ‘Look, the (Father'’) kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father’s) kingdom is within you and it is outside you” (Gospel of Thomas #3). We are awaiting the completion of the kingdom of God, which God will finish, but we must seek to do God’s will and do our part.

The ideal plan for the church is best laid out in Matthew 7: 6-12 as reframed in the Message: “Don’t be flip with the sacred. Banter and silliness give no honor to God. Don’t reduce holy mysteries to slogans. In trying to be relevant, you’re only being cute and inviting sacrilege. Don’t bargain with God. Be direct. Ask for what you need. This isn’t a cat-and-mouse, hide-and-seek game we’re in. If your child asks for bread, do you trick him with sawdust? If he asks for fish, do you scare him with a live snake on his plate? As bad as you are, you wouldn’t think of such a thing. You’re at least decent to your own children. So don’t you think the God who conceived you in love will be even better? Here is a simple, rule-of-thumb guide for behavior: Ask yourself what you want people to do for you, then grab the initiative and do it for them. Add up God’s Law and Prophets and this is what you get.” This view gives a whole new spin on sin and salvation and the sacraments.

Intro Re-Write

I do not know what exactly I believe but I can say that it starts with and is inspired by the life of Jesus Christ. My personal theology, as all theologies, has been shaped by contexts, experiences, and relationships which make up my very identity. As these are all constantly in flux, so is my theology. It is not a static, fixed system but more contextual, adaptable, and fluid. It centers on loving God and my neighbor as myself.


My theology is shaped by my interests, interpretations, gifts and limitations. It is based on a particular style, much like a painting, which is my community, the United Church of Christ. I use my theology, like art, to convey meaning to others. There are many styles in which to paint in the Christian tradition and I am a mix of many. I was raised Catholic. I react against Fundamentalist theologies. I want to be a Liberal Christian as I came to be a Protestant and was trained in seminary in this tradition but find myself more and more thinking and speaking in Neo-Orthodox terms. It has elements of all these streams put together in a new way. My theological style is more interested in imagination, beauty, and mystery; focusing more on questions than answers.

In this paper I hope to explain the areas of my theology. I will start by describing my understanding of the historical Christian Church. I will then describe my view of my denomination and how I intersect with it. I will then describe my faith journey and sense of call. It won’t be in a linear fashion but more integrated as each plays into the other. I will try to separate them as best I am able. I will first speak of my interpretation of the Historical Christian Church.

Re-Structuring

how do you write a paper when you have a fluid theology? it's like nailing jello to the wall. i find myself writing too systematically. but Sabio had a good idea and has helped me re-order the paper, more on that later.

when presented with the opportunity to talk about God, Jesus, Humanity and the state of the world, i could type a book that would rival war and peace. i love talking about theological implications, talking about probabilities and exceptions, exploring all aspects and outcomes of a given topic. but i can't do that here... i gotta boil it down and keep it simple as this will be lay people reading the paper. not saying that these people are stupid or anything, but i know i wouldn't wanna read something that wasn't engaging. i don't wanna bore 'em with my ranting and rambling.

so i looked online for tips, and i found this ordination paper by Lynne A. Burmeister McQuown that is absolutely inspired. i just wanna put my name on it and print it out and hand it in.. but that'd be bad... so i'll have to steal from it.. after all, "good artists borrow, great artists steal," Picasso I said that. also looking around for how to explain God, i found Faithful Progressives note on Paul Tillich and the God of the new atheists. fantastic!

What i wanna do is just put:

I dunno what exactly i believe but i can say that it starts with and is inspired by the life of Jesus Christ. I dunno if Jesus was God but I can say that I best meet God through the example of Christ. Grace-filled, compassionate at the core and joyful of existence while noting that there is suffering in the world. Loving thy neighbor as yourself sets up an inclusive ethos that doesn't set aside or supercede other religions but places Christians as servants to others regardless of race, creed, or nationality.

and then i would play them these two songs to explain how i view the UCC:





So what i've decided to do is re-structure under the rubric that Sabio suggested where in his suggestion of the "art paragraph" collapsed community and tradition together. so part one will be my view of transcendent truth (God, as presented by Jesus, in my case) part two will be Community, specifically the UCC and the third will be my personal journey experience. this will streamline the whole paper and won't make it so cumbersome to write. thank God that i have my atheist friend Sabio ;-) this is why i blog. dialogue and relationships are important, in fact vital to existence.

it takes all of us.

i'll post more this coming Tuesday. until then.... thanks for your comments and keep 'em coming!

The Introduction: My personal Theology is like Art

My personal theology, as all theologies, has been shaped by contexts, experiences, and relationships which make up my very identity. As these are all constantly in flux, so is my theology. It is not a static, fixed, dogmatic system. Nor is it finished nor ever intended to be. It is also not misty, idealistic, and ethereal, but pragmatic, grounded in practice and experience, and adaptable.

Metaphorically, I see my theology like a painting. It starts and is shaped by my own interesting, interpretation, gifts and limitations (experience), it is based in a particular practice or style of painting (tradition), seeks to convey meaning to others (community) of a greater truth (transcendence).



To focus the picture a little more and describe the traditions I come out of, the Roman Catholic tradition could be viewed as the classical style art, conservative  liberal Protestant tradition would be more impressionist, and what I view my style (and the style of the many theologians I’ve read these past years at seminary) as more surrealist. It has elements of all traditions but put together in a new way. This style (and thus the artists using this style) is more interested in imagination, beauty, and mystery; focusing more on questions than answers.

In this paper I hope to explain the four highlighted areas of my artful theology. It won’t be in a linear fashion, but enmeshed integrated as each plays into the other, but I will try to separate them as best I am able. I will first speak of the experience, particularly the human experience.

Ordination Paper: What is It?

The ordination paper is a three-part paper dealing with the person's theological perspective and grasp of the historic Christian faith; understanding of the history, theological roots, polity and practice of the United Church of Christ; and the person's faith pilgrimage and understanding of ministry. It is written by me (the candidate) and presented to a committee made up of folks from my local congregation. They will all read it and ask and critique it. This is to determine my abilities; reasons for seeking ordained ministry; educational and theological attainments; knowledge of the history, polity and practices of the United Church of Christ; growth in Christian faith and experience; personal qualities; and preparation and fitness for the call I am seeking.


If the committee is satisfied that the person meets the requirements for ordination, it recommends the person to the association.
 
once again the three parts i will be post will be on:
 
1. My understanding and theological location in the historic Christian faith. (talking about my "doctrines" of God, Christ, Humanity, Church.. etc... you know all the ologies: Christology, Eccesiology, etc.)
 
2. My understanding and location within the United Church of Christ. (grasp of polity, history, and vision for my denom).
 
3. My own personal history and experience (faith journey).
 
I'll be looking for your help just as i did on my Statement on Ministry which lead to the drastic re-write. It is my goal to have this done by the end of this month. Thank you in advance for your help!!

A Theological Review of Yours Truly

I have to write my ordination paper soon. This is hard because I tend to take a Taoist stance and roll with what comes along. Deal with existence as it presents itself, not through a rigid system of absolutes found through theoretical case studies. Real life is much more fluid than that so therefore so must my thinking. That isn't to say I don't have some absolutes or that i'm totally ungrounded. I am open to being wrong and to be transformed either through reason, experience, or scripture. I can't tell you how often i've been changed by one or the other.. or all of the above!

My doctrine prof, Dr Peter Schmiechen wrote a great letter to me when my daughter was born. Dr Schmiechen is a genius theologian as well as a kind and gentle soul. he is an artisan who works with wood and i have a small Iona community cross that he made that i pray with often. anyway.. here is what he wrote as reference for those out there who are trying hard to understand where i'm coming from. it's also written as a reminder of who i'm percieved to be as i attempt to put on paper my fluid theology.

(this was written to my daughter just days after her birth, he dropped off slippers his wife knitted. the book came in May, after the Doctrine class was over.)

Dear Eve,

We met when you were but a few days old: sleeping calmly under the watchful eyes of your parents. Perhaps I will come to know you better but for now I wish to speak of your father. He is a good man. His life is made of many conflicting experiences, held in tension, waiting to be resolved. Some of that resolution appears to be taking place.

His family life was divided, his religious experience fractured several times, his interests were and still are quite varied. As you will discover, he is very bright and good with words, able to fire the imagination. He says he does not like duality or division, but he is constantly thinking in terms of either/or. He claims the inclusive tradition of medieval theology, where everything finds its proper place in an ordered universe, but he thinks about things more in terms of storm and stress, with bold images tied to tradition only by thin lines. But those lines make all the difference in the world.

He wants a church set free from dogma, absolutism, moralism, and arrogance, free to proclaim Christ the word of grace. He makes it sound like he is starting all over again but then drops hints of incarnation, cross, resurrection and real presence. He likes writers who ridicule abstract theories because Christ is a real word of grace, but leaves us wondering how this grace actually appears. The record shows it has be co-opted, controlled, abused and misused by nearly everyone, and that it would be helpful (Paul's helpful) to have some guidelines, but not a Sears' Manuel. At times he sounds like those who want to get back to the simples teachings of Jesus (which few have actually agreed on), only to surprise us that he really does think, believe and experience the mystery of grace incarnate in person and presence. He likes to set things at odds and in tension, but then the day is saved by simple affirmations of grace.

Maybe experience does triumph over dogma, tensions softened by love, old conflicts resolved by grace. Without knowing it, you were born into all of this: the child of your parents named for the mother of us all. Your father once recoiled at the thought of that mysterious story of Adam and Eve, but it appears he has mellowed, no doubt through the influence of your mother and now you.

It is fitting that he should be in the process of finding a faith home at the moment he and your mother are creating a home for you. So begins a process of mutual care among the three of you, an image of a larger grace.

Talk about a once in a life time letter... because Peter is a once in a lifetime guy. Check out his books on amazon: like Saving Power and esp.  Christ the Reconciler: A Theology of Opposites, Differences, and Enemies which this letter came with. If you want to understand where i'm coming from.. if i do as well... this book is part of it. always looking for the third way.. the transcendent way.. not really always compromising.. sometimes this way pisses everyone off.. sometimes this way gets you killed.

hope this letter was some light.. as it was for me. peace!