Initiation.  It is expressed in many different ways within our churches: Infant baptism (or dedication), confirmation, adult (or believer's) baptism, formal membership, ordination.  Regardless of our churches' official stance on the matter, people's identification with or loyalty to any specific denomination or community of faith commonly changes. In part, this is a symptom of the consumeristic, individualistic age we live in.  But I believe it is also and often a function of a person's faith development, a person's journey.

As a Free Methodist pastor, my denomination encourages me to respect the various ways that people come to, and have grown in their faith.  For example, maybe a person was baptized as an infant within the Roman Catholic or Lutheran church, but years later, ended up connecting to the body of Christ where I serve. Rather than requiring them to be re-baptized, we can simply recognize and accept their prior baptism as fufilling our own baptism-requirement for membership (FYI: re-baptism would also be allowed).  When I was ordained as an elder in the Free Methodist Church, my prior ordination was recognized, which resulted in my bishop using a much shorter liturgy/ritual for my ordination (because it was a profoundly significant time in my life and ministry, I had personally hoped to experience a full-blown ordination).

As I understand it, there are other traditions and denominations which might handle such things quite differently.  Adult believers might not be allowed to "transfer" into their new family of faith, without going through the appropriate initiation first (e.g. adult catechism, being re-confirmed, re-baptized, etc.).

To what extent should re-initiation be the norm when people move from one faith tradition to another?  Should all the formative and prescribed experiences be duplicated?  If not, which ones, and why?  And from the other end of the spectrum, to what degree should we honor and respect people's journey in faith thus far?  Should years of living and trusting Jesus account for something?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

.

Photo credit: Google images

Acts, chapter 8 was the bill of fare this past Sunday at church as I resumed our teaching series through the book of Acts.

In the first half of chapter 8, the narrative is focused on Simon the Samaritan magician, who surprisingly believes the gospel, is baptized... and then demands that Peter and John sell him the ability to impart the Holy Spirit to others through the laying on of his hands.

One of the life-lessons I believe we can learn from this passage is that... there will always be people who come to Christ for the wrong reasons, and whose profession of faith is not genuine.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we go around "judging" people as to whether or not their trusting in Christ is genuine, but I am admittedly curious what thoughts or insights other people have on this topic.

By way of your own experience and insight, what are some of the "suspect" reasons people have for professing faith in Christ, when they're not being genuine or sincere?  How should leaders and concerned members of the body go about discerning such insincerity, if we should at all?  How careful should we be in the first place, in confirming the genuineness of someone's conversion? In Simon's case, the apostles dealt him stinging rebuke.  Are we ever justified in confronting people regarding the genuineness of their coming to faith in Christ?

My gut tells me that we evangelicals have often been so preoccupied with getting people "saved", that we have failed to properly interview, interact with, and guide people responsibly into the faith.  We've been guilty of what Dallas Willard identifies as the "great omission from the great commission" (i.e. leaving out the "...and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you" part). Do you agree?

Glancing at this briefly from a different angle -- within my own holiness tradition (Methodists, Nazarenes, Salvation Army, etc), there have been times when many people so doubted the sincerity of their own conversion, they would end up getting "saved" on a yearly, monthly, or even a weekly basis.

Where's the balance in all this? And how should we be concerned about the genuineness of a person's coming to faith?

.

Photo credit: reportedly, this is a photo of ex-KORN guitarist, Brian "Head" Welch, being baptized in the Jordan River on 3/5/05 by Pastor Ron Vietti... found here.

Largely in response to the terrorist attacks of 9-11, lots of people continue to be haunted by the question: why do they hate us? This is exactly the question that Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat highlight in the opening chapter of their ground breaking commentary -- Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire:

"Why do 'they' hate us so much? Is it because of cable?  Well, sort of.  Perhaps they hate us because we are a cable culture of multiple channels mirroring a belief pluralism that just keeps too many options open.  From the perspective of an Osama bin Laden, such pluralism represents not the maturity of an open society but the lack of moral courage and the conviction of a promiscuous society.  Perhaps 'they' hate us because we are the consummate consumers.  Perhaps 'they' find the consumption of belief so morally reprehensible that 'they' are willing to risk everything in order to destroy such a civilization.

The culture we have just described is the global consumerist empire, with its postmodern multiplicity of perspectives.  And now that empire is under attack.  It is not only self-imploding under the sheer weight of its own sonsumer refuse but exploding under the attack of a counterimperial force" (p.37)

It is this sort of contemporary perspective that underlies Walsh and Keesmaat's assertion that the message of Colossians is just as needed in our world, our "empire", as it was by the Colossian believers living within the Roman Empire.  Their exegetical work is amazing.  Similar work has long been done on the gospels, but an epistle? And Colossians?  Bravo!

I'd love to hear from any of you who have already taken a look at Colossians Remixed, or from anyone who would like to respond to their characterization of American culture as highlighted above.

It seems that postmodernism and emergence theory are having an effect, not only on Christianity, but on the Jewish faith as well. 

Apparently, the Emerging Church movement is being closely watched by innovative leaders within the Jewish community. The Synagogue3000 project is  certainly an example of this.  Here's a snippet of what they're saying:

Not only are many Jewish religious communities looking to the experiences of Christian innovators, especially in the context of worship that engages the unaffiliated, but they are seeing a similar paradigm shift from an individual-oriented seeker mode to a relational conversation aimed at spirituality in intentional community. (from Synagogue3000's "Emerging Conversation" site)

In partnership with Emergent/U.S., the Working Group on Emergent Sacred Communities was formed, bringing together Christian scholars (and friends of Emergent) like Ryan Bolger from Fuller Theological Seminary with progressive rabbis like Sharon Brous of IKAR and Rabbi Shir-Yaakov Feinstein-Feit of Kol Zimra.

This is absolutely fascinating to me!  And the more I think about it, the more I'm asking myself: "where will all of this lead?"

Is a new day dawning, where followers of Jesus are finally not afraid to learn from people of other faiths?  Is a new ecumenism emerging? Will all of this lead to an amazing 20th century revival where scores of Jewish people accept Joshua as the Messiah? Or, at least for some, are we watching a new kind of religious syncretism being conceived, one that will eventually give birth to a "new faith"?  Maybe it's none of the above.  And maybe it's all of the above.

What are your thoughts?
.
.
Photo credit: Google Images

In the current issue of Christianity Today, and as part of his article entitled, "Pentecostals:the Sequel," Grant McClung offers "Seven Prayers" for his "Pentecostal and charismatic family" and for his "brothers and sisters in the international body of Christ." 

This is, of course, very timely, being that the Azusa Street Centennial (officially, April 25-29, 2006) is already being observed in many places.

Anyway, here is Dr. McClung's Seven Prayers for Pentecostals:

1. That we may keep Christ and his commission at the center.
2. That we maintain the dual dynamics of Word (exegesis) and Spirit (experience) as necessary equipping for mission.
3. That we lift up holiness of character and turn from the carnal display of human charisma.
4. That we get the life-giving, socially transforming gospel of Jesus Christ out of our sanctuaries and into the streets.
5. That we humble ourselves and acknowledge all partners in the harvest.
6. That the Azusa Street centennial will not only be a cause for celebration, but also a time for solemn reflection.
7. That we will be more excited about the glory of God than about our own accomplishments and growth.

So what do you think of McClung's prayer list?

.

photo credit: Google Images

Well, I finally did it.  I wore a clerical collar for the first time. And yep -- that's me in the photo, wearing the neckband style clergy shirt at the Vespers service I led last night for our congregation.  I also wore the red stole that's in the photo, draped over the altar.

Honestly, I was a little nervous about how the congregation would respond.  But after taking the time to explain the origin and uses of clerical collars and stoles, and then leading them through Vespers, I ended up hearing nothing but positive and encouraging words.  My associate pastor, Benjy, thought the "real test" would come when I went out in public.  Well, later on in the evening my daughter and I did in fact go to the local Carl's Jr. to get her something to eat.  And when the server brought us our food, she looked at me and made a point of saying, "God bless you!"

I've been going to this particular restaurant for years, and nobody has ever said that to me before.  Seems pretty clear to me that it was the collar that inspired the comment.  What do you think?

The series of posts that have run here at Paradoxology on this topic have stimulated some fascinating discussions (see the "Vintage Paradoxology" section in the lower left-hand column).  And it will certainly be interesting for me to begin personally experiencing an answer to this question first hand: "what does a clerical collar say?"

It's probably easy for me to say this: but I believe we'll see a pendulum swing within many churches over the next few decades that will reassert the use of clergy attire.  I would not be surprised if, in part, it is a reaction-of-sorts to the effect radical individualism has had on evangelical churches and their understanding of "the ministry of every believer."

Anyway, my quest to discover what a clerical collar communicates to people today has entered a new chapter. Perhaps some of you might like to join me!

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.