Shane Ash

I resign the pastor I once was.

Since I was knee-high-to-a-South-Dakota-grasshopper I have acknowledged God’s call in my life. That call has not changed. But I have. Being a father of two growing children has changed how I understand and relate to God. The spiritual weight of pastoring within a lead role has changed the way I respect the pastoral office. The challenges in leadership have changed my awareness of the role of pastor. And witnessing disunity within a church body has inspired a longing for change to a deeper and more faithful Church and Gospel.

I love looking over the shoulder of experience and recognizing God’s forming work in life. But there are still many areas in my pastoral leadership in need of significant transformation. Max DePree once wrote, “We cannot become what we need to be by remaining what we are.” And I know I must further change in order to be what God wants me to be. Here are three patterns in my leadership I am seeking to change.

For starters, I am an extreme people-pleaser. It isn’t a desirable trait. It is rooted in pride and arrogance. I want people to like me so much that when I disappoint someone I then see myself as bad, unworthy, a failure and deserving to suffer. Doubt and an unhealthy dose of self-criticism quickly consume my thoughts. And those self-hate thoughts can lead to temptations of laziness, lust, anger, over-eating and carelessness words. They become attractive sins to ease the pain of failure.

People-pleasing in a pastor can affect many areas and responsibilities, even the ability to preach. When fear of offending has enslaved the mind, how does one preach a gospel that runs so counter to human tendency and desire? If people-pleasing is in control, how does a pastor fulfill the mandate to instruct and correct? And I am not alone in this disease. Many pastors, although we know it’s impossible to please everyone, become ensnared by the emails, conversations, and rumors of discontent. The seeds of worthlessness get planted and then watered by the next email, phone call or conversation…and eventually the forest of frustration is too dense to find our way home.

How am I changing this tendency? Dallas Willard, speaking to a pastor struggling with the tension of expectations, once gave the advice, “You need to decide if you are the minister of the people or a minister of Christ.” He understood we can either be controlled by what people think and feel, or, if we are ministers of Christ, we can realize he the one in charge and we serve people on his behalf. I am learning to be a minister of Christ, and to let my service to him find its place among his people.

Second, too often I have a “poor me” attitude. When faced with consistent criticism I allow my thoughts to warp into, “Why are they always picking on me?” It might make me feel better in the moment, but obviously it isn’t true. I am not the only target nor am I exempt from deserved criticism. There are serious consequences in believing the irrational thought of “I deserve better than this.” It creates an attitude of bitterness, judging of others, and the tendency to withdraw from relationships. I am learning to more objectively evaluate and receive the hidden truth found in every criticism (It is important to remember that not always are the hidden truths about the criticized subject. Sometimes it reveals truths about the criticizer).

Both “people-pleasing” and “poor-me” are immature thoughts and part of conforming to the patterns of culture. The Apostle Paul said in Romans (12:2), “Don’t become so well-adjusted to your culture that you fit into it without even thinking. Instead, fix your attention on God. You’ll be changed from the inside out. Readily recognize what he wants from you, and quickly respond to it. Unlike the culture around you, always dragging you down to its level of immaturity, God brings the best out of you, develops well-formed maturity in you” (The Message). As I continue to seek transformation by the renewing of my mind, I am determined to think different thoughts…to dwell only on whatever is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent and praiseworthy (Philippians 4:8).

Third; as a pastor, I am too tolerant. Perhaps there is nothing more dangerous than a tolerant pastor, especially if the tolerance gives way to lessening truth. Too often in the church, people come to expect tolerance for their sinful behavior. When it becomes more “wrong” to acknowledge sin than it is to sin…we have made tolerance more important than truth. While we do not want to become arrogant holders of truth; we must stop being tolerant of the sinful behaviors of the church.

An alternative to tolerance is biblical discipline (warning in love, speaking truth in love). And part of the biblical role of the pastor/elder is the spiritual discipline of the flock. Obviously, discipline isn’t a popular conversation these days and certainly it has been abused throughout the history of the church. But a church body will not stay healthy or on mission for very long without discipline. As a pastor, it is hard to confront people in patterns of sin. People don’t often desire accountability and they certainly don’t want to face the embarrassment of being called out. And there will be occasions when the discipline is flatly rejected. But none-the-less there is a biblical expectation of pastors to admonish (warn) fellow believers (Colossians 3:16).

One specific leadership challenge I failed at nbc was providing proper pastoral discipline for the sinful behaviors evidenced in the church (I wrote of these in Parts 2-4 of this series). As a church, we are first and foremost called to be one, it is our primary witness (John 17:23). So the theologies, thoughts, behaviors, and sins distracting the church from oneness must be confronted and admonished in order to protect the unity of the body and thus the witness for Christ.

Eugene Peterson, in an interview with Leadership Journal said, “The role of the pastor is to embody the gospel. And of course to get it embodied, which you can only do with individuals, not in the abstract.” This is a great truth and deeply personal challenge. Rather than people-pleasing, pouting, or tolerantly living in the abstract, we must embody Christ and lead others to embody the Gospel. Certainly it will require a renewed identity as a shepherding pastor, sincere humility, intense courage, and discipline.

An unrelated and random note: A couple days ago someone asked, “Shane, what are your reasons for writing this series?” It’s a good question and I suppose there are three answers: First, I think best in words. Writing helps me process and really establish my thoughts. And it is important for me to understand what has happened, why it happened, and how I am going to respond. Second, I want others to know what I truly think and feel. And if you were to crawl into my head and look around, these are the thoughts you would find. There are no hidden dark corners of bitterness or chained-up angry words. Third, as God leads me toward whatever is next, I want to have said publically everything I have said privately. I desire accountability and transparency, and if I am nuts I would like someone to tell me.

I resign from ignoring individualism in the church.

Individualism. The word speaks for itself. People as islands. I am my own person. Me. Mine. My rights. My faith. My personal relationship with God…just Jesus and me.

Somehow in our Western promotion of both personal and religious freedom we have latched onto the idea that individual autonomy is the goal. But from a biblical point of view, it is not. From the very beginning, the Church understood discipleship happens best within community. Actually, I would venture further and say, discipleship is not possible outside of community (and by “community” I am referring to a faith community where sacrament and liturgy (common learning) are shared. It is one of the marks of a true disciple of Christ; living within the context of relationships. Even the triune God doesn’t exist outside of reciprocal relationships…hence triune.

But as we the Church have moved further and further away from orthodox theology, we have become more and more shaped by the culture of individualism. In some circles “Christianity” has turned into a private, internal, me-and-Jesus-therapy-for-the-soul experience. We have become “spiritual” people with no regard for objective truth or an immutable God.

How does this play out in the life of the local church? I was recently emailed this quote from the book, Evangelical Social Gospel? Finding God’s Story in the Midst of Extremes. This is a great description of one of the ways individualism affects us today…and these words resonate deep within my own journey.

“People who tell me they are leaving our church always begin the decision with the same three words: “We have decided.” By the time those words are uttered, faith has already been broken. These are some of the most painful words I ever have to hear. “We have decided to leave for this or that reason.” The reasons they give vary and they usually have at least some merit. Yet they pale in comparison to the egregious sin of breaking fellowship – read faith, fidelity, faithfulness, allegiance, pistis – with that part of the body of Christ to which they have been given. This is one of the most insidious forms of individualism. Why do people feel as though they can make the decision to leave their community of faith in private, without ever submitting this decision to the rest of the body? In truth this action violates the unity of the body. It runs counter to the notion that our worship runs much deep than simply where we go to church on Sunday. Rather worship involves the whole of our lives. To “decide” privately to leave a church means we sever deep bonds of friendship and community that are meant to be reciprocal relationships. The phrase, “We have decided,” is a sign that individualism has so pervaded our lives and our Christian faith that we think we are fully justified in making decisions on behalf of everyone in our community without consulting them. This, I believe, is one of the most damaging effects of individualism on the church.”  – Tim Suttle

So many times I have sat tongue-tied in similar situations. Knowing if I were to speak into the individualism it would only light a raging fire of defense or accusation. Defense and rejection are part of the nature of individualism…we are free from any and all authority outside of ourselves…we have the right to grant the consumer desires of our souls and the freedom to believe the way we want…our subjective reasoning and beliefs are higher than any other. Any thought that truth might be objective or that community should be honored is rejected. We live out our “entitlement” without regard to others.

This disease of individualism is not new and nor, as thought by some, is it something only plaguing modernity. It is a human nature issue not an era issue. Even postmoderns who pride themselves on the rejection of the modern autonomy often express their individualism through the rejection of absolutes. David Wells provides great insight in his book The Courage to be Protestant. He recognizes the common thread of individualism between moderns, postmoderns, marketers and emergents. He says, “This thread is our understanding about the self. Then, as now, it has become loosed from every external constraint, be it to God, the past, or religious authority. We demand to be free. We today, post-modern as we may be, are more unconstrained, more emancipated from everything except our own selves than were the proponents of the Enlightenment. This, then, is a thread that actually connects how people have thought for a long time in the West.”

And as Nazarenes (and Wesleyans in general), we are faced with another issue. Just a slight twist of thought and our theologies will lead us into extremes. There are only a couple of twisted thoughts between a robust doctrine of holiness and a busted doctrine of hokey-ness. Clearly the history of scattered “faithful Wesleyan” groups and the enraged debates of the “concerned” the should teach us of the danger of religious self-righteousness (another form of individualism).

Often Nazarenes have been described as having a “big tent” of theology, meaning we have commitment to core agreements but freedom in the non-core beliefs. The beauty of the “big tent” is the inherent humility staking it to the ground. It allows for the sharing of thoughts, listening to ideas, self-inspection and shared accountability. No one promotes themselves over the other; each recognizes their passion as adding to the whole. Individuality goes out the window…or out the tent flap. Community and relationship become the norm. Unity and covenant become the link and “Kingdom Come” becomes the goal. It is time to get back to “big tent” kind of living.

How do we change? I would be a fool to think I could unpack this thought in this limited space, or that I could unpack it all. I am only beginning to clarify a few thoughts from examining this disease in my own life.

But as kindling for the purifying fire, here are a few thoughts: Theology (taught through creeds and sacraments) has become an afterthought for many of us within our gatherings for worship. Worship has become understood as personally experienced, self-focused, and something to be consumed. And as I have already briefly covered in Part 2, the church has exploited this tendency rather than rejecting it.

David Wells says, “Christianity is not just an experience, we need to remember, but it is about truth. The experiences of being reconciled to the Father, through the Son, by the work of the Holy Spirit all happens within a worldview.”

It is time the Church reaches back into its deep, rich history and revives the practices that ground us in a biblical worldview (and I am not talking about the worldview the church had just 100 years ago marked with enthusiasm, experientialism, legalism and camp-meetings). I am thinking we need to develop a deeper ecclesiology within the theology and praxis of the sacraments. A baptism ecclesiology will deepen our understanding and commitment to covenant. Membership, family and belonging will actually mean something within the local church. A Eucharistic ecclesiology will focus the Church on the incarnation of Christ, will motivate a missional response in the world, and will uphold a biblical eschatology…one that recognizes the “Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.” In short, covenant and kingdom must become the heartbeat of the local church.

Final note: I do find it interesting that as a result of how far we have moved from our roots, when some people today hear biblical language and orthodox doctrine they think it is new. Oh the irony. We have become so accustomed to the church conforming to culture that now people assume the orthodox movement among our churches today is just another cultural fad. I am convinced it is God renewing and calling His Church back to solid ground.

When starting this series of posts it was my intention to not simply repeat stories. Instead, I hope to examine thoughts and lessons I have learned from my experiences. This post is probably the most vulnerable of the series. It deals specifically with the sin present among the church body. Both individuals and institutions can sin, and our responsibility in both is to confess and repent (change our behavior). The sins of gossip, slander, labeling, and fear-mongering are not new, we have many biblical references of these sinful behaviors being present in the church since the earliest of days, but anytime it is witnessed in the life of a church it is disheartening. And the sin of power-hunger is not new; remember what put Jesus on a Roman cross. We must learn to live with all kinds of personalities and behaviors in the church, but when it comes to the issues of sin, we must be brave enough to confront and hold sinful behaviors to account. Read these thoughts as my confession, both as a leader of an institution and an individual.

I resign the conquest for power in the church.

I could see the signs of sickness but I couldn’t diagnose the disease. At first I thought it was conflicting personalities. So I invested deeply in relationships, seeking to “get close” in order to bridge the gap. Then I thought it was a fissure in theology. So, I began to preach our core theologies and partnered with other teachers/resources to mend our theology. Then I thought it was a preference in practice. So, I invited others to our leadership tables and sought to both include and influence. But the sickness kept creeping its way back into the everyday life of the church. It was like a bad case of allergies, and just when you think the seasons are changing…boom, your nose is dripping on the front of your shirt. Or like an infestation of mice in your house, you can’t see them but they continue to destroy and leave behind their waste. Or, to use a medical analogy, it is like cancer, slowly deteriorating the body one cell at a time.

But then, with the help of wise counsel (both inside and outside our church), I began to see the root issues through a different microscope. And together, we discovered there was a culture of power in the church. It had become part of our telos…leading us to an inevitable end. I guess it shouldn’t surprise us; after all, churches are made up of people. And people, as Galadriel states in The Fellowship of the Ring, are “the race of men, who above all else desire power.”

This is a difficult subject to write about. There are many definitions and nuances in this subject that could throw it into an unrecoverable tailspin. I must admit it is a complicated and complex issue, crossing multiple fields (psychology, theology, and anthropology to name a few) in which I only have limited knowledge. So I have relied heavily on a couple of resources I would recommend for your reading; a paper entitled A Discussion of Power as it Relates to a Local Church Context, by Ruth Reynard and the book A Charitable Discourse: Talking About the Things that Divide Us written by Dan Boone (here is a excerpt from his book).

Dan Boone uses the term “jihad” to describe the war present in some churches today. Perhaps this present day example may give us the best insight into the experience and level of intensity of the battles present in the leadership trenches of the local church. The victims of this jihad are both the spiritually and emotionally wounded leaders and the innocent citizens of the church who are honestly seeking to live life in Christ…both scarred and discarded along beside the scattered shell casings of slander, misquoting, labeling, and intimidation.

Any local church must have a clear picture of healthy and biblical authority in order for it to be a life-giving community. And those in authority must have an understanding of Jesus-like leadership; a leadership that is inclusive and collaborative rather than individual and coercive (see Reynard article). At nbc there was an unhealthy desire by individuals seeking to reign, demonstrated by their coercive and resistant behaviors. It led to confusion about who we were as a people and about where/what/how we organized ourselves.

How did it get that way? Again, I appeal to that simple fact that all too often we in the church are shaping ourselves around our world culture instead of being shaped by scripture. In some ways it was correct to think theology was the root. Our Christology and eschatology shapes our ecclesiology. And so, with time, twisted theologies will always show up in the life of the church. Eventually, our wrong thinking will be visible through our wrong behavior.

We are also influenced by a culture that throws stones first and asks questions second. We are quick to speak, quick to anger…quite the opposite of James admonition (1:19). It is quickly making us an ungovernable people. Sadly, we Christians are often more shaped by the tactics of today’s politics than we are by the ways of Jesus. When people get disgruntled in the church they begin to immediately enact the tactics required to subvert authority and remove leaders. It is behavior gained in the sinfulness of man that is the premise for all evil…to subvert the authority of God. When this becomes a norm and accepted behavior in a church community, it becomes a difficult (perhaps impossible) environment to lead within.

Two quotes from Dan Boone’s book also help me understand what happened at nbc:

“Nothing unities people like a common enemy. When we are threatened, we mobilize to resist the enemy. It may surprise us what we are willing to do to defend ourselves from a threatening enemy. Angry religious fundamentalists know this and play on these fears in ways that are irresponsible and damaging to the cause of Christ. Once they have spoken, we are tongue-tied to say anything in opposition lest we be labeled a friend of the enemy.”

“When we declare someone an enemy, we unleash something in that person’s direction for which we become responsible. In the vernacular of the Old Testament we “curse” the person. A curse was words spoken with power to do harm. It was the exact opposite of a blessing – words spoken with power to do good. By cursing the enemy, we unleash upon him or her the wish for harm to be done, not the desire to good.”

What is missing from our tables of leadership and in the relationships between pastors and lay people is trust. Trust is the confidence that the person across the table from you has good intentions and there is not a need to be protective or cautious around them. My journey at nbc was filled with broken trust. In the moments of vulnerability and dreaming together as teams…repeatedly it was discovered the people at the table were not sharing equal intentions. The attempts and opportunities for collaborative leadership were broken of trust. The attitude was clearly presented as “if you’re not with us you’re against us. And if you can’t agree with us then we can’t be friends.” Rather than posturing as learners and co-laborers, there were some who only endured the conversations so that they could then go out to repeat their twisted version of reality and often causing more broken trust. It was a cycle of pathology and sin that had to stop.

Reynard says, “If any lasting change is to be affected, perceptions of power must be understood and challenged where necessary and a system of practice that includes rather than excludes individuals is required. Where this does not happen, congregations last as long as those in power. There is no progress possible beyond those individuals.”

And only when examining the full history of our local church does it really develop into clear view. The mindsets of some had led to patterns of brokenness and sinfulness. Although I believe the behavior was naïve and rooted in ignorance, the behavior caused major damage to the community as a whole. This struggle for power led to the attempts to destroy others with words. And it is destructive to the whole community when “holders of power” speak slander against other…and according to scripture is it also sinful.

“You are jealous of one another and quarrel with each other. Doesn’t that prove you are controlled by your sinful nature? Aren’t you living like people of the world? When one of you says, ‘I am a follower of Paul,’ and another says, “I follow Apollos,” aren’t you acting just like people of the world?” 1 Cor. 3:3-4

“When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear…hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division…” Galatians 5:20

By offering my resignation at nbc I hoped it would bring to light the issues present in the church. I “gave over without resistance” my positional authority as pastor to those in authority over me. I hoped it would provide opportunity for others to step out of the prisons of power and begin to speak truth to one another. By removing the target (the position of pastor) for those individuals set on disrupting authority, I hoped it would expose a culture of behavior needing to be called into accountability. It remains to be seen if I made the right decision.

There are some who will continue to live in denial and anger. And there are some who are beginning to awake to the truth of the matter. I pray for both daily. Does it always have to be broken? No. With confession (recognition of wrong-doing) and repentance (transformation of behavior) there can be forgiveness and healing of trust can begin. I pray for this repentance to be evident to all.

Let me also take this moment to admit my bias. I am an institutionalist. What that means in this context is that I believe that institutions have a place in the reign of Christ. Christian leaders are called to shape the institutions to serve as signs of the Kingdom in our midst. It is possible and it is necessary. (A side note…this is one of the thoughts that would separate me from the emergent church who seek to resist the conformity of institutions. While I sympathize with some of their complaints about the abuse within these systems, I hold onto hope for change.) It is why I am loyal to our Nazarene denomination, I hope for our institutions to serve as signs of God’s Kingdom in our world. The local church can be an institution that demonstrates the rule and reign and Christ. I hold onto that hope.

I resign the consumer church.

It is time to be truthful about the reality of many churches today. The desire for recognition and attention has enslaved the imagination of churches and leaders. The reoccurring dream that services the motivation of pastors and churches alike is a hope for greater status.

It is hard to admit, but if we honestly examine the people attracted to the typical Sunday morning service, most are not drawn to and held captive by the message of Christ and his counter cultural version of living called the Kingdom. Truthfully, most are coming through the doors looking for an hour of Christian entertainment. They come because their kids have fun, the music genre, the speaking style of the pastor, or because it is the popular (cool) church in town. And people leave churches for the same reasons, once the business (church) stops providing the products (make-me-feel-good) the consumer will take his/her business (attendance and giving) elsewhere. This is the real story that pastors all across America are living in today. It is what the church has become…and it is who the church has become: an insatiable group of spiritual-consumers hungry for the next happy-meal of “christian” entertainment.

There is another truth to admit. We pastors have no one to blame except ourselves. We created this; our own insatiable desire for recognition led to a church model that guarantees pastors and talented people a platform to showcase talents. We became spiritual-help dope dealers and our churches have become the crack-houses for the next emotional high of the consumer sins of our people. It is time to admit that as pastors and leaders, we too, succumbed to the consumer culture surrounding us and became hungry to satisfy the cravings of success modeled after the same pride and greed consuming our American culture.

How did this happen? We live in a day that has perfected the ability to brand, promote, excite and demand attention. We experience it so often that it is second nature for us…or perhaps it has become our first-nature. We live in an over-marketed, sensationalized, and indulgent culture. Instead of looking for food to eat, we are more concerned with what flavor of food to eat. Instead of needing clothes to cover, we are more concerned about the style and brand of the clothes. It is not hard to find examples of the demanding individualism that pervades the present generations. While there have been some who have recently sought to rebel against this mindset…even the post-modern rejection and the emergent-church attempts have fallen short of ridding themselves of the pervasive “me” (I will write more about this in Part 4). Many churches have organized themselves around the same strategies. We have become experts at packaging, promoting, and selling the gospel.

The problem is found in human nature. The more we understand or think we understand the felt needs and desires of people the more we target those needs/desires for our own gain. And so, in order to sell the gospel, we compete. Compete with other places of belonging, compete with other churches, compete with online/tv ministries, compete, compete, compete. The more we feed these desires, the more the desires must be feed. The vicious circle of competition goes on and on.

And in order to compete well we have learned to capitalize on the tendencies of human nature. Some have called this the Walmartization of the gospel; to lessen the demands of the call of Jesus in order to make our own “good news” more appealing to the masses. In essence, what we are doing in the church today is reducing the manufacturing costs (spiritual disciplines) in order to attract more people to buy our product (the church). Only one problem…the church doesn’t save people. Nor is the consumer-church the hope of the world. Let’s not confuse ourselves…and let’s try not to confuse others too. Jesus is the hope of the world. And Jesus is still the salvation and hope our world needs.

The result of the consumer-church selling the gospel to the lowest bidder is that our churches are now full of spiritual consumers. By harnessing the cultural power of the consumer mentality in our churches we produced at an alarming rate a pseudo-Church filled with pseudo-Christians. We have simply become a reflection of culture that is driven by a consumer give-me-what-I-want-mentality rather than a counter-culture way of living driven by the teachings of Christ.

And so the products of the attractional (we-want-to-be-a-mega-church) model of church have been revealed. The attractional model forces us to choose ourselves, to spend the majority of our resources on ourselves, to promote ourselves over others. The inherent dangers of this are obvious; for the Church exists to model the Kingdom of God and these are not Kingdom characteristics.

The good news. This way of thinking about the church is dying. Quickly. People have seen through the façade of entertainment and compromise. It is my belief that God is renewing His Church…and sometimes cleansing His Church. Leaders and churches are emerging out of the traps of culture-driven marketeering and grounding themselves in biblical thinking and living.

But this transition is not without pain. Like disobedient children who have been spoiled by lazy parents, the consumers in our churches are throwing themselves into fits of rage as the serve-me attitude and the make-it-easy discipleship are no longer acceptable. And what should leaders do? Fold to the demands of the consumers? Beg them to stay when they threaten to take their “business” to the church around the corner? Continue to lessen the demands of the Gospel life?

Just wondering out loud here: What if we allowed them to leave? What if leaders and churches were brave enough to teach a gospel that requires obedience and sacrifice? What if instead of desiring ever-growing attendance as the marker of success, we desired maturing disciples with the marks of faith, hope, and love? What if we lost our fear of consumer-criticism and began to fearlessly live as signs of the Kingdom now?

But here is the point of all this…to resign to this way of church we must become convinced that Jesus’ way leads us into different places and alternate realities than where we are living today. And if we don’t act to change, we are in essence giving up on the Gospel as a counter and better way of living the life God has given us. Courage is required; obedience is required; and more than likely, death will be required…a dying to the things currently propping up the psyche of many pastors (attendance, buildings, recognition, etc.).

What is the opposite of the consumer way? The way of discipleship; seeking to follow the ways of Jesus. Some call it incarnational living…living out the patterns and life of Christ. To live incarnationally is to seek to live in accordance to who Jesus was, what Jesus did, and how Jesus did what he did. It is what Jesus has called us to do…follow him.

I am deeply convinced of this reality, both the state of the church and the incarnational calling of Jesus. I am also convinced that a slight shift of language or a renewed emphasis on missions isn’t the change we need. And I am nervous that leaders and churches will not proactively address the change but rather it will require a generation of complacency to die in the desert in order for a generation of faith-filled disciples to rise up and move into the promise land. But none-the-less, I resign to no longer promoting the flag of the consumer church.

I resign.

A two word sentence packed with so much meaning. Two months ago I spoke these words as I sat in front of the church board and a few minutes later stood in front of the congregation.

What led to this moment has, for the most part, been ambiguous for many. My hope here is to take away some of the ambiguity through a series of blog posts starting today.

It is tempting to simply timeline events and detail out some of the jaw-dropping pastoral experiences of the past three years…that alone would probably create understanding for some. However, stories like mine are not unique; unfortunately they are becoming common place among leaders in the church today.

Why is this becoming common place in the church? I will write more about that in the posts ahead. But to let you in on where I am headed, I am convinced that twisted theology, omitted orthodoxy, and poor praxis have created intense confusion among some churched people. If it is true that churches are structured for the results they are presently achieving then a serious study and significant change is needed in many.

A little background to my story is important. When I arrived three years ago to New Beginnings Church, it was clearly a church in crisis. There were still bloody bandages visible from previous leadership battles…but the dried blood was not an indication of healing. Instead, the respite and emergency care offered to the wounded had only allowed time for the trenches to be dug deeper and the stockpile of ammo to increase in size.

I must pause here and note: I hesitant to use war language when writing about my experiences in the church, but it is the best narrative I know of to demonstrate the amount of folly and error present in the journey. So hang in there, I am not suggesting this as the best narrative of church.

There are many words one could write concerning the situation the church found itself in prior to my arrival, but I will attempt to provide only a brief sketch of the church’s most recent history. Nbc was a plant church in the mid 90’s with mainly transfer growth through its first 15 years. Having built one building and still indebted for near its value, the decision was made to build another. There was an attempt at raising cash funds, but the construction was already forging forward on the new building. In hindsight, it seems the allure of “achieving church success” became the driving motivation for nbc to build a bigger and better building. The decision was largely dependent upon an assumption of immediate and significant church growth. In the application to the district (part of the process for loan approval in the CoN) for approval to borrow funds, it is stated the strategy to afford the loan was through “continued growth of the congregation” and “attendance and giving are growing and we believe we can absorb the payments.” Having mortgaged their future and following the popular attractional or church-growth model, nbc invested in a strategy that subsequently forced a reduction in personnel, elimination of budgets for ministry, and a reduction in basic operational budgets. It seems they chose a strategy they did not have the ability to fund.

In addition to these circumstances, the founding pastor couldn’t see a future for the vision he carried and due to division among pastor/lay leadership felt his influence had been hijacked by those anxious to prove success. Subsequently, the church lost the only pastor they had known. This loss divided the congregation according to whom they were most loyal too. Simply put, it was a competition for vision/leadership that led to a division of unity and broken relationships.

There would be some who would agree with this view of history and some who would add their own stories…but regardless, it is my best effort in understanding of the reality of the situation.

And as I arrived into this environment, the crisis in the church became increasingly clear through the common stories of broken relationships, the overuse of spiteful words concerning fellow members, the lack of biblical stewardship, the distortion of biblical theology and Christian orthodoxy, and by watching the tensions continue to build within the various pockets of leaders in the church. I recognized I was leading in a very complicated and tense environment. This was a community in crisis relationally, financially, theologically, and systematically. Some recognized the severity of the situation, most did not.

Three years provided a variety of experiences; some great, some not so great. But what became overwhelming clear was the continuation of competition for vision and the positioning for power were once again eroding the ability for effective spiritual leadership. Something significant had to change; something rooted in the dna of the church kept rebirthing itself in conflict and sinful behavior. Anger, slander, labeling, and intimidation were accepted as normal. Somehow some church members were allowed to be divisive and hurtful; they were consistently allowed to “act out” without restraining their hurtful behavior and attitudes. These behaviors eroded congregational confidence in church leadership, victimized the congregation, sabotaged pastoral leadership, and stymied church progress. Many good families removed themselves from this atmosphere when they simply reached a place that they were no longer willing to tolerate the disturbing conflicts and had lost confidence in the church.

And alas, back to the “I resign.” The one major concern I had in this moment was that “I resign” would be heard as “I quit.” Knowing the culture of hearers I was speaking too it had to be considered ahead of time that there would be a wide variety of interpretations and assumptions. Quitting or giving up was never intended or desired. To quit in this story was to lose faith in a God who is still calling and leading. And I have not lost faith…actually it is because of faith in the leading God that I have dared to be obedient in this process.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says the meaning of resign is to “give over without resistance.” In so many ways this is the true understanding of the words I spoke. To offer my resignation was to give over the choice of what kind of people the people of New Beginnings Church were going to choose to be. Would they stand up in the midst of a history of abusive and sinful behavior or would they stand idly by as the naysayers controlled their future? To resign was to surrender any positioning for power and release my own future and calling into the hands of those who hold authority in my life. Would the church decide to move on to new leadership or would they seek to affirm the vision and leaders? To resign was to trust the church board leaders that they would lead as representatives of the whole body rather than serve the dictators in the body. To offer my resignation was to be obedient to the leadership of God’s spirit.

All of these things were rolling through my mind as I spoke those two words. And since, God has continued to faithfully re-shape and lead both the people of New Beginnings Church and myself. There have been many who for one reason or another have decided to leave fellowship, but there remains a firm group of dedicated believers anxiously awaiting God’s future for them. Spiritually mature leaders are emerging and humbling leading. I believe New Beginnings’ best days are yet to come.

Today I have a firm sense of identity as a pastor, an increasingly clear sense of mission, and a passionate hope in the Kingdom. In the following couple of weeks I will more clearly explore some of the thoughts floating around in my head. So tune in for the following parts of the “I resign” series of posts:

• Part 2: The culture of consumerism in the church.
• Part 3: The conquest for power in leadership.
• Part 4: The radical individualism within theology.
• Part 5: The pastor I once was.
• Part 6: “So what?” And “What now?”

The Kingdom of God. For many it is confusing. Their confusion is understandable. Because when we speak of the Kingdom of God we are talking out of both sides of our mouth…we speak of the already present kingdom and the yet to come kingdom. Which is it? It is both. The already but not yet kingdom.

John Wesley dealt with the same tension with his theology of “imperfect perfection.” By the grace of God we have been made perfect, yet we are still being made perfect. That is to say, although we are in Christ, we have not yet fully attained the perfect and final mark of Christ-likeness.

“I realize that many people scorn such a doctrine of “imperfect perfection.” But to deny the possibility of being filled with the Spirit and knowing God’s perfect love, because we are still finite creatures subject to the limitations of an earthly existence, is to miss something which is vital to New Testament Christianity. We therefore subscribe to “the Wesleyan paradox” of Christian perfection. The full truth is not gained by removing the tension between the two poles (“perfect – not yet perfected”) but by holding these two truths with equal emphasis. Only thus does the Christian life flower into Christlikeness.” – William Greathouse. Nazarene Theology in Perspective. Pg. 23-24.

So how do we live in the tension? How do we confidently walk as perfected but knowingly admit we are still deeply flawed? How do we boldly proclaim the reign of Christ but still cringe at present evil in the world? How do we live in these days?

We must live in the tension. See it as a good thing. We must recognize the stretching and the forming of the tension. We must look for the glimpses and listen for the stories of mercy, justice, hospitality, healing, hope and love. We must seek to freely forgive and be forgiven. But we must do more than witness, we must seek to proclaim and become living illustrations of what the kingdom will look like when Jesus returns. And we must pray…earnestly pray for our King to return!

“The kingdom of God is the rule or reign of God. Whatever or whoever is subject to his authority is under the authority of the kingdom. We do not “build” the kingdom of God. Rather, God invites us to enter (Matt. 18:3); receive (Mark 10:15), or inherit (Mat. 25:34) the kingdom. When we enter the kingdom, we also participate with what God is doing in the world (Matt. 10:7-8). The mission of the kingdom is always God’s mission. Our calling in the church is to bear witness to what God is doing in the world, primarily by proclaiming and exhibiting the character of the kingdom in the grace-filled stories of redemption in our lives, in the nature of our relationships together, and in the way we engage the world around us.

Our confident hope as Christians is that Jesus is coming back to earth to establish his kingdom fully and forever. When he returns, the dead in Christ will be resurrected. Faithful saints from every language and every tribe will welcome his return and will be gathered together as one people, reconciled to God and one another, kneeling before him in worship, wonder, and praise. In that day, there will be no sorrow, no sickness, no suffering, no death. As God created the universe in the beginning, the new creation will reflect its original pristine beauty and purity. We will forever be with the Lord.” – Ron Benefiel in Missio Dei: a Wesleyan Understanding. pg. 107.

I am sitting in one of my friday morning hangouts, trying to finish a reading and writing project, but unable to get into my usual groove. I am distracted by the three separate conversations happening around me. Each of them is talking about the pending “judgement day” that has been predicted (“predicted” is too generous of a word…perhaps “grossly misrepresented” is a better description) for May 21st.

Let me be clear. The birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension and return of Jesus are essential Christian beliefs. And yes, I believe a significant event in the future will result in the actual presence of Jesus joining us within God’s new creation. But I do not believe (nor does the Bible teach) that this event will look like the popular beliefs within many Christians of today.

Unfortunately, too many well-intentioned people have had their beliefs shaped by folk-lore, fear-utilizing preaching, and a fictional book series called Left Behind. Listening to the folks around me right now it seems like they fully believe the world will end in this way…even if they doubt the specific validity of tomorrows pending appointment.

Let us hit the pause button for a second…and remember that the New Testament tells us that the Creator will remake heaven and earth, affirming God’s proclamation of its “goodness” but overcoming the corruption and death (Ro. 8:18-27, Rev. 21:1, Is. 65:17, 66:22). And when that happens…Jesus will be revealed within the new world (Col. 3:4, 1 Jn 3:2).

The popular verses (misinterpreted) often used to promote the crazy idea of Jesus appearing in the clouds to call his children off to some place in the stars is found in 1 Thessalonians 4 (also in 1 Cor. 15:51-54 and Phil. 3:20-21). Paul uses flowery language to describe Jesus “coming” or “appearing” that appealed to the Jewish (and Roman) readers of that day.

NT Wright offers this description; “…here he borrows imagery—from biblical and political sources—to enhance his message.  Little did he know how his rich metaphors would be misunderstood two millennia later.

First, Paul echoes the story of Moses coming down the mountain with the Torah.  The trumpet sounds, a loud voice is heard, and after a long wait Moses comes to see what’s been going on in his absence.

Second, he echoes Daniel 7, in which “the people of the saints of the Most High” (that is, the “one like a son of man”) are vindicated over their pagan enemy by being raised up to sit with God in glory.  This metaphor, applied to Jesus in the Gospels, is now applied to Christians who are suffering persecution.

Third, Paul conjures up images of an emperor visiting a colony or province.  The citizens go out to meet him in open country and then escort him into the city.  Paul’s image of the people “meeting the Lord in the air” should be read with the assumption that the people will immediately turn around and lead the Lord back to the newly remade world.

This creative use of words is not to be understood as literal truth…but they are a vivid picture and reminder that God will transform the present world.

So then, as Christians filled with hope…we should not be looking to a day of ending…but for signs of new beginning. We should be looking around us, right here and right now, for God’s transforming work that has already begun.

We do not sit back waiting for the escape hatch to open and flee from this “wicked world” but we should be passionately caring for what God declared as “good.” We should be looking for the empty tombs around us…the signs of resurrection in our lives and in the lives of others. We should be going “all in” with our efforts to promote forgiveness, peace, and justice in the world. We should “grab our bootstraps” and pull on courage in the face of evil because we know God has won.

In case you are wondering…I couldn’t help myself. I graciously offered a few thoughts into the conversation around me. They left with hope…at least I hope they did.