Who owns the car?

Recently I was encouraged by a dear friend of mine who not only reads this babble I post, but also gives me much hope for the direction of Church and the future leadership. Currently he is discerning if he should obtain his PhD in order to teach preaching for the next generation of church preachers. To him, I say, we need you. (Read his blog here).

In a conversation we had a metaphor was shared and it spoke to my heart in regards to leadership and the 'way the church runs'. One of driving.

When you were learning how to drive, no matter how safe a driver you were, you could not drive the way you wanted to drive. We all had to drive the way our parents wanted us to drive (both their good and bad driving habits) because they owned the car. They put their hard earned money and sweat equity into that car and they wanted to make sure the car remained as they desired it to be.

My friend's metaphor lead me to think, "Yes, I can see this happening in the church in many ways. The people who have put their lives into the creation and upkeep of the church want to make sure the church is safe, looks good, and operates. Which means we (new leadership) have to learn to drive the church the way those older than us want us to drive the church, not the way we feel called to drive."

But the thing is, this mentality may work for a car, but the Church is not a car. In fact we do not own the church. The Church belongs to God.

It is my prayer that I never forget that I do not own the Church. It is my prayer that I remember always, especially when I am one of the older church leaders, there are many ways to drive a car, and I cannot monopolize driving techniques on a car that, for all of us, is a rental.

Remove or reclaim shepherd metaphor?

In a book the bishop asked several people (including my wife) to read for the realignment committee there is an argument which states the church needs to remove from its language and mind the idea that pastors are shepherds. The author states the metaphor of pastor as shepherd "is ultimately destructive to effectiveness in ministry".

The author makes a good argument to remove the metaphor in our churches. One point which I thought particularly interesting is "Shepherds were entrepreneurs who raised sheep for their livelihood, for food and clothing. Good shepherds lead their sheep into green pastures and by still waters in order to obtain three results." Shepherds used the sheep for personal gain; for cloth, food and/or reproduction. Pastors should not been seen as shepherds because we do not own people and we do not use people for personal gain (or at least we should not!!).

I know every metaphor breaks at some point, and this book is saying we have a broken metaphor of pastor as shepherd because we have a romantic idea of what shepherds do.

I am curious to know if it is really a good thing to remove the metaphor from our theological imagination or if it would be better if we reclaim it?

There are many metaphors which are destructive and we continue to use them (such as God is only a male). And like I said, all metaphors break at some point (such as atonement metaphors). So should we purge all metaphors which are either destructive or those which have been stretched beyond their limits, as though we are metaphor iconoclasts?

I wonder if instead of taking such a black/white stance on this metaphor if there could be a third way. The way of reclaiming?

What if pastors across the UMC lived out the metaphor of shepherd only in those ways which the metaphor was intended?

For that matter, what if Christians across the world lived out all the metaphors of God in only the ways in which those metaphors were intended?

What would it mean if we only took the metaphor of God as male to the proper limits?

What would it mean if we only took Jesus as lamb to the proper limits?

What would it mean if we only took God is good to the proper limits?

What would it mean if we only took God is love to the proper limits?

Worship as soccer

Last week I began to express a metaphor for worship as football. While there may very well be wonderful things about the football approach and understanding of worship, I find it to be too 'control' focused and highly protective. Rather, I wonder what would it be if worship were approached not as football but as soccer?

Soccer seems like the ultimate game of trust. Each team knows what they are doing even though they do not come together as a total unit throughout the game to check in with each other. As the plays develop each person must be keenly aware of what they are doing as individuals but must make sure their actions are connected to the overall plan of the team. There is a lot of deviation that happens throughout the course of the game, but that deviation must instantly be figured into the scheme of the game. For instance, if one player in the 'back' position decided it would best serve the team to move to a forward position, then communication happens on the fly (verbal or not) and the other team members must cover the actions taken by the former 'back'.

There are not a lot of pads in soccer, just thin shin guards. So if you want to tackle someone, you have to physically touch them. This is dangerous for both players, not just the one being hit. There is one coach, but they do not have control over the plays as they develop. There is no play to "call", only persuasion.

If you see a soccer game in Europe, the crowd is very involved with the game - and not just when there is momentum. People are singing and dancing, with a feeling that what you are doing as a crowd actually effects the game. In fact, if you are not singing and dancing in the crowd, you stand out.

The spontaneous play of the game could very well contribute as to why soccer is known as the "beautiful game".