The Priesthood of a Physical Church @KeithGiles

Keith Giles, an organic/house church advocate who offers all of his books for free electronically, recently released This is My Body: Ekklesia as God Intended. First off, this book is a very easy read. The way Giles separates the chapters makes it feel like you are moving the book quickly and easily.

The book itself is intended to examine a biblical basis for what the institutional church and worldwide Church should look like. Long story short, Giles provides a wonderful, well-thought-out argument for the priesthood of all believers in a way that is accessible to most people (rather than heavy theological language). He notes important implications for what that looks like institutionally, including the lack of hierarchy. One of my deep spiritual/ecclesiastical values is an egalitarian organization, so I really appreciate the many angles Giles approaches this, from the role of pastor to the relevance of a "spiritual covering." There are so many wonderful things he says that I could elaborate on, but that would take forever and probably be redundant with his work. :)

There were a couple of parts that I struggled with. At one point, Giles mentions that he so dislikes it when churches raise so much money to put into creating or buying buildings rather than going to people. His rationale for this is wonderful, and I agree. When I was an elder at The Gathering, we talked about ways to make sure all of our income would go back out, which is what Giles' community succeeds at.

At the same time, I can and have seen the value of larger communities (Giles argues for very small groups) and church campuses. I grew up in small church communities and am currently drawn to the philosophy of house/organic churches. At the same time, I have been a part of some very large congregations lately. Particularly as one has been in the news lately in part because of poor financial planning related to their building,  I have seen first-hand how much time, energy, and money goes into buying and maintaining church property. A lot of time, energy, and money that could go into people.

At the same time, my wife and I have come to appreciate the opportunities available with a larger congregation.  While a lot of money may flow into administrative and building costs, these communities provide a lot of services to the world around them that smaller groups could not do. While the churches themselves may spend less on administration and building if they were small and without a building, then other organizations and businesses would have to pick up the slack on service. This might not happen at all. When it does, it usually occurs with non-profits, who also will often rely on donations and have the same administrative and building costs as churches. They frequently have more, as churches can often more easily be staffed by volunteers. In the end, more money may reach people if the institutional church does the work and includes the overhead. I get and agree with Giles' philosophy, but practically, biblical times were quite different than modern times when it comes to interpersonal service.

Further, church buildings can be services in themselves. While I hate the waste of space many sanctuaries are, many well-planned buildings can and are used for many activities and offered to the community to use. Further, appropriately thought-out buildings can teach spiritual stories and inspire people to go out and serve more. Yes, it is difficult to watch tens of millions of dollars go into a new building when people are starving. Yet what is the cost if that new building becomes a refuge for people to relax and become rejuvenated to then go out and help those starving neighbors? While I am very much a utilitarian with many things, I have come to value the importance of space that is life-giving. I've been to more utilitarian church buildings and those that are intended to be a sanctuary. I am much more open to people after spending time in the latter.

The other part I struggled with was a section on women leaders. Giles argues for the equality of women in the church with some excellent arguments. But then he ends by stating, "However, the authority to rebuke or confront a believer caught in sin seems to rest on those male elders and overseers who were recognized as having a Fatherly position within the Body" (p. 142). This statement stood out in stark contrast to the rest of this section and his book, which all provided examples and support for his claims. While the complementarian/egalitarian debate was not really the issue here, this statement just seemed unsupported.

While I spent most of my time here on the parts I did not fully agree with, they were actually relatively minor parts of the book. For anyone interested in organic church models and thoughts on hierarchy in ecclesiology, I highly recommend this book.

The Pastor and The Psychologist @christianaudio @caReviewers

I'm currently in the middle of listening to the audiobook version of Eugene Peterson's memoir, The Pastor (with a free copy courtesy of christianaudio). I had heard nothing but good things about it, and I have to agree. Since it's a long book (12 hours for the audio), I wanted to post something about how it has impacted me in my vocation as a psychologist.

While the tome focuses on the pastoral vocation, Peterson actually spends a good amount of time exploring the role of mental health and the work of a pastor. He describes how he began working in a rural area with a significant dearth of mental health professionals. A local psychiatrist realized that clergy are usually the first line of defense against mental illness and that most people having emotional problems seek clergy first. This is fact that has been verified many times up to the present, emphasizing the importance of the clergy to know about mental health. In response, the psychiatrist trained a group of a dozen or so clergy members in the basics of mental illness so they could aid with triage and helping get people to needed services.

As a psychologist, I absolutely love this. It's a great way to bridge the artificial divide between psychology and church life while having the practical implication of utilizing resources wisely to help people get the help they need.

Peterson expressed his appreciation for this training. One of the things he noted was that he began approaching his congregation as problems to be solved, diagnoses to be named in order to find the issue and provide a resolution. He did not at all criticize the mental health field for this, but realized that he needed to back up and begin to re-immerse himself in the ambiguities of congregational life (and I would add that solutions are not always possible).

Rather than giving an answer or immediately offering to do something, he explained how he would sometimes just sit with the other person. Or he would ask if they would like him to do anything. He stated this was difficult because providing the answers helps the ego and sense of accomplishment of seeing change happen quickly.

Yet this is not all that different from the work of many psychologists. While there are some people who focus on diagnostics and simple symptom reduction, that is not my calling. There are plenty of psychologists who want to focus on deeper elements than behaviors and labels. While we may have to use that wording at times for billing purposes, many of us do work much closer to what Peterson described of just offering ourselves and our presence to the individual or family.

At this point, the work of a psychologist moves from a job to a vocation. Depending on our orientations, I kept thinking that the best description of my work is being more of a pastoral psychologist than a clinical psychologist. This emphasizes the lack of the de-personalization and impersonalizing work that can often coincide with a more clinical perspective, which Peterson explained was key to his understanding of the danger of seeing his congregation as problems to be solved.

Later on, he describes how a friend, who lived through Nazi Germany, became severely disillusioned with the institution of church, as so many supported Hitler's terror. Peterson beautifully describes how this friend vividly pointed out how the position of pastor could suck all of his life and compassion and heart out, leaving a deadened, sick individual.

This is not so different from the life of a psychologist. The issues of insurance and institutions and diagnoses and money can quickly de-personalize all work, sucking the love and sense of vocation out of the psychologist. I have struggled with this, despite being new in the field. Peterson's work helped me recall and refocus on my reasons for pursuing my vocation.

While I'm only halfway through the book, I would definitely recommend this to all mental health professionals and would love to include it in future classes I may teach to budding clinicians. It reminds us we should not just be pursuing a job, but a vocation.