I learned the meaning of ‘chutzpah’ the hard way.
As a young seminary student I witnessed an ordination exam which I and a few others felt was inadequately conducted. Somehow the fact that I was a young seminarian and the exam had been carried out by experienced ministers was lost on me. I went to one of my professors who had been involved in the exam and pointed out the deficiencies we had observed.
His response was predictable. “It takes a whole lot of chutzpah for you to walk in here and say that.”
I had never heard the word, but the tone with which that sentence was delivered communicated its meaning perfectly. “Who do you think you are to criticize those who have been doing this for the number of years we’ve been at it?”
Indeed. Who did I think I was?
I’m grateful for that professor. He was angry, rightfully, at my cheek. The impudence involved in stepping out of my role and placing myself in a position to assess my elders and find them wanting was massive.
Perhaps I am engaging in another display of chutzpah in raising a tiny voice of protest against the various scholars and genuinely godly men and women who have attached their names to the “Nashville Statement,” recently issued by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Perhaps they need to stand up as one and stare me down saying, “Who do you think you are?”
But perhaps the shoe this time is on the other foot. I find myself asking, “Who do they think they are?” The CBMW is an agenda-driven independently formed parachurch organization. It is not the church and yet it presumes to raise its voice to scold and instruct the church. The very fact that it demands to be heard with authority and to speak to and for the church suggests that there has been a massive realignment in Evangelical Christianity’s definition of and respect for the church. That which was born to assist the church, the parachurch, has grown in its youthful impatience to swallow its parent and to act with independence and swagger.
The preamble of the Nashville Statement should be re-written in terms that require us to ask questions even more fundamental than those of marriage and sexuality:
“Evangelical Christians at the dawn of the twenty-first century find themselves living in a period of historic transition. As Western culture has become increasingly post-Christian, it has embarked upon a massive revision of what it means to be THE CHURCH.”
For that is the hidden revolution in statements like this. Whether the content is helpful or not is beside the point. The very existence of the document and the impetus of those behind it reveal that its authors have not only lost patience with the church, they have seen her as no longer bearing any power or weight.
Speaking as I am attempting to do into the independent, consumer mind-set of Evangelical Christianity, I know that many who read this will be mystified by my concern. So far has our respect for the church and her messiness and process fallen. But having not arisen from the church, a statement like this bears no ecclesiastical authority. There is no labor of any church court or body behind it. It lacks the carefully weighed, though painfully slow, nuanced pastoral concern of ecclesiastical process. It was not generated at the request of the church, and it has not been adopted as the stated judgment of the church. Hence it has no authority beyond the respect given to the names attached to it. And though I have respect for many of these, it is an Evangelical Celebrity Document and nothing more.
For a group such as this (complete with a ‘donate now’ button placed dramatically at the end) to speak to and for the church is chutzpah. But it is chutzpah barely noted because before there was loss of respect for marriage in Evangelical Christianity there was a greater loss in respect for the church.
❦
Note: An earlier post taking issue with the statement’s doomsday tone can be read here.
Stephanie
I hadn’t even considered this. I think I still carry a blind spot for the Church’s authority because I grew up in a tradition that completely ignored/rejected that the Chirch existed in favor of the local church. And my age doesn’t help. I’ve come up in a time where parachurch ministry is treated by many (most?) to be another version of the Church, making this too-big-for-its-britches concern all the more tolerated and threatening.
Randy
Yes, and exactly my point. A great erosion in the importance of the church has occurred and we now mistakenly consider the church an amorphous invisible and ill-defined mass of believers, and not as the messy institutional community of diverse persons. Whereas once one might have looked upon a position issued by the church as having authority, though we struggled with its content, now we determine whether to accept the content of a thing based upon the fame and reputation of those whose names appear at the end. I say it again: this is an Evangelical Celebrity Document which we are to accept on that basis. And that is problematic, it seems to me. We have lost respect for the church. The church is messy and its counsels may err. But it is the church and the CBMW is not.
Kedric W.
“But having not arisen from the church, a statement like this bears no ecclesiastical authority. There is no labor of any church court or body behind it. It lacks the carefully weighed, though painfully slow, nuanced pastoral concern of ecclesiastical process. It was not generated at the request of the church, and it has not been adopted as the stated judgment of the church. Hence it has no authority beyond the respect given to the names attached to it.”
Money statement. Sorry you don’t get any royalties. The Mortification of Spin podcast on this subject basically said the same thing.
Randy
Thanks. I am kind of surprised that more people don’t raise this question. As for royalties, well, there is this: https://www.paypal.me/somberanddull Not royalties, but it does help support the site. You need not donate, but if you link this site on FB, and such, others might!
Neal Ganzel
Thank you brother! Excellent analysis!
Randy
Thank you. I’m always happy when we can agree!
Simone C
I do agree that this type of statements are arguable, not for the content rather for the form.
However, I believe that the promoters and signers of this statement had good intentions behind this, one of them is a member of our church and “celebrity theologian”, but I can’t barely imagine him as a hidden revolutionary, and it would be interesting to know what his thoughts are.
My real concern is the choice of the city, why Nashville? Initially I thought that was a statement about church music, why not San Francisco or Las Vegas? 🙂
Oops, I accidentally gave a hint, we may be getting soon a declaration on church music… 🙂
Randy
Ah, but the revolution occurred many years ago. We are only now seeing how revolutionary it was/is. And IF said statement on church music were to come, many of us would base its merit on who signed it. That’s how we function these days.