Vocational Plan B
Plan A: To go on staff at a church in the U. S. in some pastoral capacity, likely student or young adult ministry. [Status: Nothing going.]
Plan B: To discover the right vocational match for my expertise, temperament, and work style (see Vocational Info, top-right sidebar), and secure an opportunity to be gainfully employed doing this, preferably in Chicagoland or Missouri (St. Louis, Columbia, Springfield, Kansas City). Some [non-pastoral] occupations I am interested in pursuing (in order of interest):
Plan B: To discover the right vocational match for my expertise, temperament, and work style (see Vocational Info, top-right sidebar), and secure an opportunity to be gainfully employed doing this, preferably in Chicagoland or Missouri (St. Louis, Columbia, Springfield, Kansas City). Some [non-pastoral] occupations I am interested in pursuing (in order of interest):
- Writer/editor
- Creative director
- Training & development manager
- Organizational consultant
- Corporate paralegal
- Marketing manager
- Quality assurance manager
Thanks!
Matt
Once again... if you've got the guts you could plant a church :-)~
ReplyDeleteAnd as for being a theological mutt, don't forget the very denomination that you recommended to me: the Christian and Missionary Alliance. Allow me to renew my recommendation of them back to you, that you might fit in with them quite well, and they are really very short on church plants in Missouri and Kansas. They might even have ideas for a paying position in one of their exiting churches in other states.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteWe are fairly strongly pursuing bivocational opportunities in St. Louis, with me working full-time outside the church and getting involved on a lay leadership level in a locale in which we would likely plant a church in the near future. I'm talking with a "church planting missionary" with the E-Free church about a variety of potential options there. K.C. is next on our radar screen, if nothing pans out in St. L.
Thanks again for the recommendation of the C&MA. I actually had a nice conversation with Rodger Peck back in mid-August about church planting w/ them. Sounds like a good system they have, and the theological flexibility is definitely a plus. One of the things I'm wrestling with is whether the theological "generalism" of certain denominations or non-denominational groups carries with it an inherent downplaying of theology generally and a tendency toward pragmatism. I don't know whether this is the case broadly, but I've observed it in quite a few instances, including the E-Free church (with whom I'm strongly considering ordination). That said, I know A.W. Tozer is a C&MA guy and he's certainly no atheologian. :-) I suspect, though, a tendency toward pietistic theology (in evangelicalism generally) only shallowly rooted in "Biblical" and systematic theology (I use the term "Biblical" in a technical sense). There are exceptions everywhere, though, and I'm on the hunt for them. :-)
I don't know the CMA well enought yet to comment very knowledgeably on that, but I can tell you that they're making me write 4 8-page papers on the four offices of Christ (according to their founder A.B. Simpson): Savior, Sanctifier, Healer and Coming King. Not sure whether you would classify that as pietistic or biblical, but they're certainly serious about it, and don't seem to simply have a "go along to get along" attitude about theology.
ReplyDeleteWhile we're on it, my personal attitude about theology is that it's very important, and should not be watered down, but being serious about theology should not equate to dividing ourselves up infinitely like we have been wont to do. And it certainly doesn't mean we should shun or ignore those who love Jesus, but honestly disagree with us. Incidentally, this attitude is also what I gather from the CMA, based on my experience so far.
Exactly. Keeping theology at the fore without drawing lines in the sand is what I believe is needed. In other words, we need a "big tent evangelicalism" that is nonetheless theologically (again, biblically) grounded and conversant.
ReplyDeleteSince you mentioned one key aspect of their theology, i.e., their Christology, I may as well pick your brain on this. Coming from an AG background, thinking of Christ as healer would seem to come much more naturally to you than to me. I know for a fact that he heals--spiritually, psychologically, relationally, and physically--but I have a hard time parsing out what we as (post)modern day Christians are supposed to do with this, especially as regards the role and nature of prayer and faith. As far as I know, there's no formula or guarantee, that if we say or do x, with a certain attitude y, Christ will do z. I think we need a robust theology of prayer (as well as providence and probably many other things) along with our Christology if we are to speak well about Christ as healer today. I would be interested to see your paper when you're through. Perhaps it will help me in processing this subject.