Controlling our Speech

One doesn’t have to read far in scripture to see that speech is powerful. In Genesis 1 God speaks creation into being. A couple chapters later the serpent’s speech leads Adam & Eve to their doom. In the New Testament we read of the power of the tongue and the need to control it. I’ll make three general observations in regard to how the power of speech pertains to leadership.

If you are on or follow social media you know we are in an age where people feel the urgency to speak up – and speak out. We can find people with opinions and pronouncements on nearly everything. Occasionally this speech has thought behind it, but often not.

As leaders, there are occasions in which we must speak up. We cannot remain silent. There are other occasions – perhaps more than we’d think – where not speaking up is the thing to do. Sometimes allowing silence for a span of time is the most productive thing we can do. How do we know?

First, let God’s love dwell in you. Let it work through you so that all you think and say is an expression of Jesus’ Great Commandment.

Second, seek understanding before you reply. We – like everyone else- understand things in light of our previous experience. We understand what other people say in terms of our prior experience; they understand what we say in terms of their prior experience. There is never 100% overlap in our prior experience. Misunderstanding is possible – and common. As we engage with people we can come to identify gaps in understanding and determine more closely what is being said.  Understanding requires time and work. Waiting to speak until we maximize understanding requires patience on our part.

Third, we humans tend toward defensiveness. When we take ourselves to be criticized or under attack, we turn the tables and attack back. But what if the criticism isn’t criticism – what if we’ve misunderstood it? Or, what if the criticism is what we need to hear? When we are reflexively defensive we turn away from the opportunity to learn and improve ourselves.

What we say is also important. In Ephesians 4 Paul gives us the Christian rationale for speech. We speak, he suggests, to build others up. We often think the primary reason for speech is to impart information. We have information people need to hear, so we give it to them. Since passing on information happens in speech – and frequently! – we sometimes miss that there is more to speech. If we take Paul seriously, then paying attention to the effect of what we say is absolutely essential.

If our primary goal in speaking is building others up, that means we’ll have to pay closer attention to the people around us. While an application of the Golden Rule will help us sometimes (“I know what kinds of speech build me up, so I will direct those kinds of speech at the people around me”), we cannot assume that all people are like us. Other people hear differently. As I noted above, they hear us out of their own experiences, not ours. They may or may not feel an incentive to do any work to understand us or show us any charity in interpreting our words. As Christians who speak – and as leaders – we need to know our people well enough that we can discern what to say to each one to build them up, given not only their whole life, but also their current situation. Again, you can easily imagine that this will take work.

My third observation is that how we speak matters. We may be timely in what we say. Our content may be intended to build others up. But our way of speaking, or the mode of discourse we employ, may hve a negative influence on people.

One of the things I have to watch most in my own speech is my tendency to sarcasm. I’m very sarcastic on the inside. It used to come out more frequently, but I’ve been working on it for decades. There are probably occasions where it’s not a problem, but there are too many where it is. Too many people in the world don’t “get” sarcasm. For them, it’s always negative, always an attack. Out of our position of strength we might say, “Well, if they’re just a bunch of snowflakes who can’t handle a bit of humor, that’s not my fault.” While it is true that we (all of us) are sometimes overly sensitive, the burden of not injuring another is on the speaker.  If we truly want to live others, if we want all our speech to be edifying, that determines our mode of speech also.

We also need to watch our attitude. Have you ever noticed the general atmosphere of negativity in our culture? Do you like it? Does it build you up? How do you feel when leaders around you speak negatively, when pessimism flows from their mouths? It’s true that we live in a broken and sinful world. It’s true that not everything is or will be happy. It’s true that our expectations and desires will often be thwarted. I’d also admit that mere positivity on our part is no magic. God can speak the world into being; we can’t. Nonetheless, our words and the attitudes they express have power. We can lift our people up or knock them down. Take the time to be positive. Express high expectations. Walk in faith.

So what do you do if you’ve discovered you’ve messed up, that something you’ve said (or not said), or the way you’ve said it, has hurt someone or torn them down? One action is to repent. Recognize what you’ve done wrong as wrong. Turn away from it. Confess it to God and receive forgiveness. Change your ways. In at least some cases, when you discover that you’ve hurt someone, the most appropriate thing to do is to go to them and confess to them. Sometimes they’ll know exactly what you’re talking about. Sometimes what you’ve come to see as wrong on your part will have sailed right by them, with them taking no offense. Either way, it’s worth addressing if you can. (And you can, more often than you think.)

If you want dealing with a situation to be easier – and they are rarely easy at all, unless we live in a community where we’ve practiced this for some time – go to the person (or group) sooner rather than later. If they perceive what you said as hurtful, the longer you wait, the longer it festers. Festering isn’t a good thing. Also, the longer you wait, the more time you give yourself to rationalize your own words and actions, building up your defense so you can demonstrate that you were really in the right. Go sooner rather than later.

Speaking well and with the intention of edifying others, makes for healthy relationships, ministries, and churches. We cannot be the church God wants us to be – or have a significant and lasting impact on others – unless we work hard in this area.

A final word. We are stronger in this area when we hold each other accountable. IF you find me speaking in a way that goes against these guidelines, please let me know. If you want to work on your own speech, invite others to hold you accountable.

Posted in Discipleship, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

What About Leadership?

pexels-photo-277052The American church has been buffeted by the cult of leadership for a couple of decades now. The cult took root in evangelical Christianity before it did in my own United Methodist Church. We need leaders – not just any leaders, but skilled and committed leaders – so there is a reason behind our acceptance of the cult.

The smaller and more traditional churches are often resistant to the cult. They want office holders who will respect the wishes of the membership, who rule democratically, maintaining things the way they’ve always been done. Insofar as the job of the leader is to instigate change for the good of the organization and the fulfillment of its mission, these churches desperately need leaders, but are usually impervious to them.

You’re probably scratching your head about now, wondering, “Well, is he for or against leaders? He writes of a cult of leadership – calling something a cult makes it sound like a bad thing. Then he goes on to say churches need leaders. How can he have it both ways?”

Good question.

The vast majority of United Methodist Churches (since it’s my own church, I speak of what I know best) have a number of church offices to fill. They have a Nominations Committee that meets every fall (preparing for Charge Conference) to fill slots for the coming year. It’s not uncommon to swap out people from what slot to another, from one committee to another, keeping a common face to the leadership of the church over the years.

One thing that goes unnoticed is that several years ago now the Book of Discipline was changed. What was formerly known as the Nominations Committee became the Lay Leadership Committee. While this newly named group is tasked with making nominations for offices, its main job is identifying, raising up, equipping, and deploying leaders throughout the church. This is a year around job, not just a “charge conference is coming, we better hurry” affair.

We also need to consider what kind of thing the church is. It’s easy to think in terms of businesses – one of the main places we get the substantive teaching for the cult of leadership. The church deals with money, mission statements, employees, etc., so it must be some kind of business (the tax code says it’s “non-profit”). Businesses often run factories, so we may think the church is a kind of factory – we make disciples.

Surely that much – that we make disciples – is correct. But are we a disciple making factory? Are we best off thinking of disciplemaking as akin to an industrial process? We put the inputs together: people, curricula, meeetings, etc., get the machine (church calendar/program) running, and out pops disciples.

If this is the way we think of things, we can see office holders (aka leaders) as cogs in the machine, parts of the industrial process. But what if making disciples is not an industrial process? What if scripture is accurate, and it’s better conceived as an organic process? What if our verb “make” deceives us into thinking in terms of a factory, when we’d be better off thinking of a garden?

Adopting an organic model leads us to think differently about leadership. Leaders are not mere cogs in a machine; neither are they just names plugged in slots of committees. What is of first importance for a leader in a disciple cultivating enterprise like the church is having ones own walk with God. We are able to reproduce – able to help others become and grow into disciples of Jesus – by being disciples ourselves.

Taking this route, the first question for a proposed leadership candidate is not, “Are you willing to serve on this committee?” or “Are you willing to make decisions of governance in this particular domain?” but “How is it with your soul? What is God doing in your life? How are you experiencing the call of God?” ‘What – even better, who – is your heart broken for?” If we start this way, then leaders will always work out of their ongoing (and growing) relationship with God. They will be conduits of God’s grace and wisdom to the people around them, spark plugs (I know, a non-organic analogy!) for Holy Spirit induced combustion in the ministry of the church.

Posted in Leadership, United Methodism | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Believing Scientists?

Some suggested that if people believe science when it comes to eclipses and hurricanes, they ought to believe science when it pronounces on climate change as well. Speaking as one who does not deny “climate change,” I think these folks misunderstand the nature, rhetoric, and politics of science.

In the first place, believing what scientists say about eclipses costs almost nothing. Believing what scientists (well, at least the weather people on TV) say about the latest hurricane, can cost a bit more if you find yourself in its path. Believing in climate change has a huge cost for many. For some, the cost will come in having to change their way of life. Once one becomes a true believer in climate change (and the ancillary point that it’s a bad thing), one will have to cut out the private airplanes (and flying altogether, most likely), downsize one’s house, change to a more fuel-efficient vehicle, and other things to lower one’s carbon footprint. If having the luxury of private flight, a large house, or a large vehicle is central to one’s life, then becoming a believer in climate change will have a high cost. This assumes, of course, that one is a true believer, and not just one who gives lip service to orthodox beliefs in this area.

Second, there is a political cost. If I am part of a community whose approval I seek, and that community takes a particular position regarding climate change, I will maximize my position in the community if I agree with that position. If I cross the community on that point, I will lose status in group. Some are happy to pay the price – others won’t. When it comes to eclipses, the communities that disbelieve are relatively few, and usually small in number.

In addition to cost, time is also a factor. Earth experiences many eclipses a year. They are timed exactly, and mapped to specific locations. If you go to a location at the right time on the right day you can see the effect of the eclipse in a matter of minutes. It’s light, then it’s dark. One doesn’t need (or so one thinks) a complicated theory of instrumentation to judge that, yes, the scientists were right: there is indeed an eclipse right here right now. We never hear of eclipse predictions not panning out.

Climate change happens on a different time scale. We see the change in weather, from day to day and month to month. We notice that each year is somewhat different from other years, though each follows a basic pattern. Whether any particular event or phenomenon (or degree thereof) is an effect of climate change is expressed as a probability. It’s not like before climate change there were no hurricanes – or no devastating hurricanes – but now there are.

It’s also hard for ordinary people to go against the deliverances of their senses, though scientists are required to do this on a regular basis. Most people pick up that science is “evidence based,” that it is empirical. They hear about “theories,” but they usually think a “theory” is close kin to a “guess” – which is not how that word functions in science. With a bad understanding of “theory,” they commonly lack adequate understanding of how theory and observations (the deliverances of the senses) connect.

Now it might be that we’d be better off, assuming climate change is as horrible as some say, to treat it as a dogmatic religion. The priests (Scientists) have spoken, and we should believe them. Though that rhetoric may get us the desired results, more believers, it is a fundamentally anti-scientific strategy.

So, no, I’m not surprised when I see ordinary people failing to universally believe everything the scientific community (if we can assume there really is such a unified thing).

Posted in Current events, Philosophy, Science | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

God Among the Sages

Note: I received this book for free from Baker Book Bloggers in exchange for writing a review.

In the strand of the Christian tradition in which I am a part, our main focus is on Jesus as Savior. All humans are sinners, desperately in need of salvation from the separation from God that comes as a consequence of our sin. Jesus took upon himself our sin and its consequences, enabling us to be restored in our relationship with God. He is our Savior.

When we read the Bible and consider the Christian tradition as a whole, there is more 9780801016905(not less!) to Jesus than his role as Savior. Kenneth Richard Samples’ book, God Among the Sages, broadens the picture in its very title. Jesus is not just Savior – he is also sage – a wise man who through his life and teaching shows us how to live the good, truly human life God created us for.

The book is organized in three sections. This first examines Jesus. Samples draws on the New Testament picture of Jesus, showing him to be God incarnate who took upon himself the sins of the world. The idea that Jesus is more than just a good man – even superlatively good – or a great teacher is shown to go back to Jesus himself, and is not just a fabrication of the disciples or later church.

The second section examines four other “sages” and compares them with Jesus: Krishna, Gautama, Confucius, and Mohammad. Through these comparisons samples delves into the basics of the religious traditions each represents: Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Islam. He considers the commonalities each of these shares with Christianity as well as the differences. The major focus is on the individuals – on how Jesus contrasts with each. Not surprisingly, Samples finds that Jesus is clearly superior to each, if for no other reason that his claims are substantiated in history and he alone defeated death. Jesus alone lives up to what we would expect of God.

The final section of the book deals with the issue of religious pluralism. He examines the various general stances commonly taken toward the presence of multiple religions. Between pluralism, inclusivism, and exclusivism, Samples defends a version of the latter. His exclusivism allows him to see truth in other religions, but ultimate truth is found in Christ alone.

This book would be best for beginners in the study of comparative religion who want to pursue their study for apologetic purposes. Jesus gets all the strongest arguments, the richest evidence. The more advanced student might even find the deck stacked against the other religions. If we begin with Jesus – an appropriate place for Christians – and assume that he is the paradigm for representing God, we’re easily led to assume that Christianity offers the best criteria for judging religions. By those criteria, every non-Christian religion is likely to fail.

There would be value to this book if Samples had hewed more closely to considering Jesus as a sage. If he had examined Jesus on the criteria of the not-necessarily religious criteria of being a sage, the book might be more useful. (Well, yes, the title isn’t Jesus “among the sages,” but “God” among the sages, pointing the reader to the conclusion.) Sure, the Christian might not have walked away so easily with the conviction of Jesus’ superiority. But one of the hardest challenges facing the apologist is shying away from thinking one has to offer the total case for Christ in every work.

Posted in Books, Jesus | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Downside of Church Success

There is a long-standing tendency to reduce the Christian faith to ethics. In Christology this shows up when we see Jesus primarily as teacher. As a teacher – in fact The Great Teacher – Jesus gives us the information we need (through his words) and the model we need (through his actions) to do what is good and right. The fact that he died (was crucified as a criminal, a rebel against the instituted order) is illustrative of how the world has unethical tendencies and doesn’t want to hear how to live rightly.

This is not the version of the Christian faith that I teach and preach. As an ethical teacher, there is little or nothing about Jesus that stands out. His teaching on the good life – no the expectations God has for humans – is in line with what we read in the Old Testament. Jesus was thoroughly Jewish in this regard (recognizing, of course, that then as now, there are multiple ways of being Jewish).

Instead of seeing Jesus primarily as teacher (that word primarily is important, since Jesus is undeniably – and importantly! – a teacher), the Christian tradition proclaims Jesus as God become human, one of us. As one of us he entered our life fully, took on our sin and brokenness, defeating both in his crucifixion and resurrection. In his resurrection Jesus is declared to be LORD. Jesus, not abstract moral principles (or categorical imperatives) are the highest authority in our lives.

But I want to address a peripheral issue here.

In the run up to the late 20th century Christians in the west have had success after success. We’ve not only pushed for expansions of education, health care, and human rights (to name some of the big areas), we’ve convinced the government to see these as goods – and as the job of government to bring about. We’ve succeeded!

Or have we? Surely it is a success when we have convinced the government, with its power of coercion, monopoly on the legitimate us of violence, and the ability to create money out of thin air, to do what we think is good. Where the church was weak, through being limited to convincing people & institutions to do The Right Thing, the State has the power to make these things happen.

Because we’ve had this great victory, the church in the west is stronger than ever, right?

Well, not so much. In our push to center on ethics, we’ve tended to reduce the faith to ethics, to doing The Right Thing, to Transforming the World. We’ve let the so-called religious aspects of the faith fall by the wayside as divisive or inconsequential. All we have is ethics, doing The Right Thing and Transforming the World. But the omnicompetent state has taken over those jobs. Sure, we can cheer the State on, maybe nudge them a bit from time to time (if anyone is listening), but in our reduction of the faith to ethics, AND our success in passing the big social ethical duties on to the State, the church is left with nothing to do, nothing to define it. Who needs church – with its archaic texts, ancient bigoted and repressive moral remnants, and its demand that we forsake sleep and fun to go to boring “worship services?” This so-called success is the story of the church abetting in its own marginalization through secularization.

At some point, we need to get back to Jesus – not just the ethical teaching we (selectively) love, but the Jesus who inaugurated the kingdom of God and lives and reigns as Lord. This doesn’t mean forsaking ethics, or turning from doing The Right Thing. It means putting those good things in their place, under Jesus’ feet.

Posted in Culture, Ethics, Secularization | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

(not) Enlisting Jesus as Our Political Trump Card

If you’re a Christian, you know Jesus is really important. We who claim to be his disciples think we ought to listen to him, follow him, and obey him. We ought to do what he did.

Image-1One of our current cultural debates is about what we call “health care.” I saw this picture (“Jesus Practiced Universal Healthcare”) on Twitter today (provided by Paul Goldberger). If by this we mean “Jesus had a serious, important, and extensive ministry of healing,” the claim – at least for those who take the Bible as an accurate picture of who Jesus was and what he did – is uncontroversial. Most places he went, he healed people. He healed lame people so they could walk. He healed deaf people so they could hear. He healed blind people so they could see. He cast demons out of those who were demonized. He cured leprosy. He raised the dead.

The problem is, this is not what is meant by “universal healthcare.” “Universal healthcare” in our current debate is about what kind of system the government should set up for our country.

Jesus did not set up a system of “healthcare,” unless by that we mean that he sent his disciples out to proclaim the gospel, part of which was the ministry of healing.

Jesus did not push the government, whether in the guise of one of the Herods, Pilate, or Caesar, to set up a “healthcare” system. In this sense, talk of “healthcare” at the time of Jesus is completely anachronistic.

Jesus also did not travel throughout the world and “practice universal healthcare.” Almost all of his healing ministry was done within the bounds of Galilee, Samaria, and Judea. This is a very small territory. If we consider passages like John 5, it also looks like Jesus didn’t even heal everyone around. In the story that opens that chapter Jesus is at a pool where the sick gathered. They sought supernatural healing. Jesus, according to John, goes up to one person and practically inflicts healing on him. What about all the others who were gathered there? Why didn’t Jesus, who “practiced universal healthcare” heal all them too? If Jesus’ practice of “healthcare” included raisings from the dead, why did he do this so rarely? If he truly aims the practice to be universal, why not prevent all death in the first place, and can’t prevent it, why not just raise everyone? That sounds more universal.

So given these anomalies, Jesus’ words and examples are useless to our current debate, right? I don’t think so.

In the first place, the impetus to provide for “healthcare” for all flows naturally from Jesus’ story of the judgment of the sheep and the goats. Yes, what we call “healthcare” is a very modern innovation, inconceivable in Jesus’ culture. Nonetheless, as the concept does exist now, it is natural for followers of Jesus to hear him say, “Inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these, you have done it unto me.” We also hear Jesus say things like, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The deep involvement of Christian churches in the development of hospitals and healthcare networks has been inspired by Jesus.

In the second place, the life of following Jesus is a life of putting others before ourselves. The one who said “take up your cross and follow me” didn’t lead people to believe his way would be easy, comfortable, or cheap – the path of least resistance. It might be that America “can’t afford” “universal healthcare.” That the cost would be large, is undeniable. That we’ve come very close to trying it, that too seems undeniable.

Of course there are problems along the way. First, do we want our government – a self-declared secular entity – to operate on explicitly Christian terms? Or is listening to Jesus in this case merely picking what we want from what he says so we can advance our goals? Both sides in the debate pick parts of the Christian tradition that they like and reject parts they don’t. Do we want our nation to adhere to the Christian tradition in other areas as well? If we do, I’m not seeing it.

Second, even if we agree that “universal healthcare” is the Truly Christian Thing To Do and something we ought to instate, does that mean that any particular model is THE way to do it? Are there other important values to consider? Are freedom and self-determination good things (to at least some degree)? Which segments of the population should be allowed to have them? Only those who can pay out of their own resources (this is clearly a belief of many when it comes to education, another contentious current debate)?

Jesus commands us to love people and to do good to them. This is clearly a command for those who follow him. As a Christian, I will even go so far as to say that I believe it is God’s universal will for all people to love people and to do good to them. I’ll also add a couple of caveats. First, God knows more clearly than I do how to love people and do good to them. Some things my culture says are loving and good will run contrary to God’s views of loving and good. Second, I observe in scripture that God seems to give people at least minimal choice as to whether they receive love and good. We might prefer a coercive God who makes people do the right thing – just as some will prefer a coercive government that makes people do the right thing.

We – as individuals, as families, as churches, as a nation – have much to learn from Jesus. I’d like to see us take time to engage with the totality of what he said and did, and the tradition of engagement with what he said and did, in all areas, including healthcare. Sure, it’ll cost us, but if we trust God & want to obey God, that shouldn’t be such a big deal.

Posted in Current events, Health Care, Jesus, Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Taking Time for the Bible

freely-39239.jpgOne of the key moves made during the Enlightenment that paved the way for modern historical critical study of the Bible was the decision to treat it as if it were just an ordinary book. If it is only an ordinary human book – and therefore like every other human book – it is susceptible to the same forms of analysis and treatment as any other book.

Only a few scholars can get past engagement with historical critical study these days. Discoveries of historical, cultural, and linguistic context have proved a great blessing in understanding the Bible. There has been and remains, however, a division in the western church about the quality of this modern commitment. That the Bible is a human book seems beyond doubt. It’s written in human languages. Its history is human history. It depicts humans acting like humans. Authorship of the texts that make up the Bible is straightforwardly attributed to humans. The point of division is the little word “only.” If the Bible is only a human book, a human book about what a select group of humans believes about God, that’s one thing. If the Bible is a human book for which God played a role in its creation and transmission, that’s entirely different. This contrast points at the why of reading the Bible.

If the Bible is only an ancient human book – it is ancient and it is human – than we might find it interesting; interesting in the same way we might find the works of Homer or the Wisdom of Amenemope interesting. Our interpretive activity allows us to appropriate these (and other) texts, to cull them for wisdom and insights into human ways of being.

But what if, as the mainstream Christian tradition claims, the Bible is not only a human book? What if the Bible can in at least some way be described as “the word of God” – an instance of God’s communication with humans? If this is so, then it’s worth our while to take to the time to engage with the text. This engagement takes time, something we’re often loath to give:

“God in his infinite wisdom decided to give us a book, a very long book, and not a portrait or an aphorism. God reveals himself in his image, Jesus, but we come to know that image by reading, and that takes time. God wants to transform us into the image of his image, and one of the key ways he does that is by leading us through the text. If we short-circuit that process by getting to the practical application, we are not going to be transformed in the ways God wants us to be transformed. ‘Get to the point’ will not do because part of the point is to lead us through the labyrinth of the text itself. There is treasure at the center of the labyrinth, but with texts, the journey really is as important as the destination.” Peter Leithart

Leithart would have us slow down. God’s communication with us through the Bible is not merely a list of bullet points. The purpose of engaging with the text is to engage with God and to live with God. This takes time.

I also think of Iain McGilchrist’s, The Master and His Emissary. One of McGilchrist’s claims about the corpus colossum that connects right and left hemispheres of the brain is that it not only allows the hemispheres to communicate with each other, but also inhibits communication. Slowing down the automatic processes of the brain gives us time to think things through. If the communication flow is too fast, too extensive, we will be led astray.

I suggest that if we listen to McGilchrist, we find part of the rationale for learning to read the Bible slowly. Whatever experience we have, whether that experience be of the natural world, the people around us, or a text, we always interpret that text in light of our previous experience. There is no way around this. Our initial interpretation happens automatically.

If we listen to Leithart and McGilchrist, we can hear the summons to slow down. As we recognize the automatic practices of interpretation for what they are, we can learn to question them. As Christians, we can practice intentionally bringing God into the interpretive process through prayer. Reading slowly will help us read the Bible better – and more humbly, especially as we read with others in community.

Posted in Bible, Hermeneutics, Modernity | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment