Bandits No More

In a recent Christianity Today interview with Ken Collins, a professor of theology at Asbury Theological Seminary, we read the following:

[CT] But isn’t this a question of who the dialogue partner is? For the champions of inerrancy, certainly the dialogue partners were modernist theologians who were undermining the authority of Scripture. But at the same time within their own community, do they not expect the Word to speak sacramentally, just as Wesleyans do?

[KC] That’s an important insight. German higher criticism hasn’t been the dialogue partner for the Wesleyan community in the same way it has been for the Reformed community.

We have different paradigms, but I think we get to the same place.

I think I understand what Collins is getting at, but this is not a good way to put it. First, the reason the “Wesleyan community” hasn’t had “German higher criticism” as a dialogue partner in the same way as the Reformed community is that for the most part the Wesleyans – at least as far as United Methodists go, have simply capitulated, retreating into pietism, moralism, institutionalism, or atheism. Though I’d like to avoid a theory of inerrancy based on foundationalist epistemology, I’d also like to avoid the exuberant errancy of so much of the old Methodist approach to scripture.

In today’s Dallas Morning News critics Philip Wuntch & Chris Vognar are talking about the commercial appeal of Star Wars and bemoaning the talk about breaking money records. Vognar complains that such a focus “is a cancer for serious moviegoing.” Why should moviegoing be serious at all? It’s only a movie! I’d thought it was only the people who “stood” in line for weeks in advance who had too much time (and money?) on their hands. Now I think the critics do also.

Back to the movie itself. A couple more observations:
1. While fighting and revolution are going on in Coruscant, the capital of the Republic, guess what the populace is doing? As far as we can tell, they’re oblivious to the whole thing. The skies are full of constant traffic all the time, before, during, and after. We see no effect whatsoever on the broader culture of the Republic. Do they even have a culture? Do they have books, tv, movies, radio, news organizations? We know the people of Naboo wear fancy clothes. Is that it?
2. Do they have an education system? The Jedi educational system is the only one we see, and that only in glimpses. The Jedi seem to specialize in training for using power – but do they tell stories? Do they have a historical sense? This is one of the weaknesses of the Harry Potter world also. The magical world there is all about learning how to be powerful. Hermione takes some history courses, and a few study Muggles. But where are the humanities? Where do Jedi (and Hogwartians) learn to be human? But no – who needs to be human when power is everything? (Or are humans merely an arbitrary, ever shifting bundle of conflicting willings?)For the Sith, power is for oneself; for the Jedi, power is to do good; in the Harry Potter universe good & evil wizards seek power over each other. Is power all there is? I’m sure the reduction of everything to power was part of the reason for the total societal decay evident in Revenge of the Sith.
3. In the Jedi attachment to detachment and the Sith attachment to power, abstractions rule. Problem is, abstractions don’t work over the long haul. Making abstractions is a powerful intellectual tool. But abstractions are idealizations of reality, not reality itself. As followers of Jesus we don’t follow an abstraction (however much some might want to reduce Christianity to a set of basic principles) – we follow Jesus, a person.

Update: Mark Byron has a good discussion also.

Just back from seeing the movie (actually, just back from seeing the movie, putting kids to bed, trying to fix my email, fixing my email, then fixing what I messed up when I tried fixing my email). I’ve seen a few reviews that loved it and several that hated it. I recognize the acting wasn’t the best, but I enjoyed it anyway.

Considering it the context of the Star Wars Universe as a whole, here are a few observations:
1. Both the Sith and the Jedi are absolutists – and pay the price for their absolutism. The Sith are absolutists about power: they’ll do anything to get it and keep it. The Jedi are more complex, but absolutists nonetheless. The Jedi are absolutists when it comes to attachment. Attachment is bad. Attachment leads to loss, suffering, fear, etc. Thus the Jedi have to quench all their desires and emotions (and fail miserably). Anakin’s desire to be a good Jedi – and to do good – causes the conflict between his love for Padme and his Jedi ideals. Deception is the only answer. The Jedi are so attached to their form of democracy – the Senate led by the Chancellor, that they become generals in the war effort, corrupting their Jedi-ness. I think the best word for both the Sith and the Jedi is – “Get a life!” Going beyond the movies into the literature, Luke Skywalker truly brings balance to the force by not deny attachment – he marries and has a son.

2. Everyone believes too strongly in DESTINY. “It’s your DESTINY,” everyone is always telling Anakin. because he thinks destiny is written in stone – he believes his visions to be inevitable, ignoring the role he plays in making them real.

That’s enough for tonight. I may have more to say tomorrow.

My mission – and the mission I challenge my church to – is to make disciples who become disciple-makers. Jesus is calling people of all ages to follow him. Here are some ideas from Christian Smith’s recent book, Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers, that will help do a better job reaching youth. Smith’s studies confirm that our hiring someone to focus on youth ministry is positively correlated with reaching youth. But they also confirm the common-sense judgment that the ministry is too big for one person alone.

1. Recognize that many of the common assumption about teenagers (such as: they’re rebellious, troublesome, not interested in God) are mistaken.
2. The best way to get more youth involved and serious about their faith is to get their parents more involved. Contrary to common expectations, parents have the greatest influence over teenagers.
3. Don’t be shy about teaching teenagers. Give them solid content to learn.
4. Find ways to help youth articulate their faith. They will need regular example of adults around them who will articulate the content of the faith and its connection with ordinary life. Put them in situation where they not only hear the faith put into words, but in where they can practice doing so themselves.
5. Encourage more relationships between youth and adults in the congregation. They will profit from more connections with more adults. They need to see the faith active in your life and that you are open to them.
6. Practicing the faith is like practicing a sport or a musical instrument: it is an activity that with diligent work and discipline, will be highly beneficial and rewarding.
7. Although there are secular reasons to be a committed Christian (better health, more friendships, etc.), do not reduce following Jesus to such an instrumentalist view.
8. Stop thinking of teenagers as beings from another planet. Get to know them.

I first ran across Seth Godin while reading Fast Company a few years ago. His new book is just out and the title alone has provoked me: All Marketers Are Liars. Back in 1988 George Barna wrote Marketing the Church. People responded in two ways. (1) This is horrible. How can we take a secular concept like marketing and apply it to the church? It’s sacrilege! (2) Wow! We really need to help people connect with Jesus and his people. We can use the same kinds of communication tools the world uses to get people to buy stuff. It’s just like the Israelite’s plundering the Egyptians when they escaped from slavery!

Barna’s book was far form the first in the church growth genre, but it was one of the most influential, and established Barna as a Wise Person in the church. He has since written many more books and published many more studies.

But what about Godin’s title (I’ve read the title, not the book, so I can talk about it)?

I’ve seen many indications that large and successful churches have adopted an instrumentalist view of the Gospel. By this I mean something like, “If you accept Jesus (as your personal Savior), join the church, go through X, Y, and Z programs, then you will be healthy and successful in life. Your marriage will be great, your kids will turn out ok, you will be a good and productive citizen.” Sounds good, doesn’t it? I confess that want to be healthy and successful. I want to have a great marriage and kids who turn out ok. I want to be a good and productive citizen. But then I read the rest of the Bible.

Jesus said some odd things that don’t fit with the Happy Life gospel. He said, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me.” This idea of following Jesus in to suffering forms a subtext of the rest of the New Testament. The picture of the Christian life seen there is a life that doesn’t fit well with the Good Life as proclaimed by the world power of the day (Rome). Have we come so far now that the Christian life fits well with the Good Life as proclaimed by the power of the day (Hollywood? Madison Avenue? K Street? etc.)? I have my doubts.

Is the instrumentalist approach wrong? Is it simply a bait and switch marketing strategy? Not exactly. When we follow Jesus, when we submit to him and live as he taught us, continually formed and informed by the Holy Spirit who lives within us, we find that we are living in accordance with the way we were made. In simple english, yes, there are benefits to being a Christian and a member of the church. But – when we reduce the benefits and reasons for being a Christian and a member of the church to those readily understood by outsiders, i.e., what the Bible calls the ways of the world, then we are missing out on an essential dimension of what God is trying to do.

So how do we market the church – invite people? Can I tell them we have the nicest people in town? We certainly have plenty of nice people, but we also have people who are bitter, immature, unforgiving, self-centered and narrow-minded. Can I tell them we have the best programs? We certainly have some good ministry happening, but since we have a limited budget and only a couple of part time staff people and constantly need more volunteers, I’m sure they can find flashier ones elsewhere. Can I tell them we have the best preacher? I work hard at it, but I don’t have any delusions that I’m the best.

When I invite people I don’t lift up any of these as the main reason people should consider us. What I do instead is point to the story of what God has done, is doing and will do. I tell them that God has invited us to join him in that activity. I then invite them to join us as we join God.

Does it work? Are the hordes flocking in? Not yet. But at least I think I’m telling the truth.

I heard yesterday that 75% of the freshman class at the local high school failed the Math TAKS test. At this stage it doesn’t mean they have to repeat the grade, but it’s still pretty serious. Throughout the district the highest passing percentage was in third grade – still with a large percentage of failures. What are parents in a school district like this to do?

Some are moving. Our district is racially and ethnically mixed, probably 20% African American, 30-40% Hispanic, the rest anglo. We have a couple of smaller districts nearby – out in the country – that some parents are trying to move their kids to. From from the area may be moving as White Flight. Others are just looking for a higher performing district for their kids. We only have one shot at our kid’s educations, so I understand wanting to offer them the best. If TAKS performance keeps up this way, the state laws will kick in and offer kids transfer to other schools (assuming those schools will actually take them). **

I’m uneasy with the transfer idea.
1. What about the kids that are left behind? I want my kids in a safe and effective learning environment. But as a Christian I’m not just responsible for my own kids – God calls us to be a blessing to other people around us. If professional educators are right about the importance of parental involvement – and commentators like Bill Cosby are right about parental culture – then what happens to a school when the active, involved parents all transfer out? Will others in the community step and take responsibility for the kids who are left?
2. I’m also sensitive because of the close analogy to my professional situation. The church I pastor is struggling. We are on the edge financially. We have a good ways to go to activating all our members for ministry, and involved in some form of accountable discipleship. Our ministries with Children & Youth are growing, but the growing edge is with children from outside the church, many from lower income households. Some of the parents are in and out of jail. I can see how it would be easy for some families to reason, “This church just isn’t where I want it to be for my family. So we’ll move over to one of the larger churches that has it more together.” I don’t want them to do that. We’ve made progress in the past few years – and whether we continue to progress depends on sticking with it over the long haul. I can’t help but think this may be true about the school district also.

To what degree can we stay within the needy educational/church system? Part of my calling is to take something that is not what it could/should be and make it more. I don’t know what I’d do with myself if I had to pastor a perfect church. So I will continue to work to make the church what God wants it to be – and to improve the schools.

** I like the idea of transfer and multiple options in education. Unfortunately, I don’t know how it will work well in small towns and rural areas.

In response to Donald Haynes’ recent proposal in the United Methodist Reporter, a useful discussion has ensued over at WesleyBlog. In one of the comments David writes of the challenges facing the current system:

Third, congregations (in general) have a live and grwoing distrust of authority at all levels -conference, district, pastor, and-dare I say -God. This is partly the fruit of postmodernism and partly the result of fuzzy denominational leadership on key issues over recent decades. We are reaping what has been sewn.

In my experience, part of the distrust (and relativism) is due to a combination of short pastoral tenure and a lack of theological discipline (leadership) in the denomination. When we have a system encompassing so many theologies, congregations will often face radical changes in theology & basic ministry philosophy every couple of years. It’s easy to imagine these congregations getting to the point where they don’t pay much heed to anything a pastor says: they know that whatever they hear now, the next guy will say something different.

In part one, I suggested that Biblical wisdom is parasitic on the narrative of who God is and what God has done and is doing. I suggested that many of the church growth maxims can be best understood as abstractions from the life of a particular church, and that as abstractions they neglect the context of their original location and are thus less useful (and universal) than we are often led to believe.

What about the preaching of wisdom that I also mentioned yesterday – the proliferation of “How to” messages that seek to be relevant to “ordinary life”? Surely, from a biblical point of view, we need wisdom. Though more prevelant in the OT than the NT (where James is the closest we get to wisdom literature), we see plenty of what we today call “application” material, direct admonitions of how to live a good and godly life.

But is that enough?

If my hypothesis that wisdom is parasitic on narrative is correct, then preaching and teaching must pay plenty of attention to the narrative as well, or else the wisdom will lose its moorings and become free floating. Of course, I am presupposing a particular view of the nature of the Christian faith and life at this point. I am assuming that Christianity is not primarily about how I can get saved and go to heaven when I die. It’s not primarily about how I can be a nice or moral person. It’s not primarily about how I can be self-fulfilled. It’s not primarily about how I can speak truth to power and change the structures of society for the better. Although each of these aspects can be found in scripture and the Christian tradition, it seems that the more encompassing idea is that we become willing participants in what God is doing in history.

The story of Abraham is a good place to begin. Bob Sjogren (in Unveiled at Last) sums up God’s two-fold promise to Abraham as (1) I will bless you; (2) I will make you a blessing to all people. Given this promises and its echoes throughout scripture (Ex. 19:3-5; 1 Peter 2:9-10), it looks like one way to understand the meta-narrative (Big Story) of scripture is as God’s work to claim a people who are his very own (an eternal love relationship with God – and each other) for the sake of the redemption of humanity and all creation.

(If you’ve done the Experiencing God study by Henry Blackaby, you may hear some echoes of his “Seven Realities” in what I’ve said. I think his is a good way to express some of these points.)

So as we preach and teach the narrative – the true and actual story of God’s ongoing activity in history – we invite people to become willing participants (actors) within it. Because of who God is, because of what God is up to, because of where we now stand in the story (plot) line, come actions and ways of living move the story forward (bring pleasure to God, advance Kingdom goals) and are counted as wise. Because God’s story-line is rooted in Creation, some actions and ways of relating work well and others don’t. Preaching and teaching that builds bridges between the story and “ordinary life” intentionally points both directions to keep the connection from being severed.

One more important point: Because we Christians are actors in God’s story-line, we are connected with each other. At least during my lifetime, I haven’t seen much use of the term “wisdom” – in its place I see talk of “common sense.” Common sense – sensus communis – is literally the “sense of the community,” the shared vision of the good life and how to live it. Since we in America have adopted the procedural Republic (see Michael Sandel, Democracy and its Discontents) as our polity, we have excluded any substantive and shared notion of the good. Instead, the good life is seen as each of us minding our own business, making a profit, and buying (consuming) stuff. If the church is to be an effective player in God’s story line, we will have to recover a communal sense of identity (i.e., move beyond the Gas Station Model of Christianity) so that we can see wisdom in context of the one Narrative (Story) and our own lives (narratively understood).

The Bishops have just finished their meeting. They are focusing on making disciples. Sounds good to me. Even better, they say:

The bishops will develop a teaching plan for the church, and measurable goals will be provided for encouraging local congregations in making disciples, Ough said. The plan will cover a common language for the focus, helping people understand what is meant by terms such as “Christian disciple” and “transformation,” and what it means “when we say there’s a uniquely Wesleyan process for forming disciples,” he explained.

They’re finally paying attention to developing a shared vision, and (apparently) no longer assuming using a common phrase – like “Christian Disciple” – is univocal. This is HUGE progress. I just hope it’s not too late.

If you’re a parent in America today, you probably experience stress from a multitude of sources. Disciplining children (teaching them both what to do and what not to do) is difficult. Relating to your kids when they’re not talking to you can drive you crazy. The expectations put on us by all the experts seem only possible for the wealthy (or families with many relatives with free time near by). School lunches may be easy for some, but of late even they are becoming more stressful.

Have you ever eaten lunch in a school cafeteria? The article linked to above talks about the trash generated, but the main thing I notice is how much perfectly good food the kids throw away. Why? For one, schools and parents are pressured to give kids healthy food – but much of it the kids won’t eat. I remember a cafeteria that served a black bean & corn salad. Here in East Texas some adults would eat that – but a kid? I didn’t see a single kid that ate it. But the school can mark a healthy serving down on its chart.

And then they are the kids that are just plain picky. They’ll only eat a few things, and then soon tire of even those items. We have one like that and feel guilty for feeding her so little. But we know that if she doesn’t like, into the trash can it goes.

Some of the kids in Hammond Elementary in Laurel, MD proudly take their uneaten food home for leftovers. But is it then eaten at home, or just thrown in a different garbage pail? How long until the health department steps in a tells them they have to throw it away since it’s been out of refrigeration/heat for so long?

I can only think of a partial solution. First, work the kids physically before the lunch hour. Get them moving – and tired and hungry. Second, give them less food (but allow them more if they ask for it). Perhaps it’d be worth a try.