Bandits No More

Pioneer sociologist of religion Max Weber wrote about the routinization of charisma in religious groups. A movement would start, led by a charismatic figure. Once the charismatic figure either passed beyond charisma or left the scene, the movement needed to find a way to keep going without the high energy provided by the charisma. The primary way this was done was by establishing routines and procedures to approximate the same results achieved by charisma. Routinization was a form of rationalization, an attempt to understand the charismatic moment, break it down into its constituent parts, and make it transferable to other times and places.

Routinizing charisma is an application of technological thinking: If I do X, Y will happen. If I want Y to happen, then I will commit myself to doing X. The presupposition underlying this way of thinking is that result/state Y is simple enough to be clearly influenced by my doing X, that producing result/state Y is within my power. Current church growth and leadership theories depend on this kind of reasoning. Consider a couple examples.

1. In only a few years Adam Hamilton has led the Church of the Resurrection to become one of the largest and most dynamic churches in United Methodism. He has done an impressive job of not merely attracting people from other churches, but winning people who did not previously attend any church. As with many who are successful in their field of endeavor, Hamilton has started writing books telling the rest of how to do what he did. In Leading Beyond the Church Walls: Developing Congregations with a Heart for the Unchurched, Hamilton describes what he did. Though full of many good ideas, I see two main factors behind his success. (1) He was the right person in the right place at the right time; (2) He worked, really, really hard. As to (1), we pastors can’t do much about that. As to (2), we can choose to put in the 60-80 hours a week it looks like Hamilton did. Aside from questions of health, is this technique, or is this just work?
2. Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Life is sweeping the nation. Churches of all denominations are using it in 40 Days of Purpose campaigns. In the campaign training material, leaders are admonished over and over again (paraphrased): “Think exponentially. If you’re thinking (tempted?) to start 5 small groups, do 50 instead. Doing the campaign will raise your attendance, your professions of faith, and your membership. Just look how well it works at Saddleback church!” I’m not one of those who thinks Rick Warren is the devil incarnate or that The Purpose Driven Life is an evil book. I think that for the most part it is quite good and useful – though I can tell it is written by a Southern Baptist with Calvinist leanings (no surprise whatever). But again, how much of their success is due to (1) Right person, right place, right time; and (2) Working really, really hard? As to (1), There is nearly infinitely more growth capacity in Southern California than in my town of 4500. As to (2), I know that Warren, like Hamilton at COR, has worked really hard.

The theories of routinization I see at work in Hamilton and Warren (and numerous others) have some weaknesses.

First, in a general sense, they abstract from particular settings to provide principles for universal life. This is completely natural. We do it all the time. It’s called learning from experience. We only have to run into so many particular brick walls to learn that it’s not a pleasant experience. But people and human organization are more complex than brick walls. While we find many commonalities, we also find many differences.

Second, both Hamilton and Warren are church planters. They have been central definers of the church DNA since the beginning. Every church I’ve pastored, however, has the added complexity of a history – of multiple pastors and lay leaders. When you have a new pastor coming every 2-5 years for 150 years, each with a different emphasis, each with a different vision for ministry, it’s not too surprising that our people are either relativists (regarding ministry theories) or fighters (“my way is the right way!”).

Third, and following closely on the heels of my first two observations, the kind of fruit/health/growth people like Hamilton and Warren talk about takes time. Warren didn’t start at ground zero, do a 40 Days campaign and end up with 25,000 people. Warren is right that the Bible depicts significant things happening in 40 day periods. It also shows significant things happening in 40 year periods.

A final observation, still rooted in their tendency to abstract: I think Hamilton, Warren et al., sell themselves short (in an attempt to sell their ideas). From what I’ve seen, most of these leaders are dedicated servants of God who are filled with the Holy Spirit, called to a particular ministry – and blessed in visible ways. In other words, God was necessary – and so was their obedience.

Now I’m going to practice a little abstraction. When we consider the methodological literature of the church growth movement – and the methodological content of much of the preaching in their churches (“How to have a godly/happy family,” “Twenty Steps to Peace with God,” “Seven Principles for Healthy Relationships” – you’ve seen them, I’m sure), I understand what I’m seeing to be instances akin to the Wisdom Literature (think Proverbs) in the Bible. As many have observed (C.S. Lewis in the Abolition of Man is one example), much of this wisdom appears similar to that found in other religious and philosophical traditions. What makes the biblical tradition of wisdom different? Biblical wisdom (at its best) is parasitic on on the narrative of God’s action. Such and such actions are wise precisely because of who God is, who we are in relation to God, and where we now stand in relation to God’s continuing action. Once we see this relation to the narrative – in both its universal and local aspects – we can make sense of some of the conflicts we see in Scriptural wisdom. “Answer a fool according to his folly; Don’t answer a fool according to his folly.” Knowing the abstract principles of wisdom is very good; but what does Proverbs say about the beginning of wisdom? It lies in the fear of the Lord – a healthy ongoing relationship with God. I believe it works the same way with church leadership. Many of the books and principles out there are good (some are just a way for the authors to earn a living), but the starting place is an ongoing healthy relationship with God.

A Christian answer to Weber: Routinization may be useful, but we can’t do without the Charisma (which happens to be drawn from the Greek word for “grace.”)

The NFL needs to get over the mandatory marketing of coach’s clothing and permit Nolan to wear a suit if he so chooses.

One of my first clues that I am not a Baby Boomer was that I like music on a pipe organ. Sometime during my first couple of years in ministry I went to a workshop on “Reaching Baby Boomers” where I learned that they identify organ music with ballparks and funeral parlors. The conclusion to which the workshop leaders jumped, then, was that a church that wants to reach baby boomers needs music that is not played by an organist.

I grew up in churches with organs. All through college I sang in the chapel choir which was usually accompanied by the organ. According to the experts I was the right age to be a Boomer, but according to the experts I didn’t like organ music.

It wasn’t until a couple of years later that I began to understand the problem. The leaders of the workshop had set up the wrong categories for understanding the preferences of “people my age.” It took Pat Boone and Little Richard to help me understand the real problem with reaching Boomers, and, for that matter, anyone who is unchurched.

In the 1950’s Pat Boone sold more records than any other artist or group. Yes, he even sold more than Elvis. Boone’s success can be attributed to the fact that he did cover versions of other people’s songs; and the songs he covered where by black musicians. In the 1950’s very few white folk would buy music performed by black musicians, but would buy it if it was performed by a white person.

So, in the early 90’s, at a youth ministry seminar, I saw video clips of Pat Boone performing one of his biggest sellers, “Tooty Fruity.” Immediately following his version, I saw a video clip of Little Richard, the author of the song, performing the same song.

Now, I didn’t grow up in the racially tense and divided time of the 1950’s, but I immediately asked myself, “Why would anyone want to listen to Pat Boone when they could hear this from Little Richard?” There was life in the song when its author sung it; for Boone it seemed to be simply words.

The problem Baby Boomers have (if any) with pipe organs was not the instrument, but that many of them had grown up in churches where it was played with no life or feeling. Many learned to associate the sound of a pipe organ with cold, passionless worship, or “going through the motions of church.”

Are we doing better than going through the motions of church?

Back during the 17th and 18th centuries there was a movement among certain intellectuals that posited an underlying religion (one might say “philosophy”) that underlay all other religions. In fact, this underlying religion was the true religion, uncorrupted by priestcraft and myth. Some of these thinkers advocated a position known as deism. Well, it looks like the deists are back. The new United Deist Church sets forth the following creed:

I freely believe in God as being discovered through nature and reason, rejecting revealed religion and its authority over humanity. I believe that all humans are equal. Further, as God has not shown favor for one people over another and has given us all that we need, that we should follow God’s example and give to others as we can.”

It looks like this religion is mostly about the humans who practice it – they are rational, moral people who can figure out everything they need to know about god. In saying next to nothing about god (except that god “has given us all that we need”), this looks like Auguste Comte’s religion of humanity – and like much contemporary Christian belief. The deist preacher – like many Chrostian preachers of today – would have no trouble proclaiming that God loves people, meaning something like, “God’s main goal for your life is to be happy and successful. Think positive. Be a nice person. Be reasonable.” I wish the deists were the only ones who preached this.

Man, we have a lot of work to do.

As one who tries to pay attention to my words and the words of speakers around me, I live with quite a bit of frustration. I find that people often take me to be saying something I’m not. Though this is likely partly due to my need for greater clarity of speech, it also appears to be that most of us come into conversations with preconceived notions of what can or will be said. When we then hear something that doesn’t fit our schema, we interpret it so it does. If you need an example you need go no farther than political discourse where we fit everything into the liberal/conservative dichotomy.

Although my court experience is less than yours, I remain leery of lawyers’ precision. It may just be TV lawyers, but it often looks like they craft their questions so they will get the answer they want, whether said answer is truthful or gives an accurate picture of the situation. Since I find many questions I’m asked to be inadequate, I find myself frequently answering questions with questions. (Sometimes I don’t. Last night at dinner my son asked if I’d put taco seasoning in the meat we were eating. I answered, “Sort of,” and answer completely inadequate by my wife’s standards. She really likes it when I read the mind of the questioner and figure out what information they want and answer that UNASKED question. But I’m a horrible mind reader. In this case I thought my son was asking if there was taco seasoning in the meat. There was, but I had only bought the seasoning for someone else to add to the meat, so my agency in seasoning the meat was indirect. So I couldn’t admit to doing it and feel I was being entirely honest.)

As for Christian speech – yes we are extremely careless, making unfounded assumptions about the meaning and use of words. In our effort to help people use their words aright, I don’t want to be like the (TV?) lawyers who simply aim to get a particular answer out of a person. I know I’m an idealist, but I think we need to develop the discipline to take time with our language so that words, meanings and usages (which all overlap) can adequately refer to the reality of the Christian faith AND adequately express our convictions about that faith an live out our relationship (conversation) with God. When we use our words, we are doing something different than the witness on the stand – we have a different kind of intentionality toward them. They are OUR words. They are, in a sense, an extension of us.

In a courtroom drama – whether Perry Mason-like or something more mundane – we find ourselves part of a story. My guess is that we’d rather be elsewhere, and that the court story is peripheral to our lives (and our life-story). If we are the plaintiff, we may be trying to get our wya in the world; if the defendant, we may be trying to keep someone else from having their way with us; if only a witness, member of the jury, etc., we may have no stake in the story at all. As Christians we inhabit a different story, one that our own life story is only a small segment of. It is a story in which we do not seek to have our will done, but the will of God (as it is done in heaven). In our speech then, we speak not only within the context of the current and local conversation, but always also as part of the larger context of God’s story of Creation and Redemption. Paying attention to our words, then, is of great import.

I spent today observing the proceedings in a court of law. I have been a fan of almost every “lawyer show” television has produced, and this was like none of them. No one would watch a reality show that merely followed a normal case through trial.

The scariest thing about my observations today is that I think I understand what was going on and why it took so long and seemed to move so slowly. Unlike almost everywhere else in our society, what one says and how one says it in court actually matters.

I was impressed by the quest for precision of word choice and clarity of meaning on the part of the attorneys. If a question was not answered with the correct words, the question was repeated.

The church, on the other hand, seems increasingly content to let anyone use any word to meany anything he or she wants it to mean. For instance, I have had people tell me that because people use the same word, “god” to refer to a supreme being, they must, therefore, be referring to the same supreme being.

Likewise, some people who call themselves Christian are content with a Jesus who was not born of a virgin and was not raised from the dead. Other Christians understand that their faith is dependent upon those historical events.

Thus, sadly, in the context of church, the words “god” and “Christian” have no specific or particular meaning.

At least lawyers will spend hours taking meticulous care to say what they mean.

It would be refreshing if the church could learn to do the same thing.

When you read the Psalms attributed to David you see a picture of a deep relationship with God. While we preachers often talk about loving and obeying God, David’s relationship goes so far as to approach complete openness. David openly shares his joy, frustration, anger, bitterness and confusion with God. He holds nothign back.

In Psalm 25, David does something unusual – or so it appears: he gives God commands. He orders God (that is the grammatical form anyway):

• Show me your ways
• Teach me your paths
• Guide me in your truth
• Remember not the sins of my youth
• Forgive my iniquity
• Turn to me
• Free me from my anguish
• Look upon my affliction
• Guard my life

Considering the garmmatical form alone, we might think David is being pretty bossy with the Creator of the universe. But notice the content of the commands. They all deal with relational themes. David is confessing his need for God, and through the form of these commands, asking God for help.
The final command of the Psalm shifts the focus dramatically. In each of the previous verses, Davd’s request is for himself. In v. 22 David’s plea encompasses all the people: “Redeem Israel, O God, from all their troubles.” In other words, “You know where I stand, Lord. You know my need for you. You know I cannot make it – even for a short time, even in easy circumstances – without you. And these people you’ve entrusted to me, Lord? They’re in exactly the same boat. Apply my request to them also. As you redeem me, redeem them also.”

Last night at Bible Study, I told the 15 or so in attendance that one of my goals on Wednesday nights is to convert them. No, I didn’t mean I think they are unbelievers in need of salvation. What I want to convert them to is seeing and understanding the gospel and the scriptures the way I do.

Does that seem arrogant? I don’t think so. Let me explain.

One’s understanding of the gospel and of scripture influence all of one’s life. Some may say it is the other way around; I contend that in such a case it merely means that one has a weak understanding of the Gospel. For a Christian, the gospel, and hence scripture, is the most fundamental point of reference. Since this is where we start as Christians, it is important for us to be as clear as possible about the meaning of the gospel and our understanding of scripture.

This is exactly why I am out to convert you. I have worked hard to understand the gospel and the various ways it influences my life and the way I see and understand the world around me. I continue to do so. I hope and pray you do, also. In fact, I hope you feel strongly enough about your relationship with God and how you understand the gospel that you will try to convert me. I have no doubt there are areas in my life that could benefit from such conversion.

Our understanding of things religious is not unlike positions we take on other matters. For example, if I am satisfied and happy with my Dell computer, I will more than likely share that someone who might be computer shopping. I won’t despise them or end a friendship with them if they buy a Compaq. If I am very satisfied with my Dell, however, I will do what I can to convince others, to convert them. If someone needs a computer for the same things for which I use mine, and I am pleased with my Dell, then so would they be. The same would be true of a make of car, appliance, or clothing line.

Is not our relationship with God even more significant than what computer we use or what label is on our clothing? Do you feel strongly enough about your relationship with God to recommend the same to someone else?

I first ran into William T. Cavanaugh’s work a few years ago with his article of revisionist history in Modern Theology (“A Fire Strong Enough to Consume the House”). I’ve just finished reading his Theopolitical Imagination (the first chapter of which is a revision/representation of that article from Modern Theology). I’ll comment more on the book later.

Today I came across a piece he wrote for Sojourners on Consumerism (free registration required). He notes:

What marks consumerism as something new is its tendency to reduce everything, both the material and the spiritual, to a commodity able to be exchanged. Things that no other culture ever thought could be bought and sold—water, genetic codes, names (Tostitos Fiesta Bowl), human blood, the rights to emit pollutants into the air—are now routinely offered on the market. The recent story of the Nebraska man who auctioned off advertising space on his forehead is only the latest example of the commodification of everything. This story is not so much a lesson about greed—his forehead was apparently not big enough to garner bids for more than a few hundred dollars—as a statement about the extent to which we are able to become detached from even those things, like our foreheads, to which we are most obviously attached. We stand back from our bodies, faiths, vocations. Our very identity is something to be tried on, chosen, bought, sold, and discarded at will.

I recognize the temptations of consumerism in my own life as well as its prevalence in society. Everything is conceived as belonging to someone, and thus sellable (remember the story a few years ago about a couple Australian guys who copyrighted every possible phone tone?) I’m sure I know what the solution is. Cavanuagh offers both a dose of Marxism – “Worker ownership of the means of production” – Christian theology. The latter he expresses thusly:

The Christian task in a consumer society, then, is to create economic spaces that underscore our spiritual and physical connection to creation and to each other. We must strive to demystify commodities by being informed about where they come from, who makes them, and under what conditions. We should support products, such as fair-trade coffee, that pull back the veil from the production process and offer a sustainable life to their producers. We should attempt to create local, face-to-face economies, where consumers and producers know each other well enough that their interests tend to merge. My parish’s connection to a local cooperative of family farms (www.wholefarmcoop.com) is a hopeful example.

As far as implementing this in America, I don’t see any easy way to do it – for ordinary people anyway. If you live in the urbs or the suburbs you can find places like this. If you have a high enough income you can do the research and buy the more expensive stuff you know all about.
I guess my difference with Cavanaugh (besides the fact that I know less about the subject), is that I fail to see the complete evil of capitalism, understanding it more as one currently available economic system, not inherently worse or better than other systems. From what I see, however, it does seem to be the most effective system for large scale populations. Maybe I’ll learn differently as I advance my economic education.

Context is everything. In the context of a tennis game, “love” means something very different than in the context of Valentine’s Day. When and how words and phrases are used directly and significantly affects meaning.

One of the phrases most commonly used out of context is “the truth shall make you free.” It is etched in stone on buildings of universities and courthouses. It is cited as though a quest for truth is all that is needed for freedom.

These words are attributed to Jesus in John 8. Let’s look at the context for this great philosophical saying. This statement is not even a sentence in the scripture, but a clause. The whole sentence says: “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (verse 32) Now, when a sentence begins with a word like “then,” it does so to refer to a prior thought or statement. In this case, verse 31, immediately before the “then,” has Jesus saying, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

What a difference the context makes! Instead of some abstract, freeform quest for truth, what Jesus is saying that if one wants to find truth one must do some very specific things. For truth that will set one free, one must hold to Jesus’ teachings.

It may be argued that there is access to truth without going through Jesus. I do not take issue with such a point in this column. I only want to make the point here that the truth that has the power to set one free is available for any who would be a disciple of Jesus and hold to his teaching.

If you want someone else’s truth, quote someone else. If you are going to quote Jesus on truth, hold to the truth he was talking about.