A Baptism of Repentance

Posted on April 7, 2012 by Richard Heyduck

John the Baptist is described in the Gospels as preaching a “baptism of repentance.” In the descriptions of his ministry in the Gospels we see people coming to him, confessing their sins. Matthew tells us that when Jesus comes to him for baptism, John is confused. Whatever he doesn’t know about Jesus, he seems sure that baptism for him is not appropriate; baptism from him would be better. Why? My assumption has always been that John recognized Jesus as belonging to the wrong category for baptism – or, better, not belonging to the right category. Baptism is for sinners. Jesus is a non-sinner. Surely he can’t be baptized, can he?

But I don’t want to talk about Jesus’ baptism right now. Rather, I want to address the fact that baptism has something to do with repentance. That makes perfect sense when we consider the ministry of John. He baptizes repenting sinners. But we don’t live in the age of John the Baptist. We do continue to baptize, however. Is the baptism we do the same (kind of) baptism John did? I’d suggest that it seems best to think it is. I have a couple of reasons.

First, the fact of John’s baptizing seems to be the origin story of the practice. We see glimpses of Jesus baptizing (though it doesn’t seem to have played a major role in his ministry). After the resurrection we see Jesus commanding the ministry of baptism as part of the Great Commission. We then see the apostles baptizing people as they came to faith in Jesus. John’s ministry is defined by baptizing, Jesus baptizes (a little), and then the apostles take up the practice. There appears to be an element of continuity here.

Second, baptism seems to be a normative practice for Christians. John baptized, Jesus baptized (a little), then the apostles baptized – and the church has taken it up ever since. The Gospels tell us that some of Jesus’ disciples came to him from being disciples of John. By whom were they baptized? John? That seems likely. By Jesus? Maybe a few, though there is no description of Jesus baptizing any of them. We certainly don’t see any being baptized or re-baptized after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

So perhaps we have enough reason to treat Christian baptism as having at least some relation to John’s baptism, and thus in some way being a baptism of repentance. Here some people have a problem though. When the one coming for baptism is an adult, we have no trouble taking that person to (a) need repentance, and (b) be repenting. But what about children – especially little children who do not yet have a concept of sin or repentance? When we baptize little children are we short-circuiting the repentance dimension of baptism? Baptists will surely think we are, and think this sufficient reason to refrain from baptizing anyone who is not of an age to be able to understand sin and repentance. I find that if we go down this track the baptist argument makes perfect sense.

But what if we’re misunderstanding repentance, particularly by (a) over-intellectualizing it, and (b) oversimplifying the agency involved.?

Perhaps most will grant that it is doubtful that anyone who comes to baptism fully understands either the depth of their sin or the requirements of repentance. Sensing one way this argument could go, some would pipe up, “Yes, but even lacking full understanding is significantly different than lacking all understanding.” True. But is it ever appropriate to baptize someone who might lack all understanding? What of those who are intellectually deficient or incapacitated? Can they never be proper candidates for baptism? This is a question worthy of analysis, but, again, is not the main question I want to raise. Instead, I want to look at the possible misconception of agency.

When I talk about the misconception of agency I’m not putting forth the claim I’ve heard from many of my fellow United Methodists that “Baptism isn’t something we do, it’s something God does.” If this is a claim that baptism is a means of grace and that God is the one who does grace, then I might acquiesce, though grudgingly. As I read scripture I see that God is a God of grace, the origin of grace, the gracious creator and king of the universe. But that’s not all. God delegates people to be emissaries of grace. As we grow in maturity in Christ we become more and more pipelines of grace from God to the people around us. We become means of grace.

When one makes the claim that “Baptism is not something we do, it’s something God does,” one is not finding support in our liturgy. As I read out liturgy I see that baptism in the context of United Methodist worship is a complex act where the pastor, the people, the one being baptized, along with family and friends, are all participants in the baptism. All can be described as “doing something.” None are mere passive recipients of God’s grace. All are putting themselves forward as active recipients. But again, that’s not my point. I want to talk specifically about baptism as a baptism “of repentance” and the agency involved in repentance.

Surely it makes perfect sense to say that a sinner repents. Or if we want to recognize God’s role explicitly, we can say that God brings the sinner to repentance. When we say this we think something like, ‘This person is now repenting of her sins. She came to know she was a sinner as God’s convicting grace worked in her life, and now through the grace of God – and no power of her own – she is turning to God in faith.” Ok. Sounds fine. But is that all? I think not – especially after listening to Kenneth Bailey speaking on the story of Zaccheus the other night.

In that message from Luke, Bailey mentioned the repentance of Zaccheus – and in the other contexts in that Gospel, particularly Luke 15. In that chapter Jesus tells of repentance. Repentance there is not, however, the awareness of sin and the conscious turning from it. Oh, we might imagine that accounting when we look at the younger son. But what about the lost sheep and the lost coin? Bailey suggests that from these stories there is more to repentance than the conscious activity we usually imagine. There is also the openness to being found. The sheep gets found, the shepherd rejoices, Jesus likens it to “one sinner who repents.” This sounds like a more passive picture of repentance – from the point of view of the sinner – than the usual account. It is, however, no less Jesus-driven.

When we move from the context of repentance in Luke 15 to the repentance of baptism, need we assume a vast change? Is it possible that the repentance connected with baptism can be sufficient if it is “only” the repentance of an “openness to being found?” Such a perspective would make baptism more available for those who lack intellectual capacity, whether due to age or other reasons. I certainly find it suggestive.

Posted in Bible, Ecclesiology, Ministry, Theology | Leave a comment

Decline of Authoritarianism? Not where I look

Posted on March 31, 2012 by Richard Heyduck

Martin Thomas writes in The Guardian about the shift from authoritarian to a more horizontal and collaborative style in business. He sees this as a shift from a Platonic to an Aristotelian approach. It may be happening in business, but I don’t see it in the institutions I know best, the United Methodist Church and education.

I think one reason some people are suspicious of the proposed changes in the UMC is the perception that it is in the direction of greater authoritarianism (more power to bishops, closer and more minute supervision of pastors). Recent “reforms” in other areas of society (I think of education in particular) have been revisions disempowering local practitioners (i.e., teachers), in favor of expertise, strategy, and models from above.

The perceived increase in authoritarianism is lending itself to more fragile systems. Consider public schools. The teachers are on edge. If their students don’t pass the (new) standardized tests, they are told they will lose their jobs. The coaches are always on edge. If their teams don’t win, they will lose their jobs. Band directors are on edge; if their bands don’t bring home the trophies and awards, they will lose their jobs. Yet as co-actors in a finite system, the work of these three kinds of educational workers (and others) over laps. The leaders of non-academic activities worry when the teachers pile on the homework. Teachers worry when non-academic activities fill student’s time so they can’t do all their work. Activities collide, tempers flare, anxiety spirals upward. And the State keeps saying, YOU ARE ACCOUNTABLE! IF YOU DON’T PERFORM, WE TURN OFF THE MONEY SPIGOTS!

Or turning to UM pastors. When it comes to church health, the buck stops with the pastor. If the church is unhealthy (i.e., not performing well according to the currently chosen, eminently quantifiable statistics), the pastor is the one held accountable. It’s the pastor’s fault. The hierarchy doesn’t threaten to turn off the money spigots (since money usually flows the other direction), but does say things like, “I think this other opportunity will be great for you” (and it pays less and is in a location that doesn’t fit family needs), or “With all the ineffective pastors out there, we need to re-think the Guaranteed Appointment,” and the pastor KNOWS, since more members are dying every year than are taken in, and that the new members often give less than the dearly departed, that SURELY he or she will necessarily be judged “ineffective.”

How can we make some progress here? I have a few ideas.

  • Must we believe that everything that is assessable is quantifiable? Sure the neat thing about the quantifiable is that judgments can be seen as objective and neutral. When a factor can’t be quantified we have the messy problem of human judgment involved. There might be bias and prejudice. But do we live in a wholly digital world, a world that our digital mapping can adequately accommodate? I’m not convinced.
  • Along similar lines, we need to find new ways of assessment. What makes for a healthy church? How do we know if a student has adequately mastered a particular topic or field of study? I think the numbers do tell us something. It is useful to know how many professions of faith happen in a church and what’s happening with the attendance. It is useful to know how well a student performs on a test. But if these are our only forms of assessment we lack an adequate conception of church health or learning.
  • Our quest to make our knowledge claims demonstrable and objective has led to over-simplification. Since entering teaching full time in January, one of the things I have had the most trouble wrapping my mind around is the idea that learning can be adequately assessed by means of “embedded” questions in a multiple choice exam. I know that such a method makes assessment easy and demonstrable. But the cost seems way too high. Maybe some day I’ll become smart enough to figure it out.
  • Finally, we need to complete our national economic recovery. Maybe then we can stop being so hard-edged in the questioning of everything: “Is this worth my money?” We think objective answers from assessment will answer that question. But this kind of valuation question is not easily amenable to quantification and the answers provided by quantification. The black & white nature of the answers provided by quantification make it easy to say no, hard to tolerate failure.

 

Posted in Current events, Ecclesiology, Education, Epistemology, United Methodism | Leave a comment

What Do You Do?

Posted on March 24, 2012 by Richard Heyduck

Since January I have been on faculty at Wiley College in Marshall. About half my students are young black men. I worry for them, that some armed, fearful, paranoid white guy, will take out his fear on them.

What are my guys supposed to do? Stay in high school? Go to college? Work hard? That’s what society tells them to do. Is that enough – enough to do something as simple as expect to continue to live? Apparently not, if a fearful, paranoid, armed person crosses their path at the wrong time.

I’m praying for my guys. My heart is heavy. They have big dreams for life. They have great potential.  I’m going to do what I can to help them make it there.

Posted in Current events | 1 Comment

What Counts as a Person?

Posted on March 12, 2012 by Richard Heyduck

In the past year or so there has been an uproar about corporations being treated as persons. Continuing my review of Bobbitt’s Shield of Achilles tonight, I find this thesis (p. 365):

The society of nation-states developed a constitution that attempted to treat states as if they were individuals in a political society of equal, autonomous, rights-baring citizens… In the society of nation-states, the most important right of a nation was the right of self-determination.

If you’re familiar with Bobbitt’s work, you know he is exploring the transition from the nation state to the market state. In this context, and taking this quote into the picture, I have several thoughts.

1. The notion that a non-individual person would have attributes of a person, or in some instances be treated as a person is not a new development, and certainly not a evil act by corporate powers seeking to control our lives. While I’m not qualified to speak to the history of the corporation, I do know that the church has a long-standing tradition of thinking of itself as the “body of Christ,” (corpus Christi in Latin), in one sense a corporate person.

2. The modern age has seen a loss of ecclesiological substance. I’d even say that our commitment to a biblical ecclesiology has an inverse relation to the dominance of individualism in our culture. As individual waxes, commitment to the church as the body of Christ, a community to which I give allegiance even when it costs me something, wanes.

3. Bobbitt says it has been normal to see the state as a sort of person, a corporate body. That is, this is how things have been in the (now passing) era of the nation state. One of the things that is an impetus to the rise of the market state is the rise of individualism. The rationale of the nation state is to maximize the welfare of citizens. The rationale of the market state is to maximize the opportunities of citizens.

4. One reason the market state is on the rise is that we individualists don’t want  corporate personhood, whether it be in the state or the church.

5. The market seems to me to be a powerful tool. At the same time, if it is the only tool we have, we’re in trouble. The market is fundamentally amoral, just the concatenation of multiple choosings and willings.

If all this is accurate, then the challenge is: how do we avoid nihilism?

Posted in Nihilism, Politics | Leave a comment

Security & Welfare: Bankruptcy or New Visions?

Posted on March 10, 2012 by Richard Heyduck

As I continue my reviewing of Bobbitt’s book, The Shield of Achilles…

If the Nation State (which in Bobbitt’s usage is the form national states have taken, beginning with the American Civil War) is predicated on providing security from enemies and maximizing the welfare of citizens, we have made clear progress in the past century and a half.

We have found, however, that defense against ALL possible enemies and dangers is rather complicated and expensive. Ok, some have found that, while others still see this as the central role of the state.

When will we discover that assigning the State the responsibility for maximizing the welfare of citizens is probably even more infinite – and thus bankrupting? “Welfare” for citizens keeps evolving, ever upward. It doesn’t stop with indoor plumbing, air conditioning, and internet access. Welfare as health care doesn’t stop with a hospital in every region, with medical care available to all.

Can we contemplate that there are some good things that the State cannot do? Or, more radically, shouldn’t do?

One change we see is the outsourcing of national security to private contractors. Surely a bad thing, since they won’t always do it the right way (when national security was the sole province of the State, the State always did it right, didn’t it?).

Can we imagine that welfare might be outsourced as well? By this I don’t mean that the State sets up a “welfare” program and then contracts its operation out to various companies. That may or may not be a good idea – I’m agnostic. But what happens if, from the bottom up, groups, whether profit or not, come to take it upon themselves to increase the welfare of others? What if this were more than just the rise of lobbying groups seeking to pressure the State to expand welfare assurance to this or that area?

Doubtless these groups will not have the power of the state. They will not be able to raise limitless amounts of cash, via taxation. They will not enjoy the power of compulsion, via the law. They will not have the universal breadth of vision and span of care via the national system. But aren’t theses myths anyway? It’s certainly a myth that the State can raise limitless amounts of cash. Even if we have a 100% marginal rate for all income over a certain amount, I doubt we will have enough to meet the demands. If we enact laws compelling people to do the right thing (even to the extent of using the correct lightbulbs – regardless of cost – and eating the right foods – regardless of taste), I doubt all people will sit by quietly.

The churches already have a heritage of seeking to improve the welfare of others, both near and far. Sometimes this welfare is not just the same version of welfare sought by the State, but forms distinctive to the Gospel.

What do you think?

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

United Methodists, Catholics and Religious Liberty

Posted on February 24, 2012 by Richard Heyduck

Attacking Catholics has been all the rage for some, since they have responded to the government’s new insurance mandate as if it were infringing their freedom of religion. Some have been painted them as evil and misogynist. Others deny that the mandate could possibly be considered an infringement of religious liberty. Fortunately, our own United Methodist leader Jim Winkler is one of the more reasonable in his response (http://www.umc-gbcs.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=frLJK2PKLqF&b=7989583&ct=11633085&tr=y&auid=10332870). Reasonable, but more attentive to the talking points of the opponents of the Catholics than of the situation itself. Below I will intersperse my comments with his.

A note: I am not a Roman Catholic. I have never felt inclined to be a Roman Catholic. I do not find their position toward contraception to be in line with my theology or how I read the Bible. I do not speak in their favor here because I agree with their position on contraception, but because I recognize validity in their claim about the mandate.

A second note: I’m only responding here to Winkler. A more positive piece would delve more deeply into the ecclesiological and political assumptions in play. Perhaps I’ll have time to do that in the future.

Finally, thank you to Allan Bevere for calling my attention to Jim Winkler’s piece.

Winkler begins:

“I’ve always appreciated that The United Methodist Church has never claimed to be a victim of religious persecution. Even though we imposed our religious views on others when we pushed through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting sale and manufacture of alcohol nearly 100 years ago, we did not insist our religious liberty was infringed when Prohibition was repealed.”

When we identify so closely with the dominant political ethos – and take that identification as a virtue, persecution is highly unlikely. As to the repeal of Prohibition infringing on our religious liberty being in some way analogous to the current problem, he is clearly missing the point. A better analogy would be our being compelled to buy drinks for everyone to celebrate the end of Prohibition. People for some reason take the Catholic position to be seeking to impose prohibition on everyone now, rather than seeking to not be themselves implicated in the practices.

“We strongly oppose gambling and find war incompatible with Christian teaching. We don’t suggest, however, that the spread of gambling and the constant warfare around the world represent persecution of Methodism.”

No, but we say that “the spread of gambling and constant warfare” are immoral. We don’t want to have a part in spreading gambling or in instigating constant warfare. And we, like the Catholics, have been mostly unable to convince the rank and file membership of our stance. Many of our folks continue to gamble, continue to join and support the military and its missions.

And why is it that the Catholics don’t want to accept the “compromise” offered them?

“Because they don’t want women to have the liberty to choose to use birth control. They want to deny that freedom to women.”

Is that what THEY claim? Can Winkler practice a hermeneutics of charity when it comes to Catholics, and at least recognize that they MIGHT mean what they say?

“Religious freedom is not violated by denying religiously affiliated hospitals, universities and other institutions the right to discriminate on the basis of race or gender.”

How does Winkler know what constitutes “religious freedom?” Is there only one kind, one size fitting all? Is the omnicompetent state (and its allies) the sole arbiter of what it means?

How are the Catholics seeking to discriminate on the basis of race or gender? They’re not in favor of providing male contraception any more than they are female contraception.

“Or, maybe an employer thinks that people contract diabetes due to poor dietary and exercise decisions they’ve made. Therefore, the employer doesn’t want to offer treatment for the disease.”

This sounds like a different subject altogether. If we have these fears – and since responsibility for a care that costs as much as modern medical care leads those who shell out the big bucks to seek ways of controlling costs, fears might be legitimate – then we can take this as an argument for de-coupling employment & health insurance. That sounds like something the UMC might be interested in pursuing. That would make the current dispute with the Catholic church moot, moving it all to the private realm.

“Notice, if you will, that in this debate it is the religious freedom of institutions and corporations that is being addressed, not that of employees. In a world where corporations are declared to be people —where corporations even claim religious freedom — is it possible that real human beings, employees, no longer will have the rights of human beings or the freedom to practice behavior they consider ethical?”

What “freedom to practice behavior they consider ethical” is being denied in this case? I see a desire to not FUND certain behaviors. But funding is a different matter. (I know, I know, I am dead wrong according to many, considering the loud cries of censorship when we hear whispers of defunding instances of artistic expression.)

How would United Methodists feel if they were required to use their apportionments to fund the construction of new casinos and weapon systems? Would we just say, “Caesar says we have to do it, so we’ll be good citizens and pony up the cash?”

I am not a scholar of the history of economics. I know little about the history of corporations. I do know, however, that the Bible and the Christian tradition talk about the “Body of Christ” – “Corpus Christi” in Latin. We are together the Body of Christ – a sort of corporation, or as some have described it, a corporate personality. There may be evil corporations in the world, but they neither originated nor own the notion of people being bound together in one body. Defending the absolute individualism of modern politics is not the way forward for us.

Posted in Current events, Ecclesiology, United Methodism | 7 Comments

Strange

Posted on January 8, 2012 by Richard Heyduck

I feel strange. Tomorrow morning is the first Sunday since early July 1991 that I will wake up without feeling primary responsibility for a congregation.

This week I’ve taken up a new job, a non-pastoral job. I’m now part of the religion faculty at Wiley College, a United Methodist institution in Marshal, Texas. I’ve taken this position in response to a call from God back when I was in college. In fact, that last time when I awoke on a Sunday without responsibility for a congregation was when I had moved to California for my doctoral work, a primary step in preparation for the change I’ve made this week. Though my Texas Conference DS had told me he was good friends with the Cal-Pac Bishop, ensuring ease into a church position through which I could support my family while in school, the reality was that there simply were no openings. After a month of praying, searching, and relationship-building, I ended up connected with Fountain Valley United Methodist Church. My family and I were blessed to be there for the next four years.

In some of the years since then I have not been “Lead Pastor.” In Fountain Valley I was “Pastor of Youth and Education.” Later at Westbury UMC in Houston I was “Associate Pastor.” In theory I lacked “primary responsibility” in both cases. The buck didn’t stop with me. But I never thought that way. I was convinced the whole way – in both settings, and in the other places where I have had the title “lead pastor,” that what I do makes a primary difference, that I bear direct responsibility for the life and health of the congregation. Not sole responsibility – supposing that is a delusion even when I am “lead pastor.”

But now I am not a pastor. My responsibility for a congregation is completely undefined. I am responsible for students, and for how I lead, disciple and educate them. I am responsible for my relationships with my colleagues in that educational ministry. But I’m not responsible for a congregation. It feels mighty strange.

Posted in Ministry | 3 Comments

Try Harder

Posted on December 10, 2011 by Richard Heyduck

I looked at Martin Heidegger a few times over the years and never got much out of him. Most of what I found there seemed like gibberish. Then I found the podcast of Hubert Dreyfus on Heidegger I thought I’d give it a shot. The recording quality of this podcast, like many others I’ve listened to from iTunes U is not so great. The volume varies greatly. Sometimes in order to hear Dreyfus I have to turn it up so loud all the other noises in the recording are painful. But it’s worth it.

Now, post-Dreyfus, I sometimes think I understand at least some of Heidegger. I oscillate between thinking what he says in perfectly obvious or completely completely opaque.

One of the books I’m reading now is All Things Shining, a recent book Dreyfus wrote with Sean Dorrance Kelly. It’s presented as a sort-of secular/atheist/polytheist response to the problem of nihilism in our culture. I don’t have any sympathy with that perspective, but having liked Dreyfus on Heidegger I thought I’d give it a shot.

They consider the problem of nihilism in the first two chapters. The second focuses primarily on how that nihilism was expressed in the life of David Foster Wallace, with additional reflection from Elizabeth Gilbert. Both battle the burden of genius.

If it is the writer’s individual genius that is fully responsible for the character of the work, then the pressure to re-perform is immense and constant. Not only is one’s entire worth and identity at stake in the outcome, but no individual success can ever assure it either: it is always possible that the next book will show the earlier success to have been a fluke. (p. 54)

Gilbert and Wallace are authors, thus the focus on writers. What about others? I think of the cult of pastoral leadership when I read this. Try putting sermon/program/ministry in the place of “book” in the paragraph above. We have to keep it up all the time. There is no let up. The future of the church (whether the local congregation or the denomination as a whole) or thousands of souls are at stake.

Nihilism is the view that there is nothing bigger than the individual willing agent. In a couple of interesting books Michael Allen Gillespie traces the history of this nihilism (The Theological Origins of Modernity and Nihilism before Nietzsche). We have big wills. But our wills aren’t as effectual as we think they have to be. We can’t will strongly and purely enough to make the breakthroughs Nietzsche and Wallace were looking for.

Willing ourselves to be better pastors, better leaders, since that’s what counts most these days, works sometimes. But then we find ourselves in a place where willing alone doesn’t work. Or, moving another direction, a direction I take to be closely related, the routines into which we’ve shunted charisma no longer work.

What’s the alternative? Do we give up on trying to save the church, saving the hundreds of souls depending on us? Do we retreat to the cabin and stare at our navels in a mind-numbed stupor?

The first part of the solution is worship. This is not a solution in the Weberian sense; worship is not the technique we pick up in order to purify our willing or inform our action to make it truly effective. Worship is the place where we see God and get God’s view of reality.

The second part of the solution is labor. Not more work in the office or in the programs of the church. Rather, we need labor – physical labor, to awaken our bodies. Having become Minds and Wills in the modern age, our bodies and our sense of them as OUR bodies as atrophied. Labor will help us recover our sense of embodiment.

Finally  (finally in the sense of the final thing I’m going to say in this post, not “finally” in the last word anyone would want to add), we suffer. We fill up in our bodies that which is still lacking with regard to the afflictions of Christ for the sake of his Body, the church (Col. 1:24).  This suffering is not a masochistic infliction of pain on ourselves. Rather, it is a following of Jesus to the cross for the joy set before us, as we despise its shame. This kind of suffering leads to a joy beyond comprehension (before we try it).

Posted in Culture, Ecclesiology, Max Weber, Nihilism | 1 Comment

New Mission Field

Posted on December 6, 2011 by Richard Heyduck

In case you haven’t heard, I am entering a new mission field in January. At that time I will join the faculty of Wiley College, a United Methodist school in Marshall, full time.

Many have asked, “Why are you quitting the ministry?” I’m NOT quitting the ministry. I’m moving from having my primary mission the leadership of a congregation to having my primary mission the education, discipleship and evangelism of college students.

In making this change I’m following a call I received back when I was in college. In those days I saw many of my fellow students arrive on campus as professing Christians and leave as… nothing. Or maybe hedonists. It was in the context of having my heart broken for my fellow students that I heard the call to prepare myself so I could serve as a consistent, credible and compelling witness for Christ on a college campus.

Wiley College evidences a desire to be a Christian school. Among the United Methodist schools with which I’m familiar, this is a rare desire. More common is a desire to be “excellent.” Excellence is great – I’d rather be excellent than not. But excellent by what standard? Excellent in terms of which vision?

I’d appreciate your prayer support as my family and I make this transition. Also, pray for my congregation here in Pittsburg. After eight and half years it’s hard to leave them. The cabinet is even now at this late date still looking for my successor, so prayer is clearly in order.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Growth Drivers

Posted on November 1, 2011 by Richard Heyduck

We United Methodists have been rather obsessed with growth of late. Unfortunately, our obsession seems to be often driven by a fear of decline. We know the reality of decline too well. Many of our churches are shrinking, many are closing. We see what Lovett Weems has called the “death tsunami” on our horizon. If over 50% of your committed and active people are age 70 and above it’s not too hard to figure that those folks won’t be as active and committed in five years as they are now. They’re wearing out. Some are even dying. So is growth possible? Along with some of our denominational leaders I believe it is. The question is, what will it take to make it happen?

Some advocate the “Five Practices” put forth by Bishop Robert Schnase. Radical Hospitality, Extravagant Generosity, Passionate Worship, Intentional Faith Development, and Risk-Taking Mission. All of these are present in healthy, growing churches. At least some will be missing in churches that are neither healthy nor growing. I’ve written and preached on these many times in the past, so I won’t go into detail now.

Others suggest that we find a model that works and copy it. The current model receiving the most attention is Church of the Resurrection. I’ve seen enough of what they’ve been doing over the years to be impressed. They’re doing something right. They are worthy of emulation. Ginghamsburg UMC and Windsor Village are a couple other churches mentioned as leaders in the UMC. Both have powerful leaders and nationally visible ministries.

I read a blog post by Perry Noble yesterday. He offers the reasons he thinks his church will grow to 100,000. Perry’s not a UM. I don’t know of any UM churches that aspire to be that large. I know my congregation will never be that large (there are only 12,000 in the whole county – and the surrounding counties don’t have that many more). The differences between Perry and myself, between my congregation and his, and between their setting and ours are huge. But the reasons he offers apply here nonetheless.

His first claim is that “found people find people.” When people have a clear and compelling experience with Jesus, they will share with others. The Jesus living in them will be attractive to others and they will be passionate to see others set free as they have been. Can this happen in a UM church? If one looks at most of our churches today, one might think not. Most of our folks were raised in church and lack a sense of ever having been lost. It’s not so much that we’ve ever sensed a need for God as much as God’s always been there. We take God for granted. It’s also hard for us to think of ourselves as being “found.” Once we do that  we might think someone else is “lost,” and that goes against our ethos of tolerance and humility. But Methodists have a strong conversionist tradition. We had it in Wesley’s day. We had it in 19th century Methodism. We can’t dismiss it as “unMethodist.” I pray we get it again.

Noble’s second reason is that they “understand that saved people serve people.” This is a little easier for us to understand. We’re pretty good at seeing needs in the community and doing something about them. Whether it’s serving at God’s Closet food pantry, offering ESL classes or doing other outreaches, our people serve.

The third reason is another challenge. He says that they “believe that growing people change.” This conviction is entirely in line with early Methodism. In fact, Wesley’s emphasis on discipleship was easily on a par with his emphasis on evangelism. Today United Methodists still believe in discipleship. The downside is that we’ve too often lost a vision for what it is. We too easily think the only distinction worth attending to is that between members and non-members. Institutional membership is largely irrelevant to our discipleship, however. We too often lack a vision of what God wants to do in our lives, how Jesus wants to refashion us in his own image. Fighting sin? Well that’s just too hard. Nobody’s perfect, right? We’re all sinners, right? God knows how weak and feeble we are – he made us this way, after all! – so surely he doesn’t expect much of us, right? The growth of the church is predicated on the growth first of the believers who inhabit it. If we are not growing in grace, if we are not being transformed, any institutional growth we see will likely be unhealthy growth.

“Because we understand we cannot do life alone” is the fourth reason. The Christian faith is more than mental furniture, more than social social activism, more than being morally upright. Christian faith is expressed with others, in worship and in discipleship. Again, this feature of Noble’s church is directly paralleled in our Methodist tradition. Wesley was a firm opponent of “solitary religion.” The problem is that we’re not. In our niceness and complacency, we want to believe we can be perfectly fine with God whatever we do or don’t do. Hunting season is on so you have to skip worship? No biggie – you’ll be worshiping with the deer and the antelope, I’m sure. Too many sporting events to be regular in worship or in face to face discipling groups? No big deal, you can read an Upper Room devotional once a quarter. Our current practices of neglecting Body Life hurt us in two ways. First, as individuals we miss out on our living connection to the Body with each other. Second, the church as a whole is demoralized by the absence of so many who are counted as members. How healthy can a Body be when half of its body parts are not functioning?

The final conviction Noble shares is one we’ve heard before: “We believe that we cannot out give God.” The expectation is that the extravagant generosity of the people will enable the church to fulfill its mission. We know the theory. We have the heritage in our Methodist tradition. We say we believe it. But we don’t do it. We need the new cars and dream homes (not only as our primary residence but on the beach, at the lake or in the mountains). We need multiple vacations every year. We’re in deep in debt. And now with the economy the way it is, we want to save it all for a rainy day.

Perry Noble is some sort of Baptist. I’m a United Methodist. As a United Methodist I see nothing in his convictions mentioned in this post that are incompatible with “our way.” Instead, I see much that seems drawn directly from our tradition. I believe that if we can recover these convictions – not just as beliefs or landmarks from our past, but as currently operational convictions – growth will happen.

Posted in church growth, Discipleship, Perry Noble, United Methodism | 1 Comment