Questions about alcohol

Posted on June 10, 2011 by Richard Heyduck

A local newspaper recently asked me some questions about shifting attitudes and practices regarding the sale of alcohol in E Texas. Here’s what I had to say (you may notice I’m not good at generating sound bites).

Once upon a time, in some segments of American culture, abstinence from alcohol was perceived to be the norm for Christians. This norm has weakened over the past generation for a number of reasons. First, a number of Christians like to drink. Where once they would do it in private, perhaps even while publicly standing against alcohol, they have grown tired of appearing to be hypocrites. Second, in many parts of our culture the percentage of those who feel some sense of allegiance to traditional norms is declining. Third, some people have read the Bible and discovered that not only is it not a pro-abstinence document, but also that Jesus himself turned water into wine for his first miracle. As far as we can tell from the context he seems to have done so on the assumption that more wine would be a good thing for those at the wedding party.

That said, the Bible is strongly against drunkenness. Being drunk is a sign of foolishness in scripture. We know the destructive power of alcohol addiction today. I know too many people who have drunk themselves to death or their families to destruction. Free availability of alcohol to addicts was destructive enough in early America. Combined now with some of our technological advances (cars in particular), it is even more deadly.

I’ve mentioned that in the past many gave normative status to abstinence from alcohol. Another norm that was commonly accepted in those days was that hedonism wasn’t the highest value. Pleasure was a good, but it was also recognized to have some dangers, and thus in need of restraint. As the attitude toward abstinence has changed, the attitude toward hedonism has also changed. The notion “if it feels good, do it,” a long-standing practice of humans wherever they are found, has become more openly acceptable. Combining easy access to alcohol with a culture that centers on hedonism and largely rejects self-control, can be as dangerous as making guns easily available in a setting where fear and paranoia are rampant. So until our culture becomes less hedonistic and better at inculcating self-control, I will be concerned about the “growing trend of East Texas communities electing to go wet.” But then again, as one who has read the Bible, I’m not terribly surprised when the world acts like the world.

Posted in Current events, Ethics | 3 Comments

Real estate & the economy

Posted on June 4, 2011 by Richard Heyduck

Feel free to take the comments below with a grain of salt. I am not in the real estate business. I have never owned real estate. I have never studied real estate, and have had only one course in economics. I have, however, been aware of  real estate markets in both Texas and California over the past twenty years, so my evidential base is not entirely lacking.

People seem surprised that the real estate market has not only failed to improve but that prices continue to drop. While there seem to be many rich folks out there who are able to buy what ever house (or houses) they want, even more feel priced out of the housing market. In the first place, looking at markets like those in California, real estate prices have been too high for at least a couple of decades. When people believed housing would appreciate indefinitely they found ways to justify pouring a large percentage of their resources into homes. Now that they have discovered not only the end of appreciation but the aggressive onset of depreciation, they find it much harder to justify.

Second, the high prices in some markets are far beyond what people with ordinary, middle income salaries can afford. And that was before they lost their jobs or settled for lower paying jobs beneath their skill and experience level. Even those who still have the same jobs are feeling less security in those jobs. When they sense the precariousness of their income stream, how can they even consider buying an unaffordable house?

Third, lending institutions have reversed course from their policies that eased the housing boom. Instead of easy credit, credit has become hard to come by. Lenders insist on large down payments – large compared to the “nothing down” (or almost nothing down) of a few years ago. When jobs are uncertain and following an era in which many lived beyond their means, there just isn’t money in the bank for substantial down payments.

Is there a solution to all this? It depends on what one means by a “solution.” If one is asking for a return to the high-flying days of the real estate boom, when credit was easy, large debt could be rationalized on the basis of real estate price inflation, and houses could serve as sources of cash for other desires (electronics, cars, vacations, school, etc.), then I don’t think we can – or should – look for that solution.

If, however, we imagine a situation where people who work can afford adequate housing without fear of bankruptcy, where people can sell their homes when they move and find homes in new communities, than I would think that kind of solution is possible. Here are some practices that might help make that happen:

  • People will have to learn to live within the bounds of their income. Unending reliance on credit doesn’t work as a strategy for financial stability. Doubtless, adopting the practice will (and already has) brought the economy down, to the extent that the economy was based on fictional valuations, so this wisdom will not result in a quick fix.
  • We will do better if our economic model is more robust than “look out for #1.” It is not the case that all people – whether taken as individuals or as families – can afford adequate housing even if they are prudent with their income. Some are disable, some lack adequate income even for the basics. If my concern for housing is only for my own housing and not for the needs of others, our system will not be sustainable. I see an over concern for “property values” as one way of failing to love our neighbors. (I am not saying that we should be poor stewards of our property or that we should encourage poor stewardship in others.)
  • We will all gain if we see ourselves in the same boat as our neighbors. Even if we are rich and they are poor, even if we consider ourselves prudent and successful and others foolish failures, we will do well to remember that all of us inhabit a common housing system or ecosystem. What I do impacts others, just as what they do impacts me. While the zero-sum economics of ancient times (the notion that the size of the pie is fixed, meaning that if I have more others necessarily have less) has been discredited, an economics that says that each of us have our own infinitely expandable pies (that don’t significantly impinge on others) has also been discredited. We are in this together.
  • Prices will have to come down further. This is not primarily because people need housing, but because sellers (who need to sell) will not find buyers who will pay their asking prices.
Posted in Consumerism, Economics | Leave a comment

“Liberal” & “Conservative”

Posted on June 3, 2011 by Richard Heyduck

Our special speaker at Annual Conference this year was Adam Hamilton, pastor of Church of the Resurrection in Overland Park, Kansas. In more than three hours of teaching he shared leadership strategies and tactics that have helped him grow his congregation to over ten thousand people. From everything I see he is doing a great job reaching people, particularly people who have been disconnected from any church. His congregation has sought not only to be deeply involved in mission toward the world (near and far) but also to the United Methodist Church. If you are a church leader and  haven’t read any of his books, I encourage you to do so. I believe you will find them fruitful.

Toward the end of one of his sessions, Hamilton spent several minutes talking about the diversity within United Methodism, and how this diversity is one of our greatest strengths. I have heard this particular claim for many, many years. I occasionally believe it, but clearly not as often or as publicly as Hamilton.

One of the points of diversity Hamilton mentioned was that the UMC contains both liberals and conservatives. If you know anything about the UMC, you’ve known this for years. The common assertion is that we are strengthened by having both liberals and conservatives. Hamilton went a little further, actually offering a definition of each term to show why we need each.

“Liberals,” according to Hamilton, are the open-minded folks who recognize they don’t know it all. They are open to learning more. They are flexible and adaptable.

“Conservatives” are those who recognize that we have important things in our heritage that we need to hold on to. If we let go of these things we will lose our identity.

Given these definitions of “liberal” and “conservative” I agree whole-heartedly that we need both. In fact, it’s not just that we need “liberals” and “conservatives,” but that we each, if we are to be healthy, need to practice both. If we are to lead congregations effectively we need to be humble, open, and flexible – and firmly holding on to our Christian heritage and convictions.

The problem, however, is that his definitions are somewhat deceptive. It is not only that some folks are “liberal” and some folks “conservative.” It is also the case that some people are participants in the tradition of liberal theology and others are participants in the tradition of conservative theology. These traditions are characterized by more than a formal definition of the sort offered by Hamilton. Each tradition has, over the centuries, developed substantive (or material) convictions as well. Inasmuch as “liberals” and “conservatives” are in conflict with in the United Methodist Church (or other denominations) it is these substantive convictions that are the major factor. Consider an example.

When I was an undergraduate at a United Methodist college, Rudolf Bultmann was a major factor in theology. As a participant in the liberal tradition of theology, Bultmann held that the Christian doctrine of the resurrection was a myth – a story humans told to express some existential truth. The first Easter was not the day Jesus returned to life, or rose from the dead. Rather it was the “rise of Easter faith” in the disciples. Given his convictions Bultmann could even say that if the bones of Jesus were discovered by archaeologists it would not harm his faith at all.

If we can count Wolfhart Pannenberg as, in this case a participant in the conservative theological tradition, we find a very different understanding of the resurrection. Instead of being primarily about the disciples, the resurrection, for Pannenberg, is something that happened to Jesus. Jesus, the same Jesus who was crucified, was raised to life by the Father.

Does the United Methodist Church find strength in holding on to both of these substantive convictions – that Jesus was not really raised from the dead and that he was truly raised from the dead? Which conviction is held by the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection pastored by Hamilton? I’m strongly inclined to think that Hamilton’s convictions in this regard are closer to Pannenberg’s than Bultmann’s.

The mistake of defining theological liberalism and conservatism in merely formal terms is by no means peculiar to Hamilton. George Lindbeck’s “post-liberal” theology sought to move beyond both the cognitivist-propositional approach (common to conservatives) and the experiential-expressivist approach (common to liberals) to a cultural-linguistic understanding of doctrine. Lindbeck, like Hamilton, took himself to be moving beyond liberalism insofar as he moved beyond experiential-expressivism. Even if the liberal tradition can be rightly characterized as experiential expressivist in form – and I think Lindbeck is largely right here – over its lifetime the tradition developed various substantive positions in its theology. While Lindbeck and others may argue for a shift away from the experiential expressivist form of the tradition, the tradition can easily continue to hold on to particular sets of convictions even under a cultural linguistic form.

So where does this leave us? A recognition that we need to be “liberal” – open-minded, flexible, ready to learn – and “conservative” – holding on to the treasures of our heritage – is essential. But it doesn’t get us very far, since probably very few of those who dispute across the liberal-conservative divide understand themselves, except in the most self-congratulatory moments, to be disputing about merely formal positions. They are disputing substantive claims. Is Jesus really God incarnate – or is the incarnation just a myth? Did Jesus come to give us the information and example we need to live a life we are fully capable of living – or are we helpless sinners, desperately needy for Jesus to bear our sin and win our forgiveness on the cross? Did Jesus really rise from the dead – or do we “learn” from modern science that dead men uniformly stay dead?

Being open-minded, flexible, and ever ready to learn is clearly compatible with holding firmly to our Christian essentials. But some of the particular substantive claims of the various theological traditions (which differ beyond merely being liberal or conservative) are not compatible with each other. And insofar as some of these convictions shape our ministry and give it direction – we say that our mission is to “make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world” – the option of saying that we need the contrary point of view is incoherent, while the other option of saying we should just agree that we disagree is a recipe for inaction. I’d argue instead that we need to continue contending with each other, refusing to surrender our convictions until convinced otherwise.

Posted in Texas Annual Conference, Theology, United Methodism | 2 Comments

Temporary Beauty

Posted on May 18, 2011 by Richard Heyduck

In the mid-1950s First Methodist and First Baptist Churches in my town both had 50 year old buildings that were showing their age. Ministry styles had changed over that time and the buildings that suited the congregations at the turn of the century did not fit so well any more. The churches faced a question: Do we keep our old building and renovate, or do we build a new one?

First Baptist Church tore down their old building while my congregation, First Methodist, renovated theirs (and added an education building). Now, after another 50 years, we’re 8 years out of the most renovation of what is now a historic building. It is a beautiful sanctuary, still showing many of its original features: the display pipes on the organ and the stained (and painted) glass windows are most prominent. At fifty years, you might decide to change buildings. At 100+, the building is permanent.

I sometimes wish we had settled for temporary rather than permanent beauty. Many will say that I lack an appreciation of architecture. That’s probably true. I do appreciate our building. It’s nice to not have to set it up for every service and take it down after every service. But the permanence of the building, beautiful as it is, forecloses some possibilities for creativity on the part of the current generation.

What would happen if instead of being so heavily invested in permanent beauty, we were able to rely on temporary beauty? Maintaining this historic building will always take significant resources.

Even more, the beauty, permanence, and huge investment in our building anchors us in an attractional ministry style. Many of our people have developed a heart for ministry. With our building, however, it just seems natural to expect outsiders to come here. We put on special events, we advertize, we invite. Yet few come. Oh, sure, folks from other churches will come to some of our events outside of “normal” church hours. But non-church people? We see very few. I see adoption of a more missional approach to ministry, an approach that takes ministry away from our property as essential for our future. But we’re so heavily invested here, that it’s hard to think that way let alone act that way.

If we could make a shift to temporary beauty, holding our building more lightly and loosely, we might be able to stimulate more creative thinking and acting in ministry. That’s what I’m praying for.

Posted in Local church, Ministry | 1 Comment

Grades in Church?

Posted on May 17, 2011 by Richard Heyduck

Back in the olden days, I did fairly well at school (in spite of avoiding my homework as often as possible). I valued making good grades. I set high standards for myself and tried to keep them, though high school and beyond. In addition to grades on individual assignments, I received a report card at the end of every term. My understanding of grades is that teachers used them to tell me how well I was learning in any particular subject.

Church is like school in that it is a learning environment, but unlike school in that there are no grades. Most of us are happy that there are no tests, papers and grades at church. We read the Bible and see that Christianity is about grace, not grades, so we know it is an enterprise for all of us, not just those who are great at school stuff.

But does the learning we do in church matter?

Math was one of my favorite subjects in school. I did well in math. Beyond a general sense of numeracy today, I don’t use much more of my math learning than the basic operations (except when helping children study their Algebra & Geometry). If I were an engineer, my learning of math would have mattered in a way it doesn’t in my current context. As one who drives cars over bridges and occasionally flies in an airplane, I’m happy that the engineers who create these objects and systems did well at math. I’m glad that there was some sort of accountability process in place to assess their learning and give them feedback. I’m glad they have enough skill and confidence in their skill to make these things happen.

While having no tests or grades in church we may have lots of grace, but we lose out on the blessings of accountability and feedback on how we’re doing. I’m convinced that what we do here matters, not just for ourselves, but for others. Pretending for a moment that accountability for ordinary Christians might be a good thing, here are a few questions to consider:

  • Have you learned enough about prayer to pray in confidence, whether for your needs or the needs of others?
  • Have you developed a facility with the Bible that allows you to interact with it, learn from it, and hear God speak through it?
  • Have you grown secure enough in your own relationship with Christ that you can (a) share Jesus with those around you, and (b) bear graciously those around you who act less mature?

If we could learn to consider questions like these, I think it would make us stronger Christians and a stronger church. I pray that your love for Christ compels you to cooperate with Him as he completes the work he has begun in you.

Posted in Discipleship, Discipline, Spirituality | 4 Comments

The problem of judgment

Posted on May 10, 2011 by Richard Heyduck

In Dependent Rational Animals Alasdair MacIntyre writes:

In the context of particular practices we generally have no one else to rely on but those who are our expert coworkers, to make us aware both of our particular mistakes in this or that practical activity and of the sources of those mistakes in our failures in respect of virtues and skills. Outside of such contexts of practice, we have to rely on our friends, including family members, for similar correction. When we are unable to rely on coworkers and friends, then our confidence in our own judgments may become a source of illusion. And in order to be effective practical reasoners we do need to have justified confidence in our conclusions. That we generally and characteristically continue to be dependent on others in our practical reasoning does not mean that we should not from time to time defend and act upon conclusions that are at variance with the judgments of everybody else, including those on whose concurrence we normally rely most. Independence of mind requires this. But we always require exceptionally good reasons for so doing.” (p.96-7)

Long before MacIntyre wrote, Jesus said, “Do not judge.” Some contemporary church practice as tried to make this the central aspect of Jesus’ teaching. Is there any way we can make common sense of MacIntyre and Jesus?

The centrality of the “do not judge” command surely draws its energy from those who have witnessed the condemnation of sinners within churches. Although the practice of tearing others down is common to all human institutions, our expectation that the church ought to be different has made the judgment we do see rankle all the more. It just doesn’t fit. It’s a definite anomaly.

Yet MacIntyre is also right. Much if not all of our practical learning, whether moral or skill related, comes from others. As learners we make mistakes. We even make mistakes in identifying our mistakes as mistakes. We need the input of others to show us the right way to do the right things and to inform us when we go wrong.

Moral learning is difficult in our age. We want to think we can do it all ourselves. When faced with input from others we retort, “Who do you think you are to tell me how to live my life?” In some cases the answer comes from the self-deception of our adviser. “I know more about life, the good life, and your life than you do, so you ought to listen to me. Sometimes it’s just plain bossiness. But other times the voice of correction is from one who is more mature in the identification of the good than we are or from one who is able to see and understand our context more helpfully than we can. In such a case our pursuit of our own good entails that we listen to others and practice accountability to them.

In order to keep this practice from the reticence to judge enjoined by Jesus, we recognize that we have a mutual accountability. Within the church in particular, we are accountable to each other. As fellow disciples of Jesus we are responsible to help each other along the way. We recognize our independence in our willingness to carry through and make decisions and act for ourselves even while we recognize our dependence on others not only for a clearer view of our context and behavior, but also for achieving a common good.

On this view, our “not judging” is not a refusal to enter relations of mutual accountability, but a refusal to do so with an attitude of lording it over others, refusing to be accountable ourselves, and leaving love out of the picture.

In following this model, we also practice humility, refusing to assume that we know everything about either the good or even our own good. Rather, we learn that our apprehension of the good (for humans, for ourselves, and for the company of the saints) is discerned together. Since we are committed to that good more than we are committed to our own satisfaction, we yearn for correction when we err. Although this practice is foreign to the current American ethos, it seems like a Christian way to do things. What to do you think?

Posted in Alasdair MacIntyre, Ethics, Jesus | 2 Comments

Who is Easter for?

Posted on April 21, 2011 by Richard Heyduck

I’ve had some people tell me Easter is a family holiday. All the relatives come to visit – or go to visit. There are gifts & treats for the kids.

I get that. Family is a great thing. Doing things together – just spending time together – is essential for healthy family life and staying connected across the generations.

But Easter is not about family. Easter is about Jesus.

From one angle, a prophet went up to Jerusalem, preaching the Word of the Lord. The authorities felt threatened so they killed him – as cruelly as they could imagine – by nailing him to a cross.

From another angle, God incarnate took upon himself all the sins of the world, suffering the consequences of those sins, willingly dying on the cross.

Both approaches amount to a dead body laid in a tomb. Not just “severely pained.” Not just “injured.” He was dead. The executioners were experts – they had enough experience to know what they were doing. The meddlesome prophet was dead. The immortal God laid in the tomb.

But then Easter came – the word we use for the Sunday morning Jesus came to life again. Though we illustrate his rising with images from nature – butterflies, flowers, etc., this coming to life again was not a natural process. It had never happened before. Except for a very few exceptions, dead folks, once dead, stayed dead. Even the few who were raised from the dead rose only temporarily.

Jesus, raised from the dead, lives forever. Through his death and resurrection he defeated all the powers of sin, death and hell for us. When we celebrate Easter, we’re celebrating that victory of Jesus.

Family? Family is good, but no substitute for Jesus.

Posted in Culture, Jesus | 1 Comment

Honor and Respect

Posted on April 5, 2011 by Richard Heyduck

One of my ministry principles is to give as much honor and respect as possible to everyone. Some people happen to deserve it. Others, because they are given honor and respect, will come to deserve it.

This honor and respect is rooted in love, not mere tolerance. Mere tolerance might dictate a passive benign neglect. I won’t bother you if you won’t bother me, or, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.”

Love says, this person (whichever person happens to be at hand), is made by God and is in God’s image. God made this person to be God’s image in creation. Even, more, this is a person Jesus died to save and empower for a mighty, purposeful life. So even if this person is not now acting as one to whom honor and respect seem natural, consider the prospects!

Some people reject, abuse, or otherwise spurn honor and respect. Or perhaps they take your desire to honor and respect them as a way to manipulate them. Because my honor and respect for people is rooted in love, and my love, feeble as it is, is rooted in God’s love (demonstrated in Christ, empowered by the Spirit), my honor and respect for God comes before and thus relativizes my exercise of honor and respect even while God fills my own deepest needs for honor and respect.

Sometimes my honor and respect for one person requires me to tone down my respect for another. Or, from a different perspective, when someone I honor and respect is being dishonored and disrespected, my honor and respect for the person doing the dishonoring and disrespecting might well not be perceived as honor and respect by that person. I take holding people accountable for their actions to be a form of honor and respect. The alternative, treating them as morally unformed little children, helpless to regulate their own behavior, seems more insulting than respectful.

I can honor and respect others, even the dishonorable and the disrespectful, because I am accountable primarily to God. God loves sinners and enemies. God respects them (us!) enough to hold them (us!) accountable for their (our) sin.

Posted in Ministry | Leave a comment

Contending Views of Morality and Sociality

Posted on March 28, 2011 by Richard Heyduck

In After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyre claims that moral theories are always tied to accounts of sociality.

“Every moral philosophy offers explicitly or implicitly at least a partial conceptual analysis of the relationship of an agent to his or her reasons, motives, intentions and actions, and in so doing generally presupposes some claim that these concepts are embodied or at least can be in the real world… [I]t would generally be a decisive refutation of a moral philosophy to show that moral agency on its own account of the matter could never be socially embodied; and it also follows that we have not yet fully understood the claims of any moral philosophy until we have spelled out what its social embodiment would be.” (p. 23)

MacIntyre gives Plato, Aristotle, Hume and Adam Smith as examples of philosophers who have explicitly taken on this task. He then adds, “At least since Moore the dominant narrow conception of moral philosophy has ensured that the moral philosophers could ignore this task.” He sees this avoidance of sociality as a key component of emotivism.

From what I see, the notion that morality has no necessary connection to social embodiment, is a sign of the progress of individualism in moral philosophy. In fact, where MacIntyre sees the failure to tie sociology and moral philosophy as a sure defeater of that moral philosophy, his opponents are likely to argue exactly the opposite. From the perspective of radical individualism, they are not primarily interested in any particular kind of morality, but in Morality, that which is universal. If an account of morality does not work for everyone, regardless of who they are, where they are, when they are, that is, regardless of their social context, then to the extent it proves to be tied to a particular kind of social embodiment it is thereby proven to be an inadequate account of morality.

Posted in Alasdair MacIntyre, Ethics | 2 Comments

JLo’s worship advice

Posted on March 28, 2011 by Richard Heyduck

The other night I happened to be reading in the living room while someone was watching American Idol. As some of you may know, after a person sings, the three judges comment on the effort. After one person sang (I wasn’t paying close enough attention to tell you who), JLo said something like, “You need to pay attention to the words you’re singing, get into them, and express them.”

I wonder what our churches would look like if we started doing that in our worship?

Posted in Worship | Leave a comment