Bandits No More

It’s hard to tell where celebrity Christians are coming from. Sometimes they seem to be all talk, no action. Sometimes all action, no (clearly Christian) talk. Biblically, one would expect both. In World Magazine (thanks to Locusts & Honey for the pointer!) we see that Bono of U2 fame seems to be a good role model.

Sometimes we’re so deep in the forest, with so many individual trees up close and personal, that we can’t discern the shape or condition of the whole. That’s where statistics come in. New York Times columnist David Brooks points out a plethora of statistics that show distinct improvement in many areas in the past ten years. Family violence, death by drunk driving, teenage pregnancy, and children in poverty – even the divorce rate – all are down. What’s going on? Brooks mentions four factors:

The first thing that has happened is that people have stopped believing in stupid ideas: that the traditional family is obsolete, that drugs are liberating, that it is every adolescent’s social duty to be a rebel.
The second thing that has happened is that many Americans have become better parents. Time diary studies reveal that parents now spend more time actively engaged with kids, even though both parents are more likely to work outside the home.
Third, many people in the younger generation, under age 30 or so, are reacting against the culture of divorce. They are trying to lead lives that are more stable than the ones their parents led. Post-boomers behave better than the baby boomers did.
Fourth, over the past few decades, neighborhood and charitable groups have emerged to help people lead more organized lives, even in the absence of cohesive families.

As Christians we can give thanks for these trends, pray that they continue, and apply ourselves to advancing them in our neck of the woods.

UPDATE: The National Marriage Project at Rutgers University publishes an annual report on the state of families. In the preface to this year’s report, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead writes:

The divorce rate, one indicator of marital stability, continued to drop last year, continuing a downward trend that began around 1980 when the rate was 22.6 per 1000 married women. It fell to 17.7 in 2004 from 18.1 in the prior year. However, the marriage rate, the number of marriages per 1000 unmarried women, has also been dropping—by nearly 50 percent since 1970 when the rate was 76.5. It fell to 39.9 in 2004 from 40.8 the prior year. The number of unwed cohabitating couples continues to rise. Both the percentage of births to unwed mothers and the percentage of children living with a single parent increased slightly, reaching record highs. Overall, except for the drop in divorce, the latest indicators point to little improvement in marital health and wellbeing.

There are some small indications that attitudes among high school seniors are changing in a pro-marriage direction. The percentage of seniors who agreed or mostly agreed with the statement “it is usually a good idea for a couple to live together before getting married in order to find out whether they really get along” has shown a surprising decrease since the late 1990s. The empirical reality that cohabitation is not good for marriage may be becoming more widely known. And of those seniors who expected to marry or were married, the percentage who said that it is likely they will stay married to the same person for life has been increasing, especially among boys. On the other hand, more than 50 percent of both boys and girls now say that “having a child without being married is experimenting with a worthwhile lifestyle and not affecting anyone else,” the percentage having increased sharply over the years, especially among girls.

From what I see it is too early to speak of a “moral revival” in America. A “moral change,” perhaps, where some of the change is for the better, some for the worse, might better describe what we see.

As part of the Central Texas Conference’s Young Adult Ministries Task Force, I was charged to write the chapter for our workbook on “reclaiming theology.” It is our contention that young adults do not want a church that pretends not to have any theological stance. Following is the opening of this chapter:

“You know what frustrated me the most when I started visiting churches?” Susan asked. Susan was a lifelong unchurched person in the Cleveland area. A crisis in her life brought her to a search for God. “What really frustrated me was that I had a deep desire to understand the Bible, to hear in-depth preaching and teaching, but most of the preaching was so watered-down that it was insulting to my intelligence.” In fact, 91% of formerly unchurched people who have found their way into churches and become active say that the doctrine of the church was important to them.(Thom Rainer, Suprising Insights from the Unchurched and Proven Ways to Reach Them, Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, p. 45.)

People who don’t go to church want the church to care about theology and doctrine. Young adults are no different than any others in this regard. In fact, some say that the popularity of the “X-files” television series was the spiritual nature of the show. “The truth is out there,” the show proclaimed with every opening. Even those who watch television want to find the truth.

As United Methodists, we not only have access to truth and the Truth, but we have a heritage of living at the intersection of that Truth and the world around us. If we want to reach young adults who are currently not connected with any church, one of the things we must do is reclaim our theological heritage.

We contend that The United Methodist Church is well situated to do this! Our theological heritage is a rich, wonderful one full of people being touched by God and reaching others for God.

This chapter is to help your church claim or reclaim its theological heritage and not to be ashamed of it. For years the joke between folks of different denominations was “If you are a Methodist you can believe anything you want.” Young adults are not looking for a church that says all beliefs are equally valid any more than they are looking for a church all of whose depth could fit on a top ten list. Young adults want to find a church with faith and with a substance to their faith.

Today I attended a workshop on evangelism and church growth sponsored by the Texas Annual Conference Division of Evangelism and committee on small churches. Dr. George Hunter, professor of Evangelism and Church Growth was the speaker. He’s written piles of books, several of which I’ve read, and thought it beneficial to go and take some of my leaders with me.

In the midst of teaching mostly on evangelism, a question arose that allowed him to share some thoughts on spiritual formation. He warned that his opinions would likely be seen as heretical – I can see why, but still think they’re worth sharing.

1. The “daily bible reading” model of spiritual formation is vastly over rated. Not only has it not produced the fruit we’re looking for, but it presupposes Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press, high literacy rates, and the wealth and leisure necessary to owning and reading books – a modern and still localized possibility.

2. Memorization is more historic and works better to interiorize the Word and to incorporate it into all aspects of our lives.

3. Obedience precedes and leads to growth in faith. The “daily bible reading” model tends to value knowledge over obedience, and can even be a subsitute for obedience.

Sandra “Beth” Geisel is merely the latest in a growing line. Another woman, Dawn Reiser, was convicted today in Fort Worth of similar indiscretions. Female teachers caught, accused, and convicted of sexual misbehavior with their male students.

It has been happening for years with male teachers; not a lot of them, but enough that it was newsworthy when an incident would come to light.

It seems to me that most of the stories making the news lately are of indiscretions by female teachers. I am quite sure this is not because men have quite misbehaving. I am alarmed that women seem, in this remarkable sense, to be becoming more like men.

It has been said that the maintenance of a society’s morality is dependent upon the women of that society. I offer this as no excuse whatsoever for the behavior of men.

Please, women, don’t become us. Society cannot handle it in this case.

In traditional churches it is common to think that everyone should be in on the decision making. The church is a democracy, and all people should be heard. If it’s not practical for all to be heard, then at least every viewpoint needs to be heard. From what I’ve seen this way of thinking will kill the church. Since “vision leaks” (was it Andy Stanley or Erwin McManus that said that?) and evangelistic fervor is entropic (we lose our energy to win people to Jesus), churches commonly redirect their energy and resources to take care of themselves.

In newer “leadership oriented” churches, the argument is made that not all voices should be heard. Instead, the leaders function as the stewards of the church’s mission. Their job is to know current reality, be completely sold out to fulfilling God’s mission, and to make the wise decisions to make the mission a reality. The idealist in me sees this as a great way to do things. The cynic in me sees it as another form of our culture’s tendency to expertocracy.

How about a third option? What would happen if all the people consistently developed their relationship with God and each other? What if they cultivated their ability to hear God through careful listening (in the Bible & prayer) and ready obedience? Then when a decision needs to be made – assuming it’s a big decision that knowing the mission of the church alone isn’t the deciding factor – the church gets together, not to vote, not to hear an edict (we usually call it a “presentation” these days), but to wait on God. In my experience, sometimes God will speak quickly, sometimes not. Sometimes God will speak through an established and recognized leader – but often not.

The advantage of this third option – over the Democracy and Leadership models – is that it won’t work without God – or without our steady cultivation of our life with God. Nothing automatic anymore. No guarantees going in that we’ll get what we want.

Might be worth trying.

I preached on overcoming regret today. We have a tendency to ask “What if?” looking back in our lives. This too often results only in regret or despair. Looking at the characters of King Saul, Judas Iscariot, Peter and Jesus, I suggest some ways to handle “What if” situations. I also suggest that God’s call to us is a kind of future “what if” – and that we can respond in faith. You can listen if you like.

I took the kids to see Sky High, the new Disney movie this afternoon. It was light, fun, family entertainment. Though the plot was fairly predictable, the characters seemed to enjoy themselves. As usual, the villians took themselves too seriously, but even their villiany seemed pretty cartoonish.

A conversation today got me thinking again (I’ve been told that is dangerous business). We were discussing fleshing out Matthew 6:33: 33 “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”

What exactly are we to seek? what is it that will be added? Those were supposed to be the questions. The question I came to, though, was: “Who do we as good democrats even begin to understand Kingdom?”

I’d like to invite you to consider how we who live in a country that generally understands that democracy and the exportation thereof is the major factor in freedom are to understand Kingdom. Because I seriously doubt that a modern translation of “seek ye first the democratic republic of God….” would be faithful to the original intent or language.

Winds of Change has an informative post on Avian Flu – a major threat to the whole world, and one sitting right on our door step. Are we prepared? Do we have sufficient medications available? Do we have the infrstructure to create and distribute medicine when the need arises? Sure looks like we aren’t prepared.

Do our elected leaders know this? They will if you call them.