DEFINING SPIRITUAL MATURITY

Green Ears of Wheat
Van Gogh, 1888

Some of you may have heard about the latest poll from The Barna Group on spirituality, which produced this headline, " Here is the introductory paragraph to their findings:

America may possess the world’s largest infrastructure for nurturing human spirituality, complete with hundreds of thousands of houses of worship, thousands of parachurch organizations and schools, and seemingly unlimited products, resources and experts.

Yet, a new study from the Barna Group identifies an underlying reason why there is little progress in helping people develop spiritually: many churchgoers and clergy struggle to articulate a basic understanding of spiritual maturity. People aspire to be spiritually mature, but they do not know what it means. Pastors want to guide others on the path to spiritual wholeness, but they are often not clearly defining the goals or the outcomes of that process.

They found "five challenges" with regard to the subject of spiritual maturity:

1. Most Christians equate spiritual maturity with following the rules.
2. Most churchgoers are not clear what their church expects in terms of spiritual maturity.
3. Most Christians offer one-dimensional views of personal spiritual maturity.
4. Most pastors struggle with feeling the relevance as well as articulating a specific set of objectives for spirituality, often favoring activities over attitudes.
5. Pastors are surprisingly vague about the biblical references they use to chart spiritual maturity for people.

The director of the research project pointed out the implications of their findings:

America has a spiritual depth problem partly because the faith community does not have a robust definition of its spiritual goals. The study shows the need for new types of spiritual metrics. One new metric might be a renewed effort on the part of leaders to articulate the outcomes of spiritual growth. Another might be the relational engagement and accountability that people maintain. Of course, spirituality is neither a science nor a business, so there is a natural resistance to ascribing scientific or operational standards to what most people believe is an organic process. Yet, the process of spiritual growth is neither simplistic nor without guidelines, so hard work and solid thinking in this arena is needed.

What are we to make of these findings?

WHY I AM NOT A CULTURE WARRIOR...

I've said it before and I'll say it again: When it comes to the culture wars, I am a conscientious objector.

Since the 1970's evangelicalism in America has taken to getting involved in public cultural activism and the political sphere with unprecedented vigor. Evangelicals have followed the voices of religious leaders like Francis Schaeffer, Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, and James Dobson to raise their voices in the public debate about such issues as abortion, the erosion of personal morality especially as portrayed in the entertainment media, and the gay rights movement. In the process, evangelical Christianity became so connected to the conservative wing of the Republican party that at times the two seemed indistinguishable. This involvement had its high water mark in the presidency of George W. Bush and the Republican domination of Congress.

As a result of this evangelical embrace of a culture war approach to their mission in the world, churches, pastors, and individual Christians have been swept up into having to choose sides on many complex issues and to adopt a "Christ against culture" mentality. This has coincided with the development of an entire Christian subculture, which in my view has isolated believers from their neighbors and genuine redemptive interaction with the world.

Thus, evangelicals find themselves in the equivalent of spiritual trench warfare. We are dug in to our positions, separated from our "enemies," seeing things only from one perspective, and having no real contact with those on the other side except to bombard them relentlessly. Doesn't sound like a Great Commission lifestyle to me!

As Michael Spencer observes on his Internet Monk blog:

Every day I listen to and read Christians whose consideration of other persons is on the basis of politics and cultural conflict. Not the Gospel. Their anger and frustration dominates, not the Gospel.

Frankly, I don't want any part of that approach. And so I've decided to conscientiously object to that path of life and "ministry."

Here are some of the reasons I've gone AWOL...

(1) The culture war approach assumes the position that America is somehow different than other nations in our manifest destiny, a "Christian" land that must be "saved" and "brought back" to its Christian "roots."

In the minds of those who assume this, there is an idea of some kind of vague Eden that once existed in our nation when people all went to church, lived moral lives, and the government supported the teachings of Christ. 'Twas never so.

(2) The culture war approach holds that the media is the arena in which we should fight our battles, that it accurately represents the reality of the situation on the ground, and that therefore we must make our voice be heard through the media in order to win peoples' hearts and minds.

The simple fact is that most people listen to broadcasts that confirm their beliefs, not challenge them. You won't find the conservatives lining up to see the latest Michael Moore or Bill Maher film. Nor will you pass many liberals listening to Rush in their cars or catch them watching Fox News at night. Culture warriors generally preach to the choir.

But that's not the only problem. By moving to a media-driven strategy, Christians have become conditioned to seek the spectacular and forsake the down-to-earth path our Savior teaches us to take--the small, seemingly insignificant, seed-planting approaches of loving our neighbors in the context of real daily life. That is the mystery of how the Kingdom comes and how the world is changed.

(3) The culture war approach relies on political machinery as a primary weapon to restore righteousness to the land.

This means we have allowed the world to choose the arena, the weapons, the rules, the referees, and the definitions of what it means to "win" or "lose" in the conflict. In addition, it makes Christians vulnerable to the temptations of power, which are among the least understood among us.

(4) The culture war approach teaches us to fear, dislike, oppose, and look down on our neighbors rather than lay down our lives for them in sacrificial love.

It pits us "against" them, when the Incarnation teaches us to be "with" them.

(5) The culture war approach leads to Christians unwisely choosing our battles and showing a misleading face to the world.

Must a person have "correct" political or cultural opinions before he can come to faith in Christ? The simple Good News of Jesus and his gracious salvation can become so mixed with righteous "positions" that the Gospel itself gets distorted.


IMHO, the culture war approach has a lot more in common with the way the Pharisees lived out the religious life and ministry than it does with our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles.

Reflections from the Bible Belt

While volunteering at my son's public high school for a band competition today, I noticed various motivational signs and banners posted around the building.

CHARACTER:
It's who you are when no one's looking.

CHARACTER:
Each person must live his life as a model for others

There were signs for "respect," "honor," "knowledge" (you'd expect that one), "responsibility," "leadership," and other moral virtues and practices. Near the main lobby, a prominent display case held pictures of those who had won the "Set a Good Example" award. This award, sponsored by a local family in memory of their son, honors young people who show exemplary character, leadership, and who serve as role models for their fellow students.

I know many of the teachers, coaches and administrators in the school, and it is clear that these signs and honors are not just for decoration. The qualities represented are actively promoted and urged upon students and the entire school community.

Of course, I am thrilled to have had my children attend a public school that seeks to foster moral character as well as academic and extra-curricular achievement. And this is not surprising to us. We live in a small Midwestern town that is filled with churches and conservative folks, surrounded by an entire region of such communities. A "Bible-belt," you might say.

Which got me thinking. If you mixed in a few "Jesus" words and a couple of hymns or praise songs, what I've seen at our son's public high school would represent something not dissimilar to many churches I've experienced around here. You have a community of caring people, an emphasis on learning, discipline, moral education, all served up via a full program of activities for having fun, building community, and encouraging growth.

What does that sound like to you?

My question is, "How should Christ-followers think about this situation?"

• Does it show that the Christian message has infiltrated local culture to such an extent that our secular institutions reflect the light of the Gospel, at least in moral terms?

• Or does it show that churches (at least in "Bible-belt" regions) have become mirrors of American conservative culture, serving as little more than reflections of the God and country, family values, law and order, bourgeois middle class ethos? Have many congregations become "Christian activity centers" that primarily serve to promote morality and the "righteous" status quo?

• Perhaps it is some of both? What is positive about this state of affairs, and what may be negative, even harmful to the growth of genuinely Biblical Christianity?

Furthermore, when Christ and culture seem to complement rather than radically oppose one another in a given setting, in what ways is the church called to be counter-cultural, and in what ways may it cooperate with the institutions in that community to fulfill the Missio Dei?

Who comes to church?

Will Willimon reminds us that there is only one group of people that attends church services. You can read his observations HERE.

RECOMMENDED READING: Mark Galli on Worship

Mark Galli is an evangelical in good standing, the senior managing editor of Christianity Today, evangelicalism's leading magazine. He is also a member of the Anglican tradition. This combination equips him to speak with true credibility on the subject of worship to other evangelicals. Galli has done so by writing an articulate and winsome book, called Beyond Smells & Bells: The Wonder and Power of Christian Liturgy.

I may write more about Galli's fine overview of liturgical worship in future posts, but today I will let him speak for himself in a passage about "relevance" that is one of the most powerful in the book.

The liturgy asks us to rethink what we mean by "relevant" worship.

For example, it is not an accident that when we think about making church more relevant, we usually have only one group in mind. In North America, that usually means twenty-somethings and young families. For one, twenty-somethings are some of the hardest people to attract to church, and two, only when they start raising families do they begin to return to church. It's a perfect target audience for a struggling or new church to strive to reach.

...self-identified relevant churches, by their nature, limit a full-bodied expression of the church. In our worse moments, this approach appeals to immature motives. For example, I am currently in what many people consider a relevant and even "cool" church, and I have to admit I am proud of it. It's an interesting contrast to note how few churches that want to "reincarnate the gospel within a specific cultural context" want to do so among the poor, the homeless, welfare moms, drug-addicted men, or those trapped in nursing homes and convalescent hospitals.

This is one reason I thank God for the liturgy. The liturgy does not target any age or cultural sub-group. It does not even target this century (it does not assume, as we moderns are tempted to do, that this is the best of all possible ages, the most significant era of history). Instead, the liturgy presents a form of worship that transcends our time and place. Its earliest forms took shape in ancient Israel, and its subsequent development occurred in a variety of cultures and sub-cultures—Greco-Roman, North African, German, Frankish, Anglo-Saxon. The liturgy has been meaningfully prayed by bakers, housewives, tailors, teachers, philosophers, priests, monks, kings, and slaves. As such, it has not been shaped to meet any particular group's needs. It seeks only to enable people—people in general—to see God.

This is top-notch thinking, communicated with clarity. Would that other evangelicals (indeed, all of God's people) might learn to think about meeting with God with such Biblical, theological, and cultural insight.

Highly recommended.

What Passes for the Gospel Nowadays...

It's Holy Week, and the local churches are advertising their special services and inviting the community to attend. Today, I received an offer in the mail to visit a new nondenominational church in town ("A free gift for first time guests!). The postcard they sent was slick and attractive, if a bit impersonal. However, what truly saddened me was its message.

Here is the "Good News" they're preaching this Easter...

FIND THE POWER TO RISE AGAIN AT CHRIST'S CHURCH

Jesus didn't let a nearly two-ton stone keep him down; that Resurrection Sunday he moved the stone and rose from the grave. Are you carrying a weight that feels like two tons: pain, hardship, unmet expectations, or guilt? If you feel exhausted or trapped, join us at Christ's Church and learn how to experience the power of the resurrection in your life. Your burdens can be lifted—a relationship with God can roll them away just like the stone rolled away from Jesus' tomb at the resurrection.

The front side of the card portrays a stone with the words, "Doubt, worry, fear, anger, pain—He still moves stones."

THIS is the message of Easter?

Help! Someone has taken the "evangel" out of "evangelical"!

Thought-provoking Stuff on Religious "Stuff"

iMonk takes evangelicals to task for their criticisms of Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians in the area of devotion to religious objects. Here's a sample from his riff...

Humans are religious. In their religious practices, they endow objects, associations, places, persons and certain sense experiences with meaning. They use these objects, etc. to focus upon God’s presence in the world. All that Catholics/Orthodox do is come out and tell you they believe God mediates his presence through matter. We believe the exact same thing, and can outdo our brothers and sisters in the gear department most days. (I haven’t seen Catholic amusement parks and their bookstores are not quite as numerous as Family Bookstores, Lifeway, etc.).

He's right. For years iconoclastic fundamentalists and evangelicals have looked down on their more liturgical brethren for their habits of worship, particularly when it comes to venerating sacred objects or surrounding themselves with material reminders of their faith. All the while, we've been doing the same thing and calling these objects "tools for witnessing," or something like that.

I encourage you to take a look at his post. Just click the link in the first paragraph to access it.

What do you think?

Pentecost Remix?

I'm no expert on Rick Warren or the ministry of Saddleback Church. I've read a couple of his books and found them unremarkable. He seems to have the facility that many American megachurch pastors have—he can condense the complex and incomprehensible mysteries of God into concise formulas and communicate them clearly, outlining simple pathways for people to follow. He puts the cookies on the bottom shelf.

Then of course, his organization has all the bells and whistles of a superb megachurch. He is committed to missions and making the world a better place. He has also used his well-built platform to garner nationwide public respect through a more moderate and civil approach to evangelical politics. Rick Warren is the epitome of a successful American entrepreneur Christian leader.

But...if you want to get a taste of the kind of shameless marketing, promotion, and religious salesmanship used by Warren and Saddleback, just read Pastor Rick's latest edition of his News and Views. Stand amazed at the church's latest effort to—yes, you heard it right—stage a second Pentecost. Apparently, if enough people will just take four easy steps and become members of Saddleback, divine history will be repeated!

When you read Pastor Rick's upbeat appeal, can you find...

• An extremely truncated Gospel message?
• An instant catechism (discipleship) process? (In fact, if I read it correctly, on this day only you even get a "discount" on the normal time required for the membership class!)
  
• Horrendous sacramental theology that focuses on rebaptism of those already baptized in other Christian churches?
• A "pastor" who is apparently such a celebrity that only on rare special occasions is it possible for the hoi polloi to meet him? (On this day, you can even have your picture taken with him!)
  
• Free giveaways?

It's history! It's fun! You're the greatest! You can do it all in one Saturday!

Sigh.

The Preschooler and the Pistol

Recently, here in Indianapolis, a four-year-old was taken by emergency personnel to the hospital with a gunshot wound. At first, it was not clear what had happened. The family told police the child had shot himself. The police weren't sure that the preschooler was strong enough to have pulled the trigger of the suspected weapon by himself, and so they wondered if someone else had done it, perhaps a family member.

It turned out the family was correct. The little boy lived in a home with other relatives, at least one of whom had several guns. This uncle left one of his pistols on a bedside table and the child discovered it there. The preschooler picked up, played with it, and shot himself in the hand. Fortunately, his injuries were not life-threatening, though he did nearly sever one of his fingers. All in all, the whole family was lucky, including the little boy's two siblings, neither of whom were hurt.

In evangelicalism, pastors too often play the part of the preschooler with the pistol. The Bible is a powerful, explosive tool. When its power is used with wisdom and love, it brings healing, comfort, direction, and salvation. It forms people and congregations into the image of Christ. When its power is used recklessly and without discernment, the Bible can hurt, divide, and destroy. You can blow your own hand off, or someone else's head.

A friend told me a sad story this week about her small-town church, an independent Bible-believing congregation that prides itself for standing on the Scriptures and not the doctrines of men. They have a young pastor who has been with them a few years now. A while ago, he came to the "Biblical conviction" that they were not running their congregation according to what the Bible teaches about church polity.

At the time, they had a joint board of elders and deacons, which included women deaconesses as well. The board made decisions together as leaders of the church. The pastor did a study and concluded that elders alone should rule the church, that deacons should not be included in the decision-making process, and that in any case, women should not be allowed a vote as leaders on church matters. So, he put the congregation through an extended process to change this, and ultimately got his way through a congregational vote to alter the bylaws.

My friend was one of the vocal minority who spoke against this, and the pastor let her know that her lack of support had been noted. She didn't tell me much about how others felt, or whether this situation threatened to divide the church. However, it was clear that she was troubled and concerned about the health of the church. And then she told me the kicker—while all this was going on, the pastor has been actively pursuing a position in another congregation. He will be leaving soon, right after taking my friend's church through this controversial process and forcing a change in the way they've done things for years.

I was reminded of the preschooler and the pistol. Here is a pastor who believes in the Bible, but does not appreciate its power, nor comprehend its wise use. His reckless application of God's Word has wounded rather than healed God's people. Now he's going to walk away and leave it to someone else to stop the bleeding.

Let me be clear—I am not criticizing the decision this church made. People of faith can differ on church polity and women in leadership and a thousand other matters, and have for centuries. No, my complaint is about a minister who does not understand Biblical priorities, who showed his lack of wisdom in elevating a matter that was of minor significance in the church so that it became a leading issue that now threatens to divide them.

This is another aspect of the authority problem in the evangelical world. We subscribe to Sola Scriptura ("Scripture alone") as our source of authority for faith and practice, but we have far too little appreciation for proper interpretation and wise application of the Bible's teaching. And too many churches and pastors, especially in the nondenominational or independent Christian world have little or no guidance in the process.

• In that autonomous congregation, which eschews "tradition," what theologically sound and historically proven practices were there to provide perspective, structure, and guidance to this pastor and the members of the congregation?

• In that small-town congregation, what pastoral mentor or overseer was available to tell the young minister, "Look, you may think you've discovered something in the Bible, but with regard to scriptural priorities, this is way down the list of things for a minister in your setting and situation to be concerned about."

• In that nondenominational congregation, what experience or counsel from the larger community of faith was available to help them work through an issue that other churches have dealt with already?

"Scripture Alone" does not mean "My Bible and Me Alone." Scripture is meant to be studied, interpreted, and applied within a community of faith that honors and respects history and tradition, the larger Body of Christ, and the wise counsel of respected spiritual overseers. Instead, we have too many maverick ministers recklessly taking what they find on the bedside table and firing into the crowd each Sunday.

Evangelicalism's Authority Problem

The Indianapolis Star ran an article this weekend about a man who confronted his pastor in the middle of the Sunday service. The man had evidence about a situation in which the minister was being accused of sexual harassment by a woman he had been counseling. While this was certainly a dramatic instance of how congregations handle ministerial problems, what caught my attention was the Star's observation about (lack of) accountability in autonomous congregations.

...at Hope Baptist and the growing legion of independent congregations with no denominational affiliation, there is no bishop ready to step in, no hierarchy waiting to conduct an investigation or hear an appeal, and no outside accountability.

In traditional denominations, disputes that are not settled within the congregation are funneled through a structured judicial process with long-established rules, said Carol Johnston, an associate professor of theology and culture at Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis. Don Gifford, superintendent of the Indiana District of the Assemblies of God, said he sees the additional layers of a denomination or a fellowship as additional accountability for everyone.

"All of us need to be under authority," he said.

But in recent decades, the traditional denominations have been in decline. As they have shrunk, many people have migrated to independent churches, which often are freer to move into growing population centers and have been quicker to embrace new worship and preaching styles attractive to younger generations.

The risk with being independent comes when the church is organized around the personality of a charismatic pastor who has much greater autonomy than his denominational brothers.

This is an important authority problem Protestants face, particularly with regard to independent, autonomous evangelical churches that have no authority-bearing traditions or practices, and no episcopal levels of oversight.

In the Star article, some of those interviewed said that there need not be a lack of accountability in such churches because boards of directors or deacons may function to provide it. However, the level of historical, theological, and pastoral understanding required to provide true oversight for a pastor or pastoral staff is usually minimal at best when it comes to the lay people appointed to such boards. In my experience, most board members are not even able to provide a knowledgeable annual evaluation of how the pastor is doing with his routine work, even when the local congregation and board have defined it! Imagine how unlikely it is that they would be able to provide skilled guidance in a time of crisis.

When we pursue a "start your own," "make it up as we go along," entreprenurial approach to ecclesiology and pastoral ministry, there are few safeguards. Every man does that which is right in his own eyes.

Houston, we have an authority problem.

AN EVANGELICAL'S LAMENT AND JOURNEY, The Missional Issue, Part 3

My first clear understanding of the missional nature of the church emerged when I was in seminary and pastoring a small church in suburban Chicago. It came to me in the form of two small books by Dr. Richard C. Halverson, called Between Sundays, and How I Changed My Thinking about the Church.

Dr. Halverson has a simple practical ecclesiology, one which I think is still being missed by the church in America...

• The church exists in two basic forms: (1) the church gathered, and (2) the church scattered.


• The first we might call the Sunday church; the second, the church "between Sundays".


• When the congregation gathers, it does so to do "church work"—the work that takes place among God's people, and which also includes maintaining and supporting the institution. When the church scatters, it does so to do "the work of the church"—fulfilling God's mission in Christ in the world.


• One primary purpose of the church's gathering is to equip the church to fulfill its mission when scattered throughout the week in various places where the routines of everyday life occur.
  

Today, a few pertinent quotes from Dr. Halverson to flesh this out a bit...

The Christian life is elliptical; it revolves around two foci--one an invitation and the other a commission. The invitation is that of Jesus Christ, "Come unto me...." The commision, also from Jesus Christ, is "Go ye into all the world...." The healthy Christian life revolves around the coming and the going. (How I Changed..., p.21)

He further observes that this "coming and going" lifestyle must be balanced. There are those who are always "coming"—who build church-centered lives and devote most of their time and attention to being involved with the Christian community. Others, perhaps disillusioned with the institution, are always "going"—devoting their lives to doing good in their community but neglecting the edifying fellowship of other believers.

However, these complementary spheres of Christian living are meant to balance and support one another...

If one were to begin from scratch to build a theology of evangelism and mission on the basis of what he found in the New Testament epistles, he would probably be impressed with the paucity of material upon which to build....

...the weight of the exhortation and instruction in the epistles has to do with the relationship of believer with believer in the community, in the body of Christ. The implication can be clearly drawn that when these relationships are right, i.e., when the brothers and sisters love one another and when they are abiding in Christ, evangelism and mission will be the normal and healthy result of such relationships....

...Here one does not find the churches organizing to reach the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But what one does find is the Gospel being scattered widely and rapidly because the church is in such a healthy condition that this can happen. (How I Changed..., pp. 63-65)

The true work of the church happens when this kind of congregation scatters and each member engages the world of his neighbors daily in the context of real life situations...

It became apparent that the work of the church is not what is done for the institution, the organization, the establishment. The real work of the church is what is done between Sundays when the church is scattered all over the metropolitan area where it is located—in homes, in schools, in offices, on construction jobs, in market places. This is the work of the church and it requires every single member. The responsibility of the pastor is to equip every member to do the work of the church wherever he is between Sundays. This radically alters the pastor's way of thinking about his responsibility to the congregation. No longer do they represent men and women who are to be mobilized to do the work of his ministry; but on the contrary, they have a ministry wherever they are and God has called the pastor to equip them for their ministry....

One of the reasons the institutional church has become irrelevant to the extent that it has in our contemporary life is that many Christians have become so busy in church work they have not had time to do the work of the church....

The view persists that the serious Christian, the one truly committed, will be active in the life of the religious institution. If he loves Christ he ought to be doing "something for the church." The program of the establishment is equated with service for Christ. As one does this he is "spiritual." In everything else, except as he may sporadically talk to someone in an effort to win him to Christ or get him into the church, he is "secular." The truth is, everything we do in the church organization, in the church building, in the church program ought to contribute to the church's effectiveness when it is not involved in the building or the program or the organization—when it is out in the world.

...In other words, the measure of the effectiveness of a congregation is not what one sees when the congregation is gathered, not the size of the building, nor the size of the budget, nor the size of the congregation or the Sunday school. The real measure of the effectiveness of the congregation is what happens when the congregation is not in the sanctuary or the Sunday school or meeting officially as boards or committees or councils. The measure of the effectiveness of any local congregation when it is gathered, is the measure of what that congregation is doing when it is dispersed. (How I Changed..., pp. 71-77)

Halverson summarizes the missional focus of the church in this succinct, earthshaking statement:

Think of it this way. The program of our church is everything all the members are doing between Sundays. (How I Changed..., p.106)

Why is this so earthshaking? Because it challenges the fundamental understandings and deeply ingrained practices of a vast majority of churches. In fact, I know of NO churches in my own experience that genuinely believe and act like this.

• Isn't the church's program what we announce in our bulletins, calendars, newsletters, and websites?
• Doesn't the program of the church consist of what we organize and oversee in order to fulfill God's mission in the world?

For the most part, NO.

The programmatic approach that most churches take says much more about our cultural commitments than it does about living out our Biblical calling to be Christ's people in the world.

Another view...

Take a look at a blog called "Parchment and Pen," where you'll find a good piece of observational writing from C. Michael Patton, who made an ecclesiastical field trip to visit a couple of (quite) different churches.

The author is kind and generous, but also honest in his observations and evaluation. I think I would have been tempted to come across much more critically.

Read it, and let me know what YOU think.


...Wait, they had an elf who greeted the kids at the door?

Would you take this man into your home?

A pastor in Chicester, NH thinks that it is his Christian duty to try and help this man, even though the man is a convicted criminal who has committed horrendous crimes in the past.

You can read about the furor this missional act is stirring up up HERE.

I take it as a given that this kind of hospitality is not possible or even desirable for everyone. However, radical examples sometimes get our attention and cause us to think.

• Is this pastor just being naive and idealistic?
• What responsibilities does he have toward his other neighbors in a situation like this?
• What part should his church (which, according to the article, is in another town) and the local churches in this town play?

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

This is NOT missional Christianity...

Always a Neighbor

I hadn't planned on sharing this, but it fits with some things I want to say about missional Christianity...

Always a Neighbor
Yesterday, I went to the clinic for an upper respiratory infection. I couldn’t see my regular doctor, who was booked up, so they set me up with another. I have met this other doc before—he is a kind, gentle man with a positive spirit, enhanced by a comforting lilting Irish accent.

He checked me over and made his diagnosis, giving me a prescription and counsel to rest and so on. As we were talking, he discovered that I worked for hospice. Turns out his wife is a hospice patient; end-stage ovarian cancer. Also turns out that I have met his wife, a lovely lady who has spent her life visiting the sick and caring for the unfortunate; one of those rare people that just breathes encouragement, comfort, and affirmation into every situation she enters.

It was obvious that the doctor needed to talk. So, we extended my stay in the examination room quite a bit past the usual perfunctory exam and wrap-up. After he told how his wife was doing, I asked about him. “Well,” he said, “she’s handling it a lot better than I am. She seems to have accepted things, and I’ve told her that’s all well and good, but it doesn’t mean I’m not going to be pissed off.” That was a surprisingly revealing, personal comment for a doctor to make to a patient, and I was honored that he felt comfortable enough to share it with me.

After talking for a while more, we parted and I asked him to give his dear wife my greeting, and I wished him blessings from God. He indicated that it had been good to talk. Little had I expected that a trip to the doctor for my needs would turn into an opportunity to minister to the doctor for his needs.

It reminded me that what I do is not just a job. All around me people are going through situations no one imagines or understands. God may lead me, at any time, to be available to help someone. In that sense, I am never off the clock. It is always time to listen to and love your neighbor.

AN EVANGELICAL'S LAMENT AND JOURNEY: The Missional Issue, part 2

ROSES AND LILIES CHRISTIANITY
Tonight, we began a series of Lenten services at our church. We are reading and discussing Dietrich Bonhoeffer's classic, Life Together. Written out of his experiences of living in intentional community in an underground seminary in Germany during WWII, Bonhoeffer teaches believers what it means to relate to one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. However, the book opens with an important reminder that is all too often forgotten by believers today...

It is not simply to be taken for granted that the Christian has the privilege of living among other Christians. Jesus Christ lived in the midst of his enemies. At the end all his disciples deserted him. On the Cross he was utterly alone, surrounded by evildoers and mockers. For this cause he had come, to bring peace to the enemies of God. So the Christian, too, belongs not in the seclusion of a cloistered life but in the thick of foes. There is his commission, his work. "The Kingdom is to be in the midst of your enemies. And he who will not suffer this does not want to be of the Kingdom of Christ; he wants to be among friends, to sit among roses and lilies, not with the bad people but the devout people. O you blasphemers and betrayers of Christ! If Christ had done what you are doing who would ever have been spared?" (Luther) (p. 1f)

The problem with much contemporary American evangelicalism is that it has created an alternate "kingdom," one which is OF the world but not IN the world. The freedom and prosperity we enjoy in this country has allowed us to withdraw from meaningful interaction with our neighbors in the context of real life situations so that we might spend time in "Christian" pursuits.

Churches are organized to satisfy this centripetal impulse. Life for many American Christians revolves around the "temple" and its program of activities for all ages and interests. It seems that the purpose of the church is to provide what Luther called a "roses and lilies" experience for people that protects them from the harsh realities of the world and the challenges of learning to relate authentically with those who don't share our faith.

This pattern is "of the world" because it grows directly out of the American suburban ethos. Suburban living is all about comfort, security, and prosperity. The modern evangelical movement has capitalized on these desires by providing superbly outfitted temples that continually cater to the consumerist cravings of their congregations. It provides "safe places" where parents can be assured that they and their children will never have to rub shoulders with pagans, never be disturbed by ideas or concepts that challenge their Sunday School faith, and never have to deal with the uncomfortable realities that live next door.

Nor have I even begun to speak about the Christian publishing industry, the Christian music business, the host of Christian enterprises that provide unlimited "edification" opportunities for believers so that they need never be in a situation where they are not surrounded by an atmosphere of godliness.

A church newsletter from one of our local megachurches contained an article about their sports program, written by the elder responsible for it. When asked why he had signed up to lead this "ministry," he related a story about how one of his children had a bad experience with a soccer coach in a community youth league. Apparently this coach was always yelling at the kids. The elder decided he would head up the church soccer league so that no child in his program would ever have to have suffer such indignity.

So...the answer in this situation, as we find so often in the evangelical approach, is to withdraw from the world and start something of our own that will be "safe" and promote a more godly way. Sure, we say we will invite the community and "win people for Christ," but in reality the root desire is for protection, safety, and non-involvement with a messy world of sinful people. We want "to be among friends, to sit among roses and lilies, not with the bad people, but the devout people."

As we'll see in the next post, this approach denies one whole aspect of the church's identity. The church lives out its life in Christ in two contexts in this world—as the church gathered and as the church scattered. Unfortunately, we seem mostly to have retreated into fortresses of our own making, satisfied that we are fulfilling the Great Commission by lobbing gospel tracts and culture war diatribes over the walls, and occasionally inviting someone on the outside to come in and take a tour of the castle.

We are thus losing the ability to relate to our neighbors on the basis of a shared humanity in the context of real-life situations. This is the missional issue in a nutshell.

WEEKEND IN MECCA...

We traveled to Chicago this weekend to visit colleges for my son, and had the opportunity to make pilgrimage to two icons of evangelicalism, Willow Creek Community Church and Wheaton Bible Church.

WILLOW CREEK
On Saturday evening we went to Willow and heard a practical, challenging message about finances from guest speaker Dave Ramsey. I had not been there for many years, and was thoroughly impressed (duh!) with their latest state-of-the-art facilities, production values and presentation. The service was simple but creative, with ample use of music and multimedia to communicate the message that God will take care of his people in hard times.

[Editorial comment:] Actually, it was kind of hard to imagine "hard times" in that setting, but I know that people from the wealthiest to the poorest are affected by the current economic crisis, so it would be silly for me to be critical.

During the service, I witnessed one of the more gracious acts of worship I've seen. An older man a few rows ahead of us put his hands over his ears and grimaced through the loud, intense parts of the music. Nevertheless, he stayed and participated fully in a service that I'm sure did not agree with his ideal style-preferences. I think it was C.S. Lewis who said that one sign of grace in a person's life is the ability to worship when singing a hymn he does not like. This gentleman was a contemporary parable to me of that thought.

Dave Ramsey's message was enthusiastic, funny, direct, and at times manic. He is an excellent communicator, and his instruction was solidly based on wisdom teaching from Proverbs. I especially appreciated the distinction he made between "sinful" and "foolish" behavior in Biblical ethics. We were helped by his firm no-nonsense exhortations.

Bill Hybels concluded the service with one of his trademark appeals for folks to make a heartfelt decision to go God's way.

WHEATON BIBLE CHURCH
In the morning we joined Gail's sister for Sunday worship. She attends Wheaton Bible Church, which meets at a new, impressive campus also. The building's appearance is more "church-like" but the ambience inside was pretty much the same as Willow Creek—contemporary, slick, pragmatic.

We went to the earliest service, which is more traditional in style. A lot more suits and ties. A significant number of older people made up the majority of the congregation. Music was mostly hymns, accompanied by organ, piano, orchestra and choir, and directed by a song leader. There was a pastoral prayer, communion, a two-person dramatic skit to introduce the message, and an expository sermon on 1Peter 1.1-2. They used multmedia effectively and with relative unobtrusiveness in a way that (IMHO) enhanced the service rather than being distracting.

As at WC, the emphasis of the service was also on the hard times we are facing, and what a godly response to that entails. Sr. Pastor Rob Bugh's sermon was less "practical" and more theologically-oriented, taken right out of the text itself. He explained how Peter greeted the scattered, suffering exiles in ancient Asia Minor by emphasizing, not their troubles, but God's gracious, eternal salvation plan for their lives. He ended with a moving letter from a congregation member who is truly facing hard times—he's dying with ALS—and how God has used him to advance the gospel in his neighborhood and family in spite of his situation. It was a fine example of solid expositional teaching/preaching.


These two huge evangelical churches represent the "best of the best" of what evangelicalism is all about. There is so much to appreciate in what we experienced this weekend. At the heart of it all is a firm commitment to Scripture joined to a fervent passion for mission and reaching people with the Gospel message. These churches stand at the pinnacle of the evangelical revivalist tradition, and they do much good in the world for God's glory.

From my perspective, they also display the weaknesses of evangelicalism in large format. However, this is not the time to talk about that. We are simply thankful for the experience of being with some of God's people this weekend.

AN EVANGELICAL'S LAMENT AND JOURNEY: The Missional Issue, part one

The Good Samaritan
Rembrandt (1650-55)

I will introduce the third and final subject of our journey from evangelicalism to mainline Christianity with a story...

WHO IS MY NEIGHBOR?
Lee was a writer and photographer, the kind of person who drew strength and energy from being alone and working on her arts. She and Frank had been married twenty-four years; it was a second marriage for both of them, each having divorced from unhappy first unions. Neither had brought children to the marriage and, after a few tearful arguments early in their life together, the subject of having children with one another never came up again.

Frank worked hard, long hours, and provided well for them, freeing Lee to pursue her artistic interests. Then, unexpectedly, a few years before retirement, he was diagnosed with cancer and almost before you knew it, Frank was bed bound and his free-spirited wife lost her liberty. She attended to his needs night and day, feeding him, helping him to the toilet, passing his medicines, and getting him up in the recliner where he watched TV, increasingly distant and dependent. At first she got out for an hour or two here and there, but Lee could see that those opportunities were diminishing; she became more and more afraid to leave Frank alone for fear he would awaken confused and fall out of bed.

And so Lee became despondent. Frank’s constant demands kept her from pursuing the solitude and creative work she needed to refuel her spirit. They had no family to help them, and couldn’t really afford paid caregivers. Lee discovered she had few human supports on which to lean, and she felt alone, helpless and hopeless.

But a new sense of spiritual hunger also grew in Lee. She began reading the Bible and thinking about church. “Maybe a church family would provide some help with Frank,” she thought. She remembered that there was a new, large congregation a few blocks away, on the edge of her neighborhood. You could almost see it from her house. She decided to phone.

“Jericho Community Church,” the receptionist answered. “How may I direct your call?”

“I’m not sure who to talk to,” said Lee. “I live in the neighborhood and I’m wondering if you have anyone who could help me by coming to my house for a few hours to sit with my husband who has cancer.”

The receptionist transferred her to the Outreach Office. “Are you a member of our church?” the woman there asked her. When Lee said no, she offered to send an evangelistic team over to the house to talk with her and Frank. “But that’s not really what I’m interested in,” Lee protested. “Right now, I’m kind of homebound because of my husband’s illness. I hope to visit your church soon, but what I really need at the moment is a volunteer who can help me by coming to sit with my husband for an hour or two a week. Can you help?”

Again she was put on hold and transferred, this time to the Small Groups Office. “Are you in one of our Care Groups?” she was asked. “We care for our members through a network of small home groups. If you come to church this Sunday, we could hook you up with one of our Care Group leaders and maybe you could find a group to be part of.” And once more Lee tried in vain to communicate her need. She finally hung up the phone with a sigh.

She moved to the front window and looked out, wondering where to turn next. As she watched, two men crossed the street and walked down the sidewalk opposite her house. For a moment, they glanced up and saw her lonely figure through the darkened glass. Then, redirecting their eyes, they walked on. Lee watched until they reached the end of her street, and turned to walk south, to the church at the edge of her neighborhood.

AN EVANGELICAL'S LAMENT AND JOURNEY: The Pastoral Issue, part three

In his remarkable book, Under the Unpredictable Plant, Eugene Peterson describes how the conditions in which pastors work, embodied in the three different parties that affect the pastoral vocation, often conflict with the minister's true calling.

First, there is the ordaining body, the denomination.
I had discovered that spiritually and vocationally I was on my own. The people who ordained me and took responsibility for my work were interested in financial reports, attendance graphs, program planning. But they were not interested in me. They were interested in my job; they cared little for my vocation. (p. 80)

Second, the local congregation.
The people who gather in our congregations want help through a difficult time; they want meaning and significance in their ventures. They want God, in a way, but certainly not a "jealous God," not the "God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Mostly they want to be their own god and stay in control but have ancillary idol assistance for the hard parts, which the pastor can show them how to get. (p. 81)

Third, the ego of the pastor him or herself.
We must do only what we are there to do: pronounce the Name, name the hunger. But it is so easy to get distracted. There is so much going on, so much to see and hear and say. So much emotion. So many tasks. So much, we think, "opportunity." But our assignment is to the "one thing needful," the invisible quiet center—God.

Such restraint is not easy. Dealing with important matters, we assert ourselves as important. We do it, of course, in the name of God, supposing we are upholding the primacy of the One we represent and intending to build up congregational effectiveness. This is done with distressing regularity by pastors. But such posturing does not give glory to God; it only advertises clerical vanity and contributes to congregational inanity. We are only hogging the show.... (p. 88)

I will use these categories to continue sharing my own perspectives on what I perceive to be some shortcomings of evangelicalism with regard to pastoral theology. I served as a pastor in mostly nondenominational evangelical churches for more than 25 years and directly experienced (and contributed to) the concerns I write about here. What I have seen in that church culture is Peterson's critique gone to seed.

The rest of the story...

First Concern: Where are the "apostles"?
If Eugene Peterson found no nurture and guidance from his denominational leaders, that is a shame. Those who serve as "apostles" above the local church level should have at least some among them assigned to be spiritual mentors and directors to pastors, who need constant support and direction. Peterson's critique shows us that no system is perfect, and that administrative structures don't always address the situations they are created to handle.

However, the problem in the autonomous world of evangelicalism is that there is NO STRUCTURE whatsoever. There is not even the least possibility of spiritual guidance, support, personal counsel, or accountability from the "apostolic" level, for there is no "apostolic" level! Like the churches they serve, pastors are expected to be independent, autonomous, and self-supporting. Each one is a solo act, and he works without a net.

This starts in school, where you will look long and hard to find a course or program that instructs prospective pastors about what a minister actually does day in and day out. Then, the world of church work he enters after school is the world of the entrepreneur. You are the man! Start your own. Do it your way. Come up with the next new and big idea. Climb the ladder. Learn to compete with the big boys. It's spiritual capitalism at its best, and only the strongest survive.

When I left my last church, a troubled congregation, I went home alone with my family. I literally had no idea what to do next. Oh sure, the folks from the pews were sympathetic and kind and very generous to help us out as they could, but where was the vocational "net"? Where was the older, wiser apostle overseeing the churches, whose job it was to pick up a colleague who had fallen on his face, bandage his wounds, put him on his own animal, bring him to the inn, and take care of him until he was strong enough to stand up again? Who would envision a future and point out possibilities?

Some lost pastors have found such healing and help providentially, but in my experience, it is far too rare and most of the time the fallen one himself has to search for it. There simply is no structure, no vocational net. Peterson warns us that denominational structures may not work well, or even at all sometimes. But at least someone cared enough to do something!

Timothy, you are on your own. You won't be hearing from Paul anytime soon.

Second Concern: Cultural ecclesiology
Peterson reminds us that Aaron was one of the most popular spiritual leaders in Scripture. He gave the people what they wanted and let them enjoy their "religion" to the fullest. According to Calvin, all people seek idols before God, and with today's technology, the American evangelical church can churn them out at record pace. In Peterson's priceless words, "John Calvin's insight plus Henry Ford's technology equals North American religion" (p. 81).

One idol that constantly provides hurdles for the evangelical pastor is that of the all-purpose church. This is the suburban doctrine of ecclesiology. A program for everything, and everything packaged in a program. A veritable Disney World of opportunities for all ages to find fulfilling spiritually-themed things to do. A religious activity center.

If the community and congregation are allowed to define "church" in these terms, it has an appalling effect on the pastor's vocation. He is no longer the shepherd whose job it is to help folks pay attention to God in their daily lives. No longer the one who is relieved from the normal demands of daily work to make a living and given leisure to keep company with God himself. No longer the one to practice what David Hansen calls, "long, wandering prayer." No longer the one encouraged to spend time among "the least of these," to "visit the orphans and widows in their distress," to leave the flock and seek the single lost sheep.

Instead he becomes the busy executive, who works in his "office" rather than his "study." Who oversees a staff and conducts their performance reviews and approves their budgets. Who works on a "campus," and conducts programs in the "worship center" rather than leading people to contemplate God in the "sanctuary." Who is called upon to cast the vision and come up with the strategy. Whose true sacred text is his DayTimer. He is CEO. He is shopkeeper. He is where the buck stops. He runs a church.

The customers demand it.

Third Concern: The celebrity pastor
Given the first two concerns, being a pastor in a contemporary evangelical church is a high risk/high reward proposition. You work without a net. You exist in a highly competitive market. If you ain't got the stuff, you'll probably get the stuffin' kicked out of you. If you got it, you can be a star.

Evangelical churches are mostly known by their pastors. Charismatic. Gifted. Dynamic. Visionary. Born leaders. These guys (and they are almost all guys in this tradition) have their pictures on all the conference brochures. You hear them on Christian radio. Their books are the ones you see when you first walk in the bookstore. People visit their churches and run from the parking lot to get good seats in the service.

Has anyone ever thought it strange that they represent a Savior who was mostly unknown by the world in which in lived? Who traveled by foot to obscure places and spent inordinate amounts of time with people who would never be able to return him any favors? Who rejected all attempts at publicity and "marketing"? Who intentionally said things so that some people would turn away and not follow him anymore? Who refused to make his teachings easy or "user-friendly," but spoke some of the strangest, hard-to-grasp words ever spoken? Who let his disciples fail again and again but never gave up on them, even when they gave the "ministry" a bad name? Whose greatest work was done in absolute shame and nakedness, darkness, death and despair? Whose symbol is not some snazzy logo designed by savvy marketers, but a bloody cross?

Pastors commonly give lip service to the vocabulary of their vocation, but in our working lives we more commonly pursue careers. Our actual work takes shape under the pressure of the marketplace, not the truth of theology or the wisdom of spirituality. I would like to see as much attention given to the holiness of our vocations as to the piety of our lives.

Basically, all I am doing is trying to get it straight, get straight what it means to be a pastor, and then develop a spirituality adequate to the work. The so-called spirituality that was handed to me by those who put me to the task of pastoral work was not adequate. I do not find the emaciated, exhausted spirituality of institutional careerism adequate. I do not find the veneered, cosmetic spirituality of personal charisma adequate. I require something biblically spiritual—rooted and cultivated in creation and covenant, leisurely in Christ, soaked in Spirit.

Eugene Peterson, Under the Unpredictable Plant, p. 5

What I Like about Lutheran Baptism

One issue that I am sure many will ask about with regard to our joining a Lutheran church is, "Yes, but what about baptism?"

The churches I have served all practiced believer's baptism—we baptized those who professed faith by means of immersion. Baptism was a public testimony of faith in Christ; a sign, a visual demonstration of dying to the old life, and rising to walk in newness of life. Some of the churches theoretically accepted the idea of infant baptism as well, but never performed the rite in public worship. I myself was open to the idea of infant baptism, particularly as it was explained in the reformed tradition.

When we joined the Lutheran church, we didn't spend much time discussing the subject of baptism, considering it a lesser issue than some of the other ecclesiological matters that drew us there. However, as I have taken part in the congregation and have read and thought about this subject, I have become more and more impressed with the Lutheran understanding.

First, let's define what Lutherans believe. Here is Luther's Smaller Catechism on holy baptism...

What is Baptism?

Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God's command and connected with God's Word.
Which is that word of God?
Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Matthew: Go ye into all the world and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

What does Baptism give or profit?
It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.
Which are such words and promises of God?
Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

How can water do such great things?
It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.

What does such baptizing with water signify?
It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.
Where is this written?
St. Paul says Romans, chapter 6: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

I like the Lutheran view because it understands baptism as God's act, not a human act. It's primarily about grace, not faith. It is done to us in God's name (that is, as an act of God performed by his representative), we do not do it ourselves. It is not the sign of my response to God, it is the sign and seal of what God has done for me.

I like the Lutheran view because it emphasizes the Word of God. When God's Word of promise and salvation is spoken at baptism, ordinary water becomes a means of grace to sinners. Lutherans do not emphasize the water apart from the Word, nor do they worry so much about how much water is used, or by what method the water is applied. The key is that the simple, ordinary element of water is combined with the all-important Word of salvation.

I like the Lutheran view because it appropriately broadens our understanding of the Great Commission. Many who argue against baptizing infants appeal to the Book of Acts, where believer's baptism is the common practice. However, they forget that Acts describes only first-generation believers. Lutherans have no problem with baptizing believers who have received the Gospel (nor does any Christian denomination that practices baptism). What the N.T. does not exemplify so clearly is what should happen with second-generation believers. When does the child of Christian parents start becoming a disciple of Christ? That process begins when the child is born, and therefore it is appropriate to baptize the child and begin teaching him/her to obey what Christ has commanded from the beginning of life.

I like the Lutheran view because it enlightens us about the true nature of faith. In evangelicalism, faith is usually described as my decision, my willful choice to follow Christ. Lutherans understand that faith is more mysterious and often less conscious than that. Infants exemplify this broader understanding. Does an infant choose to be conceived or born? Does an infant decide to bond in trustful repose upon its mother's breast? Does the infant intelligently weigh its options and determine to choose life and love? No, a new life begins when others come together in an act of love. Then the incomprehensible life force one day moves the baby to enter the world, breathe, and respond to those who love her. Even so, God, through Word and Sacrament works faith and spiritual life into those who receive his promise.

I like the Lutheran view because it emphasizes the ongoing significance of baptism. Since evangelicalism views baptism as a one-time initiatory act that communicates a singular message about conversion, those who practice believer's baptism don't bring up the subject again in the course of the Christian life. However, Lutherans (following Luther himself) see baptism as an ongoing object lesson of the Christian life that we must remember and reenact every day. We practice our baptism daily by repenting (dying to the old life) and rising to walk in new life.

So hear ye all, and well perceive
What God doth call baptism,
And what a Christian should believe
Who error shuns and schism:
That we should water use, the Lord
Declareth it his pleasure;
Not simple water, but the Word
And Spirit without measure;
He is the true Baptizer.

Hymn XXXIV from "The Hymns of Martin Luther"