Bandits No More

Yesterday’s episcopal address from Bishop Huie was the best I’ve ever heard. It began (and ended) with a multimedia component based on Acts 2 and Pentecost. Nice to see a bishop who can use technology.

Here’s a brief summary of what she had to say.
This Annual Conference meeting is “An occasion with the potential for Pentecost,” with the Holy Spirit bringing a fresh vision, a renewed sense of and commitment to mission, and a new urgency for making disciples.

We’re living in at the threshhold of unprecedented challenges and opportunities. Worldwide there is an unparalleled hunger for God, and within the church and our communities a new readiness to hear the essential truths of the Christian message.

There are 7.3 million people living within the bounds of the TAC. Our average worship attendance, however, is only 109,000. Obviously there are plenty of peopel left to reach [even assuming a bunch of the rest are baptists, etc.].

It is time for a bold new step into God’s future.

Part 1 – Current Reality
Her comments are based on visiting 573 charges in the TAC. She saw both strong and fragile congregations. An example from a fragile congregation: She asked, “What are you doing to make disciples?” Answer: “We think we’re ok the way we are.”

Many congregations are just hanging on; many are in transitional communities and have little or no connection to the new people around the church.

20% of TAC congregations have fewer than 20 in worship.

40-50% of congregations are struggling. Their ministry and mission have been reduced to caring for members, maintaining the facilities, and paying the bills. In the eyes of these churches the pastor’s job is to take care of those who pay the bills – NOT to equip the saints for ministry.

Troubling discoveries:

• She could travel all day without hearing any churches mention worhsip as a strength of their congregation.
• Frequently laity are unable to speak the language of the faith.

Big picture:

• TAC membership is up over the past 5 years. This shows our past strength.
• Over that same period worship attendance is down. This shows our current strength.
• Professions of faith, baptisms, etc., are also down.
• 1/4 of the population within the bounds of the TAC are Hispanic; only 1% of TAC is Hispanic.

Her conclusion: We’re only functioning at a fraction of the capacity God has given us. We lack a clear and compelling vision.

We need to discover how to build Vibrant, Healthy, and Fruitful congregations. This is God’s desire for the TAC.

Part 2 – Five Key elements from Jesus’ Model of Discipleship
Leadership is at the heart of each.

A. Radical Hospitality
B. Passionate Worship – dynamic & life changing
C. Faith-forming relationships and experiences – need to add small groups that produce relationships that will mature people’s faith.
D. Risktaking Ministry and Service – We make Disciples for the transformation of the world
E. Extravagant Generosity

There is no quick insitutional fix.

We need to stop making excuses for pastors and churches who aren’t contributing to the mission of making disciples.

No longer acceptable:

• Having no confirmation classes
• No professions of faith in a year
• Flat or declining worship attendance in a community where the population is growing

Part 3 – Vision

Our mission is clear – Making Disciples of Jesus Christ

Every congregation needs to be vibrant, faithful, fruitful and reproducing. We need to act boldly, leaving baggage behind. We need to increase expectations and accountabilities. Obviously this means CHANGE.

4 essential areas of action:

1. New Church starts – we need to start churches where unreached people are. This means not only in new subdivisions and developments, but in housing projects, trailer parks and the like. We need to start 10 new congregations each year for the next decade within the TAC. This will require current strong congregations to give birth to new congregations. Pastoral leadership is the most important factor.
2. Revitalizing existing congregations – We need to do some heavy duty training; we need to be open to new models and ways of doing things.
3. Focus on Youth and Young Adults – in 2006 the Millenial Generation comes of age. Aged 12-17, they will peak at 26 million, more than the Baby Boom generation.
4. Recruitment, trainign and retention of effective leadership. We need leaders who are spirit filled, bold, and visionary. This is an issue of being formed in the image of Jesus for the sake of the world. Churches have a right to expect pastors who are deeply connected to Jesus and who live as bold leaders. Leaders – especially young leaders (our current average age for pastors is 57) – need to recruited, trained, and retained.

We need to work on resourcing the vision. This will require:
Realigning existing funds [today the cabinet brought forth a resolution that their salaries would be frozen for the next year]
Need to align action and resources with the vision
Realizing this vision will only be accomplished through faith in God.

UPDATE: The text of the address has now been added to the Conference Website.

Bishop Huie opened the clergy session by talking about the three purposes of Annual Conference:

1. Revival
2. Building community
3. Business

This is the first session of the TAC she’s led so we’re still figuring out her style. I’m happy so far.

Next up is the Confessing Movement luncheon. Billy Abraham is the speaker this year and I’ll post a summary of his comments later on.

Texas Annual Conference begins Sunday evening in The Woodlands. It’s our
first year with Bishop Huie. We already know something will be
different. Instead of business all the time, we’ll be having workshops
on Tuesday afternoon. I even heard that the consent calendar would be
treated as a consent calender. Sounds good to me.

I just ran across the site of Dr. Malcolm Webber. It looks like he puts out a monthly “Leadership Letter,” available free. In this latest letter he contrasts Servant Leaders and Abusive Leaders. Take a look at what he says and see how you measure up. Here’s my own self assessment.
Servant Qualities:

• Secure in Christ. I preach this over and over – and try to model it myself. I’ve seen many clues that suggest Webber is right to see this as foundational. Most of the staff conflict I’ve seen in churches is rooted in insecurity.
• Is considerate and concerned for others. For the most part my heart is in the right place here, but I need to work harder at paying attention to what’s going on around me. My wife is much better at this than I am.
• Studies the stress that others are under to help alleviate it if possible. I work on this, especially with my staff. I’ve noticed it can be quite tiring.
• Willing to discuss his decisions and the reasons for them, unless circumstances do not allow. Being a rationalist (An INTP if that means anything to you), I highly value convincing people.
• Tries to work with the initially uncooperative, seeing their positive potential. I may do this too much. SInce I’m assigned to be pastor of all the people, I may sometime empower people who need to be dis-empowered.
• Trusting toward people; thinks the best. I’m somehwta on the edge here. I’m predisposed to trust people – I really like trusting them. But many times I’ve found that people don’t come through.
• Communicates freely and openly. I work at this, trying to hold nothing back.
• Responds to problems with prayer and investigation. This is my general approach, though sometimes when they start stacking up I respond instead with worry.
• Responds to failure by taking personal responsibility. This is tough, but I’ve seen it pay many dividends.
• Knows he must earn the support of his followers. I know this, but need to work harder at actually doing it. Building a supportive coalition is hard and long term work.
• Welcomes appropriate accountability. I try to ask for feed back regularly.

Tod Bolsinger at It Takes a Church writes about “Speaking the Truth in Love” in the context of a relativistic culture. Many value maintaining an open mind over finding truth – the “joy is in the journey, not the arriving” I hear. Evidently these folks either never travel with children (“Are we there yet?”) or don’t care for the child’s point of view. During my first semester of college we read John Ciardi’s praise of confusion over conviction. My take on it then was that he had a mighty strong conviction that one shouldn’t have convictions. For that my professor called me a sophist. Being an ignorant freshman at the time, I didn’t know how to respond – I knew I’d been rebuked, but didn’t have any ready arguments.

G.K. Chesterton wrote,

“The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” (Autobiography. Collected Works Vol. 16, p. 212)

which seems reasonable to me. (I think of the motorcyclist cruising down the road with his mouth hanging open. Though in small pieces, he might get more solidity than he bargains for.) Openmindedness is purposive behavior, not merely default behavior. We are openminded because we recognize it as essential for finding truth, not because we think there is no truth.

Paul’s description of the mature Christian’s action, usually translated as “Speaking the truth in love,” is constructed differently in Greek. English lacks a verb form of truth – which Paul uses here, the literal translation might be “Truthing in love.” Surely then speech is a component of this act, but is that all there is to it? Paul is talking about more than simply stating facts; he doing more than telling us to be tactful (what we often take to be the way to be loving). Instead, our whole lifestyle – words, attitudes, desires, actions, character – are to correspond to the Truth (Jesus himself) to an increasing degree, while at the same time this correspondence seeks to produce a similar correspondence in the world around us. Because truth for the Christian is first of all a person – Jesus – this “Truthing in love” is relational rather than merely epistemological. Or can we say it is relational before it is epistemological, and that its epistemological utility is dependent upon its relational reality?

How does this work in a church setting?

First, it is my job as preacher & teacher to introduce people to the true story of God that finds its climax in Jesus so that they can become willing participants in that story as it continues. When we find our place in that Story, i.e., integrate our story into the Story, we are conformed to the image of Jesus (“truthed”) and become increasingly capable of “truthing in love” ourselves.

Second, I spend much time in my preaching and teaching on the reality of loving God with our minds. As I’ve read John Wesley’s sermons over the years I’ve noticed that he regularly sets out both the positive and the negative – what he’s saying and what he’s not saying. Given the multiple contexts in which we live, and the multiple contestants when it comes to truth, achieving understanding is hard work. I try to lead my people through that work. At the same time, I suggest that there are few “knock down” arguments that will absolutely prove a point. Plenty of evidence, but not absolute proof. There is always still room for faith. God seems not to be one to compel us – even for our own good.

Finally, I encourage my people to argue with me. I know (a) I am not always right, and (b) I will not be here forever. Additionally, as I think of people who will be heading off to college, I want them to have the skills and attitude to be able to argue when they get there. If I – or anyone else – am teaching something wrong, they need to be able to discern what is happening and do something about it the right way – to “truth in love.”

As I’ve driven the roads of East Texas over the years, I’ve seen a variety of wildlife. Foxes, deer, skunks, and armadillos are the most common. I’ve known coyotes lived in the area but I didn’t see my first one in the wild until last month. Today I saw an even rarer creature, one that isn’t supposed to be living in this part of the state – an ocelot. That’s my guess, anyway. It was clearly a cat – but at least 3 times as big as a house cat. It’s fur was patterned like ocelots I’ve seen in zoos. It crossed the road in front of me on Hwy 155 just north of I-20, so I wasn’t able to stick around and watch it.

Seth Godin is using his blog to market his book, dangling little teasers out there hoping we will buy it. In this post he discusses the placebo effect, the power of believing alone to effect healing and numerous other benefits on the believer. Marketers aim to produce this kind of effect by telling stories and creating environments so that consumers will buy their products, or, moving beyond the literal marketplace, so that what they are doing might be more effective. Godin says:

It would be surprising to meet a monk or a talmudic scholar or a minister who would say, “yes, we burn the incense or turn down the lights or ring these bells or light these candles as a way of creating a room where people are more likely to believe in their prayers,” but of course thatÂ’s exactly what theyÂ’re doing. (and you know what? there’s nothing wrong with that.)….

We donÂ’t like to admit that we tell stories, that weÂ’re in the placebo business. Instead, we tell ourselves about features and benefits as a way to rationalize our desire to help our customers by allowing them to lie to themselves.

The design of your blog or your package or your outfit is nothing but an affect designed to create the placebo effect. The sound Dasani water makes when you open the bottle is more of the same. ItÂ’s all storytelling. ItÂ’s all lies.

Not that thereÂ’s anything wrong with that.

If Godin is saying that communicators need to pay attention to their audiences enter their worlds to learn how to best help those audiences hear and understand their messages, then his points are truisms of ancient vintage. That’s what rhetoric is all about. As Christian communicators we spend to little effort helping our people get the message.

But is rhetoric – lying – all there is? What is the alternative to lying/marketing/storytelling? The bare facts of the matter? Again, as in my previous post on Godin’s book, I confess I have not read his book, only his commentary in his blog. Assuming he is representing his book fairly (though incompletely), it looks like he is at the end of modernity. One the one hand, we have bare facts – reality – the truth. On the other hand we have stories – lies – things that grab our attention. Is there a meeting place, an overlap, between stories and truth – or only a harsh dichotomy? His view sounds like the elimination not merely of meta-narratives but all narratives from moral consideration.

In the Bible’s story, we see the true story of Creation, Israel, Jesus and the church – the story of goodness, sin, faithfulness and redemption. My job as a disciple maker is not to manipulate people into buying Jesus – or having an experience. My job is to tell the story – which is a complex kind of telling, part word, part action, part simply being – being faithful to the story as it actually is and extending the love of God (as narrated in the story) to those around me. There is no reduction to will, desire, or power.

This is why I think the UM advertising campaign, “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors,” is deceptive. First, when people in our culture hear that we’re open in each of these areas, they naturally take it in an absolute sense. “Jesus? Yeah, he’s a great guy. Buddha? Oh, he was a wise one. Don’t care for religious stuff? Well, We can understand where you’re coming from. Different strokes for different folks. We’re openminded, you know.”

Marketing of this sort (slogans) doesn’t really deal with stories but with implied stories. (How much of a story can one tell in 6 words?) The UM marketer may be thinking about the Christian story – a story rooted in God’s creation of people made in His image, people for whom Jesus died. Most of the audience isn’t. They’re thinking: “I want to be happy. I want to be in control of my life. I don’t want anyone to tell me I’m wrong (about anything).” Not much of a story, this modern American story of happiness and consumption, but 6 words fit in just fine. Only when we use more words – and actions – can we begin to tell the story of Jesus adequately.

Gateway Pundit has some horror stories out of Zimbabwe. The stories of Mugabe’s thuggery have been increasing over the past few years, but I hear nothing about how the collapse of that country is affecting the University. It can’t be good.

In a recent Christianity Today interview with Ken Collins, a professor of theology at Asbury Theological Seminary, we read the following:

[CT] But isn’t this a question of who the dialogue partner is? For the champions of inerrancy, certainly the dialogue partners were modernist theologians who were undermining the authority of Scripture. But at the same time within their own community, do they not expect the Word to speak sacramentally, just as Wesleyans do?

[KC] That’s an important insight. German higher criticism hasn’t been the dialogue partner for the Wesleyan community in the same way it has been for the Reformed community.

We have different paradigms, but I think we get to the same place.

I think I understand what Collins is getting at, but this is not a good way to put it. First, the reason the “Wesleyan community” hasn’t had “German higher criticism” as a dialogue partner in the same way as the Reformed community is that for the most part the Wesleyans – at least as far as United Methodists go, have simply capitulated, retreating into pietism, moralism, institutionalism, or atheism. Though I’d like to avoid a theory of inerrancy based on foundationalist epistemology, I’d also like to avoid the exuberant errancy of so much of the old Methodist approach to scripture.

In today’s Dallas Morning News critics Philip Wuntch & Chris Vognar are talking about the commercial appeal of Star Wars and bemoaning the talk about breaking money records. Vognar complains that such a focus “is a cancer for serious moviegoing.” Why should moviegoing be serious at all? It’s only a movie! I’d thought it was only the people who “stood” in line for weeks in advance who had too much time (and money?) on their hands. Now I think the critics do also.

Back to the movie itself. A couple more observations:
1. While fighting and revolution are going on in Coruscant, the capital of the Republic, guess what the populace is doing? As far as we can tell, they’re oblivious to the whole thing. The skies are full of constant traffic all the time, before, during, and after. We see no effect whatsoever on the broader culture of the Republic. Do they even have a culture? Do they have books, tv, movies, radio, news organizations? We know the people of Naboo wear fancy clothes. Is that it?
2. Do they have an education system? The Jedi educational system is the only one we see, and that only in glimpses. The Jedi seem to specialize in training for using power – but do they tell stories? Do they have a historical sense? This is one of the weaknesses of the Harry Potter world also. The magical world there is all about learning how to be powerful. Hermione takes some history courses, and a few study Muggles. But where are the humanities? Where do Jedi (and Hogwartians) learn to be human? But no – who needs to be human when power is everything? (Or are humans merely an arbitrary, ever shifting bundle of conflicting willings?)For the Sith, power is for oneself; for the Jedi, power is to do good; in the Harry Potter universe good & evil wizards seek power over each other. Is power all there is? I’m sure the reduction of everything to power was part of the reason for the total societal decay evident in Revenge of the Sith.
3. In the Jedi attachment to detachment and the Sith attachment to power, abstractions rule. Problem is, abstractions don’t work over the long haul. Making abstractions is a powerful intellectual tool. But abstractions are idealizations of reality, not reality itself. As followers of Jesus we don’t follow an abstraction (however much some might want to reduce Christianity to a set of basic principles) – we follow Jesus, a person.

Update: Mark Byron has a good discussion also.