In our prayer meeting yesterday one of the folks mentioned the barrage of corruption news lately. I knew where she was coming from. Companies, investment firms, political leaders – we were hearing of corruption in all these (and other) categories. She suggested that we pray not just for our usual list (mostly sick folks), but for spiritual renewal in our country.
As I thought further about corruption, I thought of three kinds of response we typically have to stories of corruption (or sin) in general.
Sometimes when we hear of corruption or major moral failure we lapse into despair. Especially when leader after leader and institution after institution falls, we can get the idea that there is nothing we can do.
A second response we have might be self-righteousness. We may give thanks that we’re not like those folks. We might emphasize that we’d never do anything like that. Our moral compass us obviously much superior to theirs.
Finally, we sometimes respond with the famous line, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” While the sin or failing currently on display might not be our own, we have a sense that it could have been. We know that while we might not be sinning in that way now, we are capable of it.
Considering New Testament teaching, it seems this third response might be the most Christian. But if it is, what do we do with it? Do we simply loop back into the first response and despair of ever doing better – since we ourselves are mired in moral decay? Or do we selectively apply Jesus’ teaching against judging (and loop back into the second option_ – reckoning that since we don’t want anyone to recognize our failings, i.e., exercise judgment toward us, we shouldn’t recognize anyone else’s failings?
I’d suggest instead that we submit our sin – and the sin (and sinners) we see around us to God. We will seek mercy for ourselves and others, while at the same time recognizing God’s call to holiness and love as not only possible, but truly for our good. When I am held accountable for my sin, it isn’t just about me – or about me and God. My being held accountable is also a way of working justice for those against whom I’ve sinned. In the same way, holding the corrupt accountable is a necessary part of justice for those who have suffered from their corruption. With heavy hearts, knowing our own capacity for sin and the destructiveness it causes, we call sinners to repentance, restitution and restoration.
One of the commonly referenced biblical texts on renewal puts it this way, “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves, pray, seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, Then will I hear from heave, forgive their sin, and heal their land.”
It’s easy to center the act of disciple making on what we do with individuals. But if all we do in our disciple making is work with individuals, we’re missing both the model of Jesus and what we see in the rest of the New Testament. There we discover not only an enterprise dedicated to producing certain kinds of people, but also one dedicated to producing a people, a particular kind of community.
The aspect of discipleship I’m looking at in this post, worship, is a characteristic predicated of both individuals and congregations. While we moderns tend to think any Christian practice works just fine practiced by individuals, worship seems to be normally practiced in community. While practiced in community, however, the individuals do have particular responsibilities. The characteristics of disciples in worship that I list below are mixed. Some are characteristics of the individual maturing in Christ, some are characteristics of the community maturing in Christ.
Disciples sing with understanding. Singing with understanding requires education. Disciples will need at least a minimal education in the culture’s ways of doing music. Of course, when worshiping with large numbers, those of us who are more obtuse in this area can be drowned out by others. Disciples will also need to learn to attend to the words of the hymns we sing. Some of the language originates in another culture or time and will seem foreign. It will take work to understand, but that work is worthwhile.
Disciples sing with enthusiasm. Consider this line from my seminary fight song: “My chains fell off, my heart was free, I rose, went forth, and followed thee.” If you understand the meaning of those words and have had the basic Christian experience of forgiveness in Christ, I don’t see how you could sing with less than enthusiasm, much less stand by doing nothing. Is it that people don’t understand these words? Or is it that they haven’t had the experience? (See part 1)
Disciples experience the presence of God. Corporate worship, while a social gathering, is more than a social gathering. It’s a time to meet God. Part of dicipleship is growing in our sensitivity to the presence of God.
The church is characterized by Spirit filled & led worship. Worship is not just disciples doing their own thing – even if that thing is spiritual. True Christian worship is worship “in spirit and in truth.” We respond to the Spirit through the Spirit’s work in us.
Disciples seek to have a worship service where the presence of God is so obvious that pre-Christians in attendance are impacted and led to ask questions. I sure wish I could make this happen. I can’t make this happen. But I do want these things to happen whenever we gather. First, I want our life together to be such that people who are not yet followers of Jesus show up. Second, I want those folks to be able to sense more than just a bunch of Christians doing Christian things. I want them to sense God. Third, I want them to respond to God. Fourth, and this shades into a future post, I want the disciples present to be equipped and ready to answer their questions and point people to Jesus.
Disciples value a diversity of worship opportunities to enable us to reach the people of our area. Worship is primarily about God. God’s glory and honor are the first consideration. That said, I don’t see the New Testament perspective on worship stifling innovation and cultural adaptation in worship. God made us creative people. As our creative dimension is progressively made over into the image of Jesus, I want that creativity to be put to use in worship. While worship is primarily about God, it is also public worship. We are open to outsiders. In fact, in most of our American churches, Sunday morning worship is the primary place preChristians encounter disciples as disciples. I want the community of disciples to be open to expressing its worship in cultural forms that are close enough to our host community that they can make some sense of what we’re doing – even if it is only enough sense to be offended by the message of the cross.
Disciples want to see lives transformed through the Spirit’s action in our worship services. My life has been transformed in the context of worship. When we open ourselves to the work of the Spirit in worship, we give the Spirit freedom to reach into our lives and do the work of pruning, cleansing, healing, and setting free. We need that – more than we need to know that we exactly followed the bulletin or perfectly performed our assigned role.
The mission of the United Methodist Church is to “Make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.” Sounds good. But it’s pretty vague, especially given our fragmented theology. I thought it would be useful to explore in greater detail what we’re trying to do here (in our local setting) when we try to make disciples.
First a word of clarification. I take the work of disciple-making to be the work of all disciples. All of us have been called to take part in this ministry. In other words, if I am a disciple, I am also a disciple maker. Thus my personalized version of the UMC mission is to make disciples who become disciple makers.
When I look at the Five practices of Fruitful Congregations model that has been adopted by our (Texas) annual conference, I find that it doesn’t match up exactly with the model of disciple making I’ve been using. In this post, and the posts that follow, I will try to use the Five Practices jargon along with some of my own. Some items won’t fit exactly, but hopefully it will work ok for the time being.
Here are the characteristics of growing disciples that I look for in the area of what some call spiritual maturity. Obviously real spiritual maturity is greater than these (and includes the elements to follow later), but these focus particularly on our relationship with God. The closest category I see in the conference lingo is “Fervent Prayer and Study of Scripture” – which is not really very close by my reckoning.
Disciples have at some point in their lives personally received the forgiveness and grace offered through Jesus.
Disciples practice a continuing love relationship with God that is real and personal.
Disciples are radically in love with God.
Disciples have assurance of their salvation – a conviction that they are loved by God and accepted as his children because of the work of Jesus.
Disciples are committed to the Lordship of Christ – in their lives and over all.
Disciples understand where they fit into what God is doing in history.
Disciples have a desire to know God more and more.
Disciples have a fulfilling and fruitful prayer life.
Disciples spend time reading and studying the Bible every day.
Disciples spend time listening to God each day.
What do you think about these characteristics – taken as goals for discipleship, not necessarily current reality?
One of the books I’m reading now is John Stackhouse’s Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World. He quotes David Martin as saying,
“If I wanted to dramatize it I would point out that Mohammed was a warrior and a family man whereas Jesus was neither. Again notice that Islam sanctifies a holy city and is about territory whereas primitive Christianity is not. Indeed, for the early Christians Jerusalem was abandoned to desolation. The connection which underpins these differences is the link between the blood tie as realized in the family and land, possessions and violence. Christianity rejects the social logic embodied in genealogy, biological reproduction, and land, and attempts to set up spiritual and non-violent brotherhoods and sisterhoods outside that powerful nexus.”
Stackhouse recognizes that, as Martin says, this is a dramatized account. While Jesus clearly relativized family connections (in terms of biological kinship), the concern for biological family was edging its way back into Christianity fairly early. We can also see, unfortunately, that the history of Christians, once they got into power, made the faith look like something concerned with territory.
For me, the strength of this way of differentiating Christianity and Islam is that there is material internal to the Christian tradition, and in particular, material identified with Jesus himself, that allows us to critique and relativize the common human propensity to center on biological kinship, value the holding of territory, and using violence to make sure things turn out well. For you who are scholars of Islam: What resources are available within Islam to relativize these attitudes?
Telling the truth is better than not telling the truth. Generally, at least.
The bible doesn’t teach us to tell the truth in some sort of abstract way. It tells us not to bear false witness. It tells us that if we keep Jesus’ word, we will be his disciples, and if we are his disciples, we will know the truth. It tells us to speak the truth in love. Each of these admonitions is more than an abstract form of objective reporting. Each is set in the context of personal relationships with others more than noetic relationships with objects.
Let’s try this statement: “The economy is in big trouble.” Is that the truth? Is it that which ought to be said? My answer to both is, “It depends on the context.” No, I’m not a relativist, if by “relativist” you mean there is no such thing as the way things are whether I like it or not, or that everything is really only a matter of personal opinion. The statement, “The economy is in big trouble” is falsifiable. If I say it, I can be wrong – or I can be right. But the ways in which I can be wrong are more various than the way I’d be wrong if someone countered, “The economy is not in big trouble.”
Most obviously, my statement would be true in some historical and cultural periods and not true in others. It is relative to a particular time – unless I were trying to make a universal claim that economies in general are in big trouble. But that’s not what I hypothetically said.
But who am I to make such a statement? If I say those words – and I’m a three year old – someone might think I’m cute, but no one will think I know what I’m talking about. If I’m a student – of anything other than economics – hearers may assume that my statement is based on my knowledge of my own economic state or the state of the people around me, or perhaps what I’ve read in the newspapers. If I’m the President, the Chair of the Federal Reserve, or the Secretary of the Treasury, people will give much more credence to my statement. They might even act on it.
What kinds of action might a person perform upon hearing someone say, “The economy is in big trouble?” If it’s a kid saying it, it probably won’t have much effect on action. If an authoritative person makes the claim actions might range from withdrawing from various forms of economic activity, engaging into other forms of economic activity, or perhaps even despair. These activities engagements or withdrawals might either make the economy better or worse. If my object in saying “The economy is in big trouble” is more than uttering the sentence, or reporting what I may take to be a fact, I would surely want to consider the effects of my statement. If I want to drive the economy down (perhaps I’m an enemy of the entity whose economy I’m describing, or I’m waging war on the people currently leading the economy), then I will count a worsening economy resulting from my statement to be a reason to make the statement. If, however, I want the economy to improve, I will count possible negative results as a reason not to make my statement.
We have more complexity as well. If I’m watching a basketball game and see Dirk Nowitski make a shot, I can say, “That was a good shot.” Now, I’m not much of a basketball fan, so no one will care very much for my opinion, but if I say of a missed shot, “That was a good shot,” I would think people might not know what I’m talking about. It wouldn’t take much in the way of expertise or reflection to make such a judgment
“The economy” is much more difficult to assess than a basketball shot. The statistics on which we base our assessment are always of the past and (from what I read) under continual re-assessment. The economy (on whichever level) has a trajectory – sometimes up, sometimes down. When I say something like, “The economy is in big trouble,” I might mean something like, “Given the most recent and widely encompassing data I’ve seen, the assessment of people’s intentions to act, and my theories of how all these data fit together, the economy is in big trouble.”
Our theories of assessment might differ as well. Some folks might think the economy is quite healthy because most people are experiencing an increasing standard of living. Others will see those same figures but look at the relative few who are not doing so well. Others may observe a situation in which everyone in the economy is prospering and growing in wealth, but judge that this is not an unmitigated good because true human flourishing requires trust in God, and they see the economic easy times leading people to independence from God.
I’m not an economist. I’m a pastor by trade. People never ask me, “How is the economy doing?” They do ask, “How is the church doing?” The way I answer that question mirrors the complexity of the similar question about the economy. My answer depends on two broad categories. First, it depends on my theories of ecclesial well-being and how the data those theories tell me are relevant are doing. Second, my answer depends on what effect I think my answer might have on the person asking.
When you ask an average American (in my experience, at least), “How are you doing?” the standard answer is, “Fine.” When you ask the average pastor, “How is your church doing?” it’s pretty common to hear the same kind of answer: “Fine.” We all know this is a polite yet mostly uninformative answer. Even so, it is often an adequate answer, given the purpose of the person inquiring.
When someone asks me, “How is the church doing?” I don’t worry much about accuracy. I’m much more concerned about the effect my answer will have on my hearer(s). I’d like my answer to elicit increased attachment to and connection with the purposes of God, particularly as expressed through the life of the church, and prayer for God’s purposes to be fulfilled. The first desire is most relevant for local participants, the second applicable to a much broader context. My purpose, therefore, is much larger than simply telling something one might identify as “the truth.”
Let’s try a particular answer I gave a person once. “We’re having some cash flow problems lately.” I could have said, “Our finances are in desperate straits since giving has dropped off.” But I didn’t think we were in desperate straits. Sure, someone else may have judged this to be the case, subjective as such an assessment it. But my answer of this sort includes my faith that God will see us through as we seek to live out his kingdom purposes. The statement about cash flow problems is truthful – and objective enough to communicate sufficient meaning. It can also elicit some actions. Some might decide to despair. “Oh, no! The church is really hurting now, just like I am. We will have to make some big cut backs.” Others might decide they need to give more, or to time their giving in a different way. Still others might hear it as a call to prayer. As the leader, my objective is to be a calm presence, demonstrating trust in God regardless of the circumstances, so I’m more likely to encourage the second and third responses.
Another kind of financial answer I’ve given when asked about the church is the equivalent of, “Fine.” But then I go and add comments about God’s blessing and generous people. Those additional comments set the context better than a simple “Fine.”
But church health measured in terms of finances almost entirely misses the point. The most important issues resist quantification: Are people becoming like Jesus? Are they growing in love toward God and neighbor? Are they being set free from sin and brokenness? Sometimes these kinds of events have quantifiable edges that show up in numbers in worship, or professing their faith in Christ. It’s often easier to talk about finances, however, not only because of their quantifiability, but because we tend to do better at them, even in hard times. Personally, I’d rather see people come to faith in Jesus than make the budget. When people ask, “How is the church doing?” I try to point to some of these other features. Sometimes I even turn the question around, “What do you see? How is your walk with Christ? In what ways are you influencing people toward Jesus?”
So – to cut to the chase: Is telling the truth a good thing? It depends on who you are, what you’re telling the truth about, whether the truth about the subject can be shared with some degree of clarity and accuracy and, finally, what you’re trying to accomplish.
Since everyone is an economist now, I figured that since I’ve had at least one course in economics and that I have no debt, I’m at least as qualified as others to ask some questions about the stimulus.
Do we know both the originating cause and the maintaining causes of the current economic downturn? This is an epistemological question: do we have real knowledge in this area or are we still at the stage of robust competing theories?
To what degree do the originating and maintaining causes feedback on each other? We hear of several aspects of the economy being involved: Housing, Lending, Finance, Employment, Consumer purchases, Government spending and non-spending. I mention the last because some believe that government non-spending will contribute more to continued economic decline than will government spending.
What behaviors led to the current problems? I see several from my vantage point: High tolerance for deep debt on all levels (individual, familial, and multiple levels of government), a conviction that it is appropriate to live beyond our means when living in such a way has some positive consequences (I call it a conviction because the practice is so wide-spread I don’t see how we can use weaker language), a wide-spread sense of entitlement (“I deserve to be able to retire comfortably when I’m in my 50′s,” “I deserve higher pay then those other folks since my skills are rarer than theirs,” “Government has more responsibility to see to my needs and well being than I do.”), and a conviction – there’s that word again – that the economy ought to be constantly growing.
If these behaviors contributed to our current condition, what can we do about them?
If the economy is primarily about money and its transit through our society, then government is the biggest player in the economy. It controls the spending of the most dollars. Though the aspect of the economy we tend to be most aware of is the flow of money, does that mean we can adequately understand the economy if all we consider is money?
Flowing directly from the previous question: If the economy is more than money, then surely there are more than monetary stimuli affecting the economy. If this is so, why do we think of “a” stimulus only in terms of money?
Which behaviors are we trying to stimulate with our Stimulus plan? We hear the positives: hiring, home buying, consumer spending. But what about the other behaviors, the ones that drove our economy to its recent heights – and right over the edge? Do we want to stimulate more consumer debt? A greater feeling of entitlement? A conviction that we always need more, newer and better?
If the Giant in the (monetary) economy – the government – wants to stimulate individuals and businesses to spend money (buy stuff, hire people), what kinds of action on their part will lead to that? Do we have knowledge (or only guesses) about why those agents are not performing the desired behavior right now? How do we map their attitudes? Is it a simple, “If you (government) spend the trillions, then they will feel free to spend their money also?” Or have people and businesses learned to think a little more long term, setting aside (at least a little) desire for instant gratification?
Are there some broken parts of the economy that require time more than money to fix/heal?
To what degree does desire to gain or keep political power play into the rhetoric people use to urge the passing, amending or scrapping of the current stimulus package?
President Obama campaigned on hope. Hope can be good. But hope for what? Hope for a healthy economy? Have we ever had that in an absolute sense? I’m sure he knows from his years of community organizing that even when the economy is good, it’s not good for everyone. Even when the majority are coasting along, there are some who are hoping for better (if they haven’t despaired). Do we have shared hopes as a nation? Are those hopes shared in enough detail that a fair percentage of the populace would recognize and agree upon the fulfillment of those hopes should the fulfillment arise?
To what degree can a healthy economy be based more on getting than giving?
Would we be satisfied if our economy recovered but the rest of the world – or significant portions thereof – didn’t?
To what degree do we look to the economy for our salvation? To what degree ought we to look to the economy for salvation?
To what degree do we look to government for our salvation? Again, to what degree ought we to do so?
I know there are other questions out there – we see them on the news all the time – but these are the ones that occur to me that I’m not hearing elsewhere. What do you think?