As I mentioned in the previous entry, my oldest was born with a medical condition that required numerous surgeries and has been followed by years of private therapy. This all started seven years ago at his birth, but the bills started coming in about six years ago. The cost of Bryce’s medication and therapy is beginning to level off, but is still high. This financial emergency coincided with graduate school that while being funded largely by financial aid, had additional costs that were unexpected as well as the loss of income due to working around school schedule. Then four years ago I was let go from a job. It took me almost a year before I could find something else. My wife and I have been incredibly fortunate in that we have parents that have been able to help us, but eight years ago before the birth of Bryce we had a total debt of an $80,000 mortgage and small car payment and a like $2,000 on a credit card. Since then we had another son, bought a house that we thought would be a good investment and manageable, and bought a minivan. Now, seven years later, we have accumulated debt that (until I find a job that makes my PhD fiscally worth it) leaves us with exactly zero at the end of the month. Neither Shannon nor I are financial geniuses nor are we cheap, but we are both intelligent and fairly simple people. We don’t spend much money even if we aren’t great about looking for the best deal. I say this because I am perfectly willing to accept that our financial situation has been exasperated by our own actions, but also that most of our problems have rooted from things beyond our control. Our financial situation is a constant source of frustration and limitation and we anxiously wait for the day that we can put some of this mess behind us.
Peoples’ financial situation, including how they spend their money, is as taboo in western Christianity as sex. It’s okay to like money (and sex). It’s okay to have money (and sex). And the church is fine with telling people how to spend money (and have sex). Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of churches out there pandering to the financial struggles of the congregation and there are many churches who do the good work of offering some real teaching on finances, but in general conversation, for one Christian to admit to a group of others that he has debt that is out of control is to admit that he is a failure. People tend to act supportive, but the rugged individualism of western Christianity presupposed that good people don’t have money problems.
I realize that this is far too general and that there are in fact many churches and Christians that are sympathetic to those with financial struggles. But there is a serious lack of open communication in Christian culture about money and how it should be spent. I believe that this is because certain camps have been established that polarize for many issues. There is one camp that believes that God helps those who help themselves that are in opposition to those who would rather listen to Joel Osteen’s advice on the matter. Likewise, there are conservative Christian who believe that the best hand up society can give is through the work of the local church who are opposed to those on the left who believe that charity is meaningless if it just perpetuates an unjust society. These ideologically opposing views may be useful in debates, but generally don’t open a line of communication that are representative of the authenticity that should be characteristic of Christianity.
And that is my real point. It isn’t about money and which churches are or are not dealing with the topic appropriately, but that modern, western Christianity is stuck in a paradoxical loop where it shares the defining characteristic of fundamentalism, but is deeply divided along ideological lines. Christianity has at many points along historical lines been shaped by its doctrine, or what it believes. Christianity is about something much more than that and it at its core about the event of God, to steal the wording from Caputo and Rollins. This event is universal and shared by those who deviate along doctrinal lines. However, Christianity should be able to transcend these doctrinal lines in discussion about truth in much the same way that it transcends them with service during times of tragedy. But since these doctrinal issues are so rooted and often shaped by cultural identities, communication is hindered as territories are protected.
In my recovery of and in Christianity I find that I am less concerned with what people believe than why they believe it. The relational ministry that so many Christians advocate for won’t be formed as long as it is rooted in protecting what we believe. Relational ministry, however, will begin to be formed when topics, even as taboo as money and sex, are discussed in forums rooted in stories. Topics such as homosexuality and abortion will not instantly invoke rhetoric, but will cause an inner discomfort that requires a faithfulness to resolve. Conversations with “non-believers” will be shaped not in proving God but in listening to what others mean by the name of God. As I consider how to conclude this entry all I can think of is how many of my good friends will disagree with this and that maybe I shouldn’t have shared my financial situation.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
WHY ISN’T GOD EMBARRASSED BY ME?
“When the chairman introduced the guest speaker as a former illegal alien, I got up from my chair and yelled, “What’s the matter, no jobs on Mars?” When no one laughed I was real embarrassed. I don’t think people should make you feel that way.” (Jack Handy)
The story I am about to share is one that I intentionally don’t share often. I made allude to the challenges of having a special needs child periodically, but for the sake of Bryce and because I don’t want to appear pandering, I have avoided the topic in this blog. However, dealing with the challenges that come from parenting a special needs child have shaped me in ways that are far too exhaustive to elaborate on in even the most focused of blogs. But there is a point from these experiences that I would like to utilize so please indulge me as skate the edge of manipulation.
Seven years ago Shannon and I were blessed with the birth of our first son. From the moment he was born it was obvious we were going to have a lifetime of challenges ahead of us. Bryce was born with craniosynostosis. This basically means that his skull was fused in the womb on one side of his little head. He was obviously misshaped. This meant that we would have to prepare for numerous reconstructive surgeries that would in essence remove pieces of Bryce’s skull and reattach them. This first set of challenges all took place within the first year and a half. We felt that we were done with the hard part by then and felt that the developmental delays Bryce was experiencing were related to the pure medical problems Bryce had and that he would quickly catch up. However, we would come to find out that his developmental delays were more problematic than we thought and that we would need to prepare for years of OT and PT therapy. We finally got a hold of this and began to move forward. However, yet again, we would come to discover that along with still having some physical disfigurements, physical delays that affect fine and gross motor skills, and being nonverbal, he also struggled with behavioral issues that may have resulted from brain injuries before birth. These are obviously significantly enhanced by frustrations with the other issues, but we put Bryce on behavior altering medication and it was one of the hardest decisions Shannon and I have ever made. At seven years old Bryce still has a lot stacked against him with every accomplishment being evidence of his resolve. He is still nonverbal, with a slightly misshaped head, in regular therapy to work on speech and motor skills, and is on medication for helping him deal with his behavioral issues.
Despite realizing all the challenges that Bryce has (now including a little brother that could care less about his challenges and will instigate trouble with him whenever possible), when Bryce throws a fit in public and refuses to do as he is told and I have to act in a way that I am sure appears to be an overreaction by people who don’t know Bryce, I feel embarrassed. This is difficult to admit because I don’t’ want to give the idea that I don’t love him and feel deeply sympathetic for him, but often my first feeling is one of embarrassment (which, often as a direct result, is followed by frustration). The point of this little story is that God doesn’t seem to get embarrassed by us when we act like brats in public. He somehow is able to understand our struggles not only when he is tucking us in at night and can see how much we really do love Him, but when we throw ourselves on the ground in the middle of the mall and screaming because we want to run up and down the stairs.
As Jesus hung on the cross he was able to say, “Forgive them for they know not what they do.” I understand that this request by Jesus for forgiveness was global, but it was written down by people that would one day put their faith in him. Jesus was saying these words to Judas who turned him in, Peter who denied knowing him, and the majority of the other disciples who hid. He was saying it to us as we act in a way that by any reasonable standard, should humiliate him for the way we act, for the way that we can act so selfish. In my recovery I have had to reconcile that the point isn’t that it is my sin that put him on the cross, but that even on that cross he had the dignity, patience, and love to understand me.
I am not convinced that Jesus had to go to the cross in order to reconcile our sins. That would not only invalidate free will, but would justify the position that Jesus’ death was a substitutionary sacrifice which would make God more of an economist than a God. However, I am sure of the fact that it is in His willingness to accept the fate of what he knew was coming and His ability to maintain his integrity and dignity through it that validated his divine authority. And nothing speaks to his integrity better than his ability to in the midst of a situation that is designed to bring about the greatest degree of pain and humiliation possible, be able to understand the reasons why we need His forgiveness in the first place.
Despite the evangelical proposition that we are forgiven because our sinful behavior and thoughts, regardless of how few we may have in relation to others, are nothing but ugliness in the eyes of God, Jesus was able to demonstrate that our sin is the selfish condition we are born into in this world with that predetermines a separation between us and God. As the perfect parent, God is able to understand why we act the way we act and love us anyway. He is able to calmly sit on the floor in the middle of the mall and ask us what is wrong, comfort us, and either prescribe appropriate discipline or just sit there with us regardless of how humiliating it should be for Him to do. It is His ability to become a fool for us that should empower us to become a fool for Him.
The story I am about to share is one that I intentionally don’t share often. I made allude to the challenges of having a special needs child periodically, but for the sake of Bryce and because I don’t want to appear pandering, I have avoided the topic in this blog. However, dealing with the challenges that come from parenting a special needs child have shaped me in ways that are far too exhaustive to elaborate on in even the most focused of blogs. But there is a point from these experiences that I would like to utilize so please indulge me as skate the edge of manipulation.
Seven years ago Shannon and I were blessed with the birth of our first son. From the moment he was born it was obvious we were going to have a lifetime of challenges ahead of us. Bryce was born with craniosynostosis. This basically means that his skull was fused in the womb on one side of his little head. He was obviously misshaped. This meant that we would have to prepare for numerous reconstructive surgeries that would in essence remove pieces of Bryce’s skull and reattach them. This first set of challenges all took place within the first year and a half. We felt that we were done with the hard part by then and felt that the developmental delays Bryce was experiencing were related to the pure medical problems Bryce had and that he would quickly catch up. However, we would come to find out that his developmental delays were more problematic than we thought and that we would need to prepare for years of OT and PT therapy. We finally got a hold of this and began to move forward. However, yet again, we would come to discover that along with still having some physical disfigurements, physical delays that affect fine and gross motor skills, and being nonverbal, he also struggled with behavioral issues that may have resulted from brain injuries before birth. These are obviously significantly enhanced by frustrations with the other issues, but we put Bryce on behavior altering medication and it was one of the hardest decisions Shannon and I have ever made. At seven years old Bryce still has a lot stacked against him with every accomplishment being evidence of his resolve. He is still nonverbal, with a slightly misshaped head, in regular therapy to work on speech and motor skills, and is on medication for helping him deal with his behavioral issues.
Despite realizing all the challenges that Bryce has (now including a little brother that could care less about his challenges and will instigate trouble with him whenever possible), when Bryce throws a fit in public and refuses to do as he is told and I have to act in a way that I am sure appears to be an overreaction by people who don’t know Bryce, I feel embarrassed. This is difficult to admit because I don’t’ want to give the idea that I don’t love him and feel deeply sympathetic for him, but often my first feeling is one of embarrassment (which, often as a direct result, is followed by frustration). The point of this little story is that God doesn’t seem to get embarrassed by us when we act like brats in public. He somehow is able to understand our struggles not only when he is tucking us in at night and can see how much we really do love Him, but when we throw ourselves on the ground in the middle of the mall and screaming because we want to run up and down the stairs.
As Jesus hung on the cross he was able to say, “Forgive them for they know not what they do.” I understand that this request by Jesus for forgiveness was global, but it was written down by people that would one day put their faith in him. Jesus was saying these words to Judas who turned him in, Peter who denied knowing him, and the majority of the other disciples who hid. He was saying it to us as we act in a way that by any reasonable standard, should humiliate him for the way we act, for the way that we can act so selfish. In my recovery I have had to reconcile that the point isn’t that it is my sin that put him on the cross, but that even on that cross he had the dignity, patience, and love to understand me.
I am not convinced that Jesus had to go to the cross in order to reconcile our sins. That would not only invalidate free will, but would justify the position that Jesus’ death was a substitutionary sacrifice which would make God more of an economist than a God. However, I am sure of the fact that it is in His willingness to accept the fate of what he knew was coming and His ability to maintain his integrity and dignity through it that validated his divine authority. And nothing speaks to his integrity better than his ability to in the midst of a situation that is designed to bring about the greatest degree of pain and humiliation possible, be able to understand the reasons why we need His forgiveness in the first place.
Despite the evangelical proposition that we are forgiven because our sinful behavior and thoughts, regardless of how few we may have in relation to others, are nothing but ugliness in the eyes of God, Jesus was able to demonstrate that our sin is the selfish condition we are born into in this world with that predetermines a separation between us and God. As the perfect parent, God is able to understand why we act the way we act and love us anyway. He is able to calmly sit on the floor in the middle of the mall and ask us what is wrong, comfort us, and either prescribe appropriate discipline or just sit there with us regardless of how humiliating it should be for Him to do. It is His ability to become a fool for us that should empower us to become a fool for Him.
Friday, October 22, 2010
I WANT TO BE CLINT HOWARD
“The road to success is always under construction” (Lilly Tomlin)
You know that kind of weird looking guy that is in some of those movies that always plays a quirky and somewhat strange character such as Creepy Rodney in My Name is Earl and Nipples in Little Nicky. You know his face, but you can never remember his name. You have heard that he is the brother of Ron Howard, but you have a hard time believing it because they don’t look like each other at all. His name is Clint Howard. I wouldn’t say that he had been type casted, but he has definitely found his niche. He has built a career on being the perfect fit for a role. He has the personality and looks, but he also has the reputation to deliver and to be noticed. I am not sure if this is true, but I would imagine that there was a time when Clint Howard compared his credentials to his brother’s and felt frustrated by how much less he has accomplished, but then recognized that success for Clint Howard was going to be different than the success of Ron Howard. Perhaps he embarked on an existential journey which weaved through the complexities of what and who he is and realized that not only could he probably not be the type of success that he once envisioned, but that to be the person that it would take to be that version of success would be so different than who he is that he wouldn’t enjoy the success once he got there.
I feel that I have embarked on a similar journey lately. Throughout my twenties I took on the daunting task of overcoming the person that I thought I was during adolescence. Through my adolescent years I was relatively happy, but felt that I was always perceived as an outcast. Once I hit my twenties I began to gain some confidence and competence through “finding my stride.” I spent that time attempting to reconcile a version of me that I was less than impressed with. This typically took on the tone of creating benchmarks of success in social, professional, and spiritual settings. However, in those times that I was able to get close to those benchmarks (yet never obtaining them) I experienced such inner angst that I would end up doubting everything that was me. Here is the kicker, now that I am in my thirties I am beginning to see that the outcast teen wasn’t as much of an outcast that I thought. Or at least everyone had similar feelings periodically. So I spent nearly fifteen years of my life trying to overcome an image of me that was false to begin with while never liking what I had to become to reach those goals.
What does this all have to do with my recovery in Christianity? The evangelical landscape of modern Christianity is largely, if not completely, a shinier version the Holiness movement and the doctrine of Christian perfection of the late 19th century. This tradition, while having some contribution to the larger Christian landscape and meeting a direct need at the time, is a twisted version of the Grace of God that understands perfection as largely moral and sanctification as largely the work of humanity. While the holiness movement was birthed out of the work of John Wesley, it took discipleship to an unhealthy level. The Christian landscape of today has either abandoned holiness all together or remained almost identical with the 19th century version with more culturally acceptable terminology. In the process of revising this theology, a cheaper version of holiness was adopted in which a “name it, claim it” doctrine evolved. People became more spiritual, but remained just as humanistic. Regardless of the doctrine specific version of what it looks like today, the goal is ultimately the same- moral perfection equal spiritual maturity.
The perfection I now seek is the same type of perfection described to Jesus in Hebrews: a perfection in purpose and meaning. I no longer strive for the success solicited to me by the doctrine of Christian perfection, but one that which makes me feel alive. Now I write this with such conviction that it may appear to be a complete work within me. But the truth is that I drove home yesterday through an affluent neighborhood and became frustrated with my own job search. The truth is that when I post this blog entry I will check it a hundred times that day to see if anyone went to the site. The truth is that I will struggle with feelings of not being recognized the way I feel I should be. The truth is that I am still in recovery.
You know that kind of weird looking guy that is in some of those movies that always plays a quirky and somewhat strange character such as Creepy Rodney in My Name is Earl and Nipples in Little Nicky. You know his face, but you can never remember his name. You have heard that he is the brother of Ron Howard, but you have a hard time believing it because they don’t look like each other at all. His name is Clint Howard. I wouldn’t say that he had been type casted, but he has definitely found his niche. He has built a career on being the perfect fit for a role. He has the personality and looks, but he also has the reputation to deliver and to be noticed. I am not sure if this is true, but I would imagine that there was a time when Clint Howard compared his credentials to his brother’s and felt frustrated by how much less he has accomplished, but then recognized that success for Clint Howard was going to be different than the success of Ron Howard. Perhaps he embarked on an existential journey which weaved through the complexities of what and who he is and realized that not only could he probably not be the type of success that he once envisioned, but that to be the person that it would take to be that version of success would be so different than who he is that he wouldn’t enjoy the success once he got there.
I feel that I have embarked on a similar journey lately. Throughout my twenties I took on the daunting task of overcoming the person that I thought I was during adolescence. Through my adolescent years I was relatively happy, but felt that I was always perceived as an outcast. Once I hit my twenties I began to gain some confidence and competence through “finding my stride.” I spent that time attempting to reconcile a version of me that I was less than impressed with. This typically took on the tone of creating benchmarks of success in social, professional, and spiritual settings. However, in those times that I was able to get close to those benchmarks (yet never obtaining them) I experienced such inner angst that I would end up doubting everything that was me. Here is the kicker, now that I am in my thirties I am beginning to see that the outcast teen wasn’t as much of an outcast that I thought. Or at least everyone had similar feelings periodically. So I spent nearly fifteen years of my life trying to overcome an image of me that was false to begin with while never liking what I had to become to reach those goals.
What does this all have to do with my recovery in Christianity? The evangelical landscape of modern Christianity is largely, if not completely, a shinier version the Holiness movement and the doctrine of Christian perfection of the late 19th century. This tradition, while having some contribution to the larger Christian landscape and meeting a direct need at the time, is a twisted version of the Grace of God that understands perfection as largely moral and sanctification as largely the work of humanity. While the holiness movement was birthed out of the work of John Wesley, it took discipleship to an unhealthy level. The Christian landscape of today has either abandoned holiness all together or remained almost identical with the 19th century version with more culturally acceptable terminology. In the process of revising this theology, a cheaper version of holiness was adopted in which a “name it, claim it” doctrine evolved. People became more spiritual, but remained just as humanistic. Regardless of the doctrine specific version of what it looks like today, the goal is ultimately the same- moral perfection equal spiritual maturity.
The perfection I now seek is the same type of perfection described to Jesus in Hebrews: a perfection in purpose and meaning. I no longer strive for the success solicited to me by the doctrine of Christian perfection, but one that which makes me feel alive. Now I write this with such conviction that it may appear to be a complete work within me. But the truth is that I drove home yesterday through an affluent neighborhood and became frustrated with my own job search. The truth is that when I post this blog entry I will check it a hundred times that day to see if anyone went to the site. The truth is that I will struggle with feelings of not being recognized the way I feel I should be. The truth is that I am still in recovery.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
BACK TO THE PRESENT
“What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: Our life is the creation of our mind.” (Buddha)
Recently I spent some time in New Orleans at a conference. I was presenting and didn’t feel much need to go more sessions than I was interested in. The conference isn’t in my particular field either so I didn’t have a lot of friends there to hang out there with. This gave me a lot of time to wander the streets of New Orleans. As I wandered the streets of New Orleans aimlessly enjoying the energetic culture while saddened by the underlying grief, I found myself enjoying the opportunity to roam the streets of a new city. I was able to take in its culture, eat its food, and listen to its music. However, I realized that despite the fact that over the past couple of years I have had the opportunity to visit cities across the country speaking as an expert in my field, hiking the mountains with Shannon for our anniversary last summer has been the best vacation I have had in years. This acceptance of my contemplative paradigm has intersected with personal readings of Thomas Merton, John Caputo, and Peter Rollins. In each of these books I am exploring the necessary rejection of the church (and even Christ himself) to truly embrace either. The argument being that it is in rejecting Christ that we are demonstrating deeper commitment to him. In fact, it is the rejection of the church and my faith that is the deep expression of my love for each. These two compelling reflections (my contemplative personality and my postmodern deconstruction of the institution and faith) have left me wondering who I am. The moving target of self actualization is grounded in specific certainties, but must be open to the evolving development and philosophical realities exasperated by particular life experiences.
Once home I contemplated my core values, aligned them with my basic strengths, explored my evolving theology, and balanced each of these with my undeniable personality. Yet I still didn’t know who I was. So I approached it a little more rationally by pulling out my vita and looked at how I have defined myself on paper and surveyed my education and professional experiences. Still not sure. So then I took a relational approach and looked at those in my life who I love and who love me. Even though these help shape me, I still have little understanding of who I am. It is then that I realized that the battle that rages within has little to do with who I actually am, but who I wish I was. There is incongruence between my real and my ideal self. Each of these things help shape the real me, but I have an ideal version of who I wish I were that causes so much frustration. The older I get the more I become frustrated. The more people in my life that I want to be that person for the more frustrated I become. The clearer idea I have about the things that I am passionate about the more frustrated I become. So as an analytical person I begin to map out this frustration and realize that not only does my real and ideal self not match, but both my real and ideal self are always changing.
Merton tells us that contemplatives are drawn into the darkness not to seek God, but by incongruence of this life. However, it is in the darkness that contemplatives find God, possibly knowing the whole time that it wouldn’t be until they get there, the depths of their own thoughts that they would find the only thing that they seek. The following posts will likely all sound incomplete and seem to have little direction. This is because I am inviting you into my darkness. Not a darkness of depression, but a darkness of unknowing: a darkness of not knowing how to merge my real and ideal, my past and present, my present and future, the ontological and the narrative.
Recently I spent some time in New Orleans at a conference. I was presenting and didn’t feel much need to go more sessions than I was interested in. The conference isn’t in my particular field either so I didn’t have a lot of friends there to hang out there with. This gave me a lot of time to wander the streets of New Orleans. As I wandered the streets of New Orleans aimlessly enjoying the energetic culture while saddened by the underlying grief, I found myself enjoying the opportunity to roam the streets of a new city. I was able to take in its culture, eat its food, and listen to its music. However, I realized that despite the fact that over the past couple of years I have had the opportunity to visit cities across the country speaking as an expert in my field, hiking the mountains with Shannon for our anniversary last summer has been the best vacation I have had in years. This acceptance of my contemplative paradigm has intersected with personal readings of Thomas Merton, John Caputo, and Peter Rollins. In each of these books I am exploring the necessary rejection of the church (and even Christ himself) to truly embrace either. The argument being that it is in rejecting Christ that we are demonstrating deeper commitment to him. In fact, it is the rejection of the church and my faith that is the deep expression of my love for each. These two compelling reflections (my contemplative personality and my postmodern deconstruction of the institution and faith) have left me wondering who I am. The moving target of self actualization is grounded in specific certainties, but must be open to the evolving development and philosophical realities exasperated by particular life experiences.
Once home I contemplated my core values, aligned them with my basic strengths, explored my evolving theology, and balanced each of these with my undeniable personality. Yet I still didn’t know who I was. So I approached it a little more rationally by pulling out my vita and looked at how I have defined myself on paper and surveyed my education and professional experiences. Still not sure. So then I took a relational approach and looked at those in my life who I love and who love me. Even though these help shape me, I still have little understanding of who I am. It is then that I realized that the battle that rages within has little to do with who I actually am, but who I wish I was. There is incongruence between my real and my ideal self. Each of these things help shape the real me, but I have an ideal version of who I wish I were that causes so much frustration. The older I get the more I become frustrated. The more people in my life that I want to be that person for the more frustrated I become. The clearer idea I have about the things that I am passionate about the more frustrated I become. So as an analytical person I begin to map out this frustration and realize that not only does my real and ideal self not match, but both my real and ideal self are always changing.
Merton tells us that contemplatives are drawn into the darkness not to seek God, but by incongruence of this life. However, it is in the darkness that contemplatives find God, possibly knowing the whole time that it wouldn’t be until they get there, the depths of their own thoughts that they would find the only thing that they seek. The following posts will likely all sound incomplete and seem to have little direction. This is because I am inviting you into my darkness. Not a darkness of depression, but a darkness of unknowing: a darkness of not knowing how to merge my real and ideal, my past and present, my present and future, the ontological and the narrative.
EXTRINSIC VALUES
(Since writing this almost four years ago I have come to see that the problem that I discuss in these paragraphs is not one of institutionalism, but of theology. Postmoderns refer to two forms of the future: “absolute future” and “present future.” The absolute future refers to the impossible possible. It is what can only be discovered when we don’t know exactly what we are looking for. The present future is what can be adequately planned. The present future is not necessarily bad, but the argument goes that when we live within a present future paradigm then we experience the best that can happen before we ever set out to discover it. Now there is an obvious need to make plans, but when the destination is pre-determined then not only do we typically not get much further, we usually enjoy the fruit before we ever embark. As one that does strategic planning and assessment for a living, I find new opportunities and challenges with this philosophy, but as I contemplate the church I see that it is this that causes the business mindset. When doctrine is limited to benchmarks of success then the success of the church is likewise limited and pre-determined. If you are an evangelical reading this you may say that that is where the Holy Spirit intercedes, but I would argue that the modern theology and structure of the church has often predetermined the work of the Holy Spirit as well.)
A fundamental dynamic of the institutional church is organization. There is typically a staff position for as many significant ministries that the church budget can support. For every negative that can be mentioned regarding this business model, there is a positive. I believe that there is confusion here with many that are frustrated with the institutional church. Those that are frustrated tend to often address the programming of the church. Despite the justified argument that a program saturated ministry is unable to build significant relationships, (which I disagree is absolutely true) the programming of the institutional church is not the greatest dilemma in the church. The dilemma, however, is directly related to the programming focus of the church.
When a church becomes defined by the individual ministry areas in a church that are established under a central accountability then program directors, senior and associate pastors, and support staff have to be evaluated by certain and reasonably established criteria. The most notable criterion is success. At this point it sounds very reasonable. A church needs someone to organize a children’s ministry because there are enough children in the church that it becomes a special interest. The church then seeks out a children’s minister. The first thing that they do is establish a job description and goal for the program. They then seek out someone they feel can meet those criteria. Once that person is found then the job description becomes the expectations and guidelines for the ministry. If the person is unable to follows the guidelines or produce the success that the church felt was important then perhaps someone else would better fit the position.
However, the problem becomes that the organizational standards, ministry success, church vision, and individual’s value are going to be directly connected to the established standards. There are going to be churches that are able to see beyond the job description, be open to revelation, and are capable of discerning God’s call on an individual’s life to a certain ministry, but for every church that is capable of such things there are many more that are not. That means that the vast majority of churches live under the umbrella of extrinsic values, or values established by tangible, terrestrial, or otherwise human values.
Extrinsic values are one of the greatest problems of the contemporary church. I realize and appreciate benchmarks of success. Some examples of extrinsic values in the church are “the more the better”, “all things in moderation”, “enthusiastic atmosphere”, “a great show”, and “stewardship campaigns”. None of these are bad in and of themselves, however, when the church leadership is limited to work within such a narrow description of success then despite the blatant manipulation and the lack of reason with putting the “cart before the horse” the church is setting itself up to be only as good as the church down the street. This creates competition that hinders ministry, but it also develops superficial ministry.
The institutional church isn’t so much in trouble for becoming irrelevant as it is incidental. There are probably going to always be people in the church that find ministry in the church that takes them to the next level. But the church program is not what led to this discipleship. It is the person seeking God, the relationship that person has with a mentor at the church, and the grace of God. God is capable of doing great things in peoples’ lives regardless of their circumstances. For most people, they have to break through the limitations of the church in order to experience God.
The church needs to learn that ministry is not about success, a good image, growth, or even a content congregation. These things may or may not come. These are extrinsic values that can be useful for measuring intrinsic values, but are ultimately empty of truth. Success should be measured by relationships, integrity, sacrifice, justice, truth, intimacy. Don’t allow yourself to compromise as you plan your strategy. Don’t allow yourself to seek the approval of man. Remember why you first responded to the call, not to the church that you presently serve, but the calling to serve Christ.
A fundamental dynamic of the institutional church is organization. There is typically a staff position for as many significant ministries that the church budget can support. For every negative that can be mentioned regarding this business model, there is a positive. I believe that there is confusion here with many that are frustrated with the institutional church. Those that are frustrated tend to often address the programming of the church. Despite the justified argument that a program saturated ministry is unable to build significant relationships, (which I disagree is absolutely true) the programming of the institutional church is not the greatest dilemma in the church. The dilemma, however, is directly related to the programming focus of the church.
When a church becomes defined by the individual ministry areas in a church that are established under a central accountability then program directors, senior and associate pastors, and support staff have to be evaluated by certain and reasonably established criteria. The most notable criterion is success. At this point it sounds very reasonable. A church needs someone to organize a children’s ministry because there are enough children in the church that it becomes a special interest. The church then seeks out a children’s minister. The first thing that they do is establish a job description and goal for the program. They then seek out someone they feel can meet those criteria. Once that person is found then the job description becomes the expectations and guidelines for the ministry. If the person is unable to follows the guidelines or produce the success that the church felt was important then perhaps someone else would better fit the position.
However, the problem becomes that the organizational standards, ministry success, church vision, and individual’s value are going to be directly connected to the established standards. There are going to be churches that are able to see beyond the job description, be open to revelation, and are capable of discerning God’s call on an individual’s life to a certain ministry, but for every church that is capable of such things there are many more that are not. That means that the vast majority of churches live under the umbrella of extrinsic values, or values established by tangible, terrestrial, or otherwise human values.
Extrinsic values are one of the greatest problems of the contemporary church. I realize and appreciate benchmarks of success. Some examples of extrinsic values in the church are “the more the better”, “all things in moderation”, “enthusiastic atmosphere”, “a great show”, and “stewardship campaigns”. None of these are bad in and of themselves, however, when the church leadership is limited to work within such a narrow description of success then despite the blatant manipulation and the lack of reason with putting the “cart before the horse” the church is setting itself up to be only as good as the church down the street. This creates competition that hinders ministry, but it also develops superficial ministry.
The institutional church isn’t so much in trouble for becoming irrelevant as it is incidental. There are probably going to always be people in the church that find ministry in the church that takes them to the next level. But the church program is not what led to this discipleship. It is the person seeking God, the relationship that person has with a mentor at the church, and the grace of God. God is capable of doing great things in peoples’ lives regardless of their circumstances. For most people, they have to break through the limitations of the church in order to experience God.
The church needs to learn that ministry is not about success, a good image, growth, or even a content congregation. These things may or may not come. These are extrinsic values that can be useful for measuring intrinsic values, but are ultimately empty of truth. Success should be measured by relationships, integrity, sacrifice, justice, truth, intimacy. Don’t allow yourself to compromise as you plan your strategy. Don’t allow yourself to seek the approval of man. Remember why you first responded to the call, not to the church that you presently serve, but the calling to serve Christ.
Friday, October 15, 2010
INABILITY TO CHANGE
(When I originally wrote this four years or so ago I apparently never even considered the ability that first generation churches have to do things different. Surprisingly, where I am today, I would continue to think that most first generation churches don’t do things all that differently than where they came from. Many of these first generation churches, while having a fresh enthusiasm, are not much different than the church that most came from. When they are different, they quickly return to looking like the church they came from once the first building campaign begins or the next generation of leadership takes over. They may still grow rapidly, but the core doctrine and approach to ministry is the same. That said, I also realize that there are many churches, first generation or not, who really value innovation in programming and are genuinely committed to new revelation. Many so called emerging churches, for example, are seeking out truly innovative means of ministry while avoiding the temptation to simply be trendy. Likewise, many churches are exploring more social activism and relational ministry opportunities. That said, as I contemplate visiting churches again, the one thing I know is that I won’t visit any church that is less than ten years old.)
The fourth major problem with the institutional church is its inability to change. I believe that there are both understandable and practical reasons as well as reasons that might not be so reasonable. Regardless of why so many institutions are unable to change is not as significant as the fact that there seems to be little desire to change.
I understand that it takes a lot of work to change a system. This change can be a huge risk. A church can work for decades at developing a system that at least works to a limited degree. Committees are established, leadership is put in place, gifts and talents are identified, and stability is achieved. Through this stability there is usually a great deal of money involved that is both doing significant and meaningful ministry as well as money that is simply going into maintenance. When a new idea is introduced by either an individual or group there is a lot at stake if it doesn’t work out. The church could be set back decades if the idea didn’t work the way that the leadership hoped it would. The consequences could affect the established and effective ministry as well. I also understand the concern it can take so much work to get things to work in a church as is; to introduce a new idea that radically affects the work load might not be able to bring the support that is needed by the staff and congregation. I put this into the understandable category because I can identify personally with not wanting to ask my leadership to come to more meetings, planning and prayer sessions, and do more “stuff”. I think that to do this would require people to do more volunteering and less ministry.
But there are also many reasons why it is difficult to change that are significantly less understandable. For example, when a new direction or vision is introduced a power struggle can quickly emerge. This is natural regardless of how institutional a church or organization might be. Even if the congregation and staff agree with the new vision, how that vision is to work is going to be argued. This is both a healthy and natural as well as a dysfunctional reality. It is healthy to feel free to openly discuss and even argue how something should be done, but when it leads to manipulation, compromise, exploitation, and hierarchy it becomes very dangerous. For this reason many churches will avoid any controversial move.
So then how can the church get to a place where it is able to change? There are a few obvious answers here such as prayer, practicing the discipline of guidance, encourage open dialog, and practice risk taking. But because these are so obvious I feel that if churches are not doing these things then simply reminding them of the need to is not going to change things for very long. There are also some good strategic techniques such as building relationships with change agents. But again, there needs to be more. Prophets have historically been persecuted in the church, but it is only through the prophetic word that change occurs. So where are the prophets?
The fourth major problem with the institutional church is its inability to change. I believe that there are both understandable and practical reasons as well as reasons that might not be so reasonable. Regardless of why so many institutions are unable to change is not as significant as the fact that there seems to be little desire to change.
I understand that it takes a lot of work to change a system. This change can be a huge risk. A church can work for decades at developing a system that at least works to a limited degree. Committees are established, leadership is put in place, gifts and talents are identified, and stability is achieved. Through this stability there is usually a great deal of money involved that is both doing significant and meaningful ministry as well as money that is simply going into maintenance. When a new idea is introduced by either an individual or group there is a lot at stake if it doesn’t work out. The church could be set back decades if the idea didn’t work the way that the leadership hoped it would. The consequences could affect the established and effective ministry as well. I also understand the concern it can take so much work to get things to work in a church as is; to introduce a new idea that radically affects the work load might not be able to bring the support that is needed by the staff and congregation. I put this into the understandable category because I can identify personally with not wanting to ask my leadership to come to more meetings, planning and prayer sessions, and do more “stuff”. I think that to do this would require people to do more volunteering and less ministry.
But there are also many reasons why it is difficult to change that are significantly less understandable. For example, when a new direction or vision is introduced a power struggle can quickly emerge. This is natural regardless of how institutional a church or organization might be. Even if the congregation and staff agree with the new vision, how that vision is to work is going to be argued. This is both a healthy and natural as well as a dysfunctional reality. It is healthy to feel free to openly discuss and even argue how something should be done, but when it leads to manipulation, compromise, exploitation, and hierarchy it becomes very dangerous. For this reason many churches will avoid any controversial move.
So then how can the church get to a place where it is able to change? There are a few obvious answers here such as prayer, practicing the discipline of guidance, encourage open dialog, and practice risk taking. But because these are so obvious I feel that if churches are not doing these things then simply reminding them of the need to is not going to change things for very long. There are also some good strategic techniques such as building relationships with change agents. But again, there needs to be more. Prophets have historically been persecuted in the church, but it is only through the prophetic word that change occurs. So where are the prophets?
Monday, October 11, 2010
IRRELEVANT DOCTRINE
(As I read this through preparing to post it I am a little embarrassed. This was written at the same time as all the other posts in this section [about four years ago] but this one in particular demonstrates how torn I was between the institution and my faith. There is no doubt that I was obviously frustrated with the church, but I was also trying to defend it, or at least give it the opportunity to redeem itself. As I have developed over the past few years and began to seek out places where I might fit, it is with the doctrine of the church that I find myself most different. Whereas when this was written it showed an allegiance to the doctrine of the church but a frustration with the institution that manages that doctrine, I have now come to be less concerned with the institution and much more focused on my own theology and how that will shape my “calling”. So I guess all that I ask as you read this entry, if you can make yourself read it, is to observe my struggle with making sense of frustrations with a system that I no longer at home in and a theology that didn’t fit me.)
I see there being a distinct difference between doctrine and theology. This is not to say that it is not the goal of doctrine to reflect sound theology. However, doctrine is rooted in principles while theology is rooted in understanding. Therefore, doctrine is rooted in cultural perspectives while theology is rooted in experience. Both should be in a constant state of progress, but because of the rigid nature of principles, doctrine is less fluid. That said, some doctrine is birthed out of progressive culture and is beneficial to the church. The argument of sanctification is an excellent example of how a theology and doctrine coincided and birthed a model that enhanced the scriptural integrity of the institution. However, there is some doctrine that has not undergone scrutiny in the 20th century church that perpetuates a doctrinal allegiance rather than a theological foundation such as tithing, forms of worship, understanding of evangelism, and what the authority of scripture means. These are but a few of the examples that have found their way into the church through cultural perspectives that are neither scriptural nor productive for a postmodern church.
To completely exhaust the inconsistencies between doctrine, theology, and scripture would be, well, exhausting. Not to mention well beyond my competency. However, I do believe that there are many doctrinal issues serving the institution that are turning people away from Christ. Many of these doctrines, or at least the principle of these doctrines, are less about scriptural integrity than about territory, control, and the continued exploitation of church goers. As long as the church continues to fear addressing these issues, the church will grow in its doctrine that is irrelevant and destructive. I believe that the local church, however, can lead the way in what it means to be a community of believers. I believe that the local church can learn to be an organic and learning community. I believe that it is possible to learn to listen to people’s questions and to question the way we do things without the fear of losing authority. This again can be led by individuals in positions of influence that will stand up and question these things, people that do not fear the repercussions that come from standing out. I believe that the church is in need of great men and women of God that will lead the church into a new world. There are no practical steps that I can offer here. To question such things will surely be viewed as rebellious. To stand for truth has always been encountered with resistance. But true leaders will rise in or out of the church that will make a stand. Think of how great it would be if it came from within the church rather than outside of it.
I see there being a distinct difference between doctrine and theology. This is not to say that it is not the goal of doctrine to reflect sound theology. However, doctrine is rooted in principles while theology is rooted in understanding. Therefore, doctrine is rooted in cultural perspectives while theology is rooted in experience. Both should be in a constant state of progress, but because of the rigid nature of principles, doctrine is less fluid. That said, some doctrine is birthed out of progressive culture and is beneficial to the church. The argument of sanctification is an excellent example of how a theology and doctrine coincided and birthed a model that enhanced the scriptural integrity of the institution. However, there is some doctrine that has not undergone scrutiny in the 20th century church that perpetuates a doctrinal allegiance rather than a theological foundation such as tithing, forms of worship, understanding of evangelism, and what the authority of scripture means. These are but a few of the examples that have found their way into the church through cultural perspectives that are neither scriptural nor productive for a postmodern church.
To completely exhaust the inconsistencies between doctrine, theology, and scripture would be, well, exhausting. Not to mention well beyond my competency. However, I do believe that there are many doctrinal issues serving the institution that are turning people away from Christ. Many of these doctrines, or at least the principle of these doctrines, are less about scriptural integrity than about territory, control, and the continued exploitation of church goers. As long as the church continues to fear addressing these issues, the church will grow in its doctrine that is irrelevant and destructive. I believe that the local church, however, can lead the way in what it means to be a community of believers. I believe that the local church can learn to be an organic and learning community. I believe that it is possible to learn to listen to people’s questions and to question the way we do things without the fear of losing authority. This again can be led by individuals in positions of influence that will stand up and question these things, people that do not fear the repercussions that come from standing out. I believe that the church is in need of great men and women of God that will lead the church into a new world. There are no practical steps that I can offer here. To question such things will surely be viewed as rebellious. To stand for truth has always been encountered with resistance. But true leaders will rise in or out of the church that will make a stand. Think of how great it would be if it came from within the church rather than outside of it.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
MODERN TRAPPINGS
(Kind of a dumb title, I know, but when I first wrote this five years ago I was still trying to figure out this postmodern business. At that time my understanding of postmodernism was still pretty limited to the contemporary church’s understanding about it. I was just beginning to move beyond how it was a generational issue or an opportunity for marketing and was really beginning to explore the issue. So as you read this entry keep in mind that even though I still hold to many of these ideas, they were written in a period of ignorance. But if most of my ideas on postmodernism and the role for the church have changed so much since writing this, why would I post it? The answer has two parts. The first is that I feel that there might be many professional ministers out there beginning to see the same patterns. The second is because I want to continue to demonstrate that my struggles with the institution were there when I was an active part of it. In other words, my criticisms are not written out of resentment but out of a genuine search for understanding.)
When the modern church was birthed it brought about a revival for not only Protestants, but for the entire church community. This modern church offered people the opportunity to seek God with new freedom and discipleship. As the world was changing so was the Christian. There was now an invitation to become more than one’s limitations. The church adopted cultural beliefs regarding conquest and adapted them for the initiatives behind missions and evangelism. For a time, the move in culture opened the door for the church to experience revival of a dry doctrine, repentance from sinful leadership, and renewal of what faith could look like. However, as the modern culture began to develop beyond the initial shift, many of the initial movements began to become problematic. This was true for the church as well as for the rest of society. In culture, modernity led to conquest and control, anxiety and frustration, narrow-minded absolutism, hyper-analysis, rationalism, and consumerism. The story was the same in the church. The very thing that led to revival was now leading to destruction.
Culture at large has identified the trappings of modernity and is quickly challenging the old paradigm. The contemporary church, with the exception of a few, refuses to challenge the way the church works and is thus separating itself from not only culture, but the integrity that comes with addressing these flaws. The postmodern culture is just as flawed, if not more so, than the modern paradigm. The world is no healthier from the postmodern movement, but the church could be. The church has an opportunity to listen to culture’s challenges of the old paradigm and the trappings that accompanied and to reform the church to not only regain its lost integrity, but give ministry to culture in new and relevant ways. But as long as we continue to compete with other churches, maintain a rigid doctrine, use the old language, and all the other trappings of modernity then we will only give way to a new church outside of the institution. Hungry people will seek God, but it is up to the church whether they want to feed the people or not.
When the modern church was birthed it brought about a revival for not only Protestants, but for the entire church community. This modern church offered people the opportunity to seek God with new freedom and discipleship. As the world was changing so was the Christian. There was now an invitation to become more than one’s limitations. The church adopted cultural beliefs regarding conquest and adapted them for the initiatives behind missions and evangelism. For a time, the move in culture opened the door for the church to experience revival of a dry doctrine, repentance from sinful leadership, and renewal of what faith could look like. However, as the modern culture began to develop beyond the initial shift, many of the initial movements began to become problematic. This was true for the church as well as for the rest of society. In culture, modernity led to conquest and control, anxiety and frustration, narrow-minded absolutism, hyper-analysis, rationalism, and consumerism. The story was the same in the church. The very thing that led to revival was now leading to destruction.
Culture at large has identified the trappings of modernity and is quickly challenging the old paradigm. The contemporary church, with the exception of a few, refuses to challenge the way the church works and is thus separating itself from not only culture, but the integrity that comes with addressing these flaws. The postmodern culture is just as flawed, if not more so, than the modern paradigm. The world is no healthier from the postmodern movement, but the church could be. The church has an opportunity to listen to culture’s challenges of the old paradigm and the trappings that accompanied and to reform the church to not only regain its lost integrity, but give ministry to culture in new and relevant ways. But as long as we continue to compete with other churches, maintain a rigid doctrine, use the old language, and all the other trappings of modernity then we will only give way to a new church outside of the institution. Hungry people will seek God, but it is up to the church whether they want to feed the people or not.
Friday, October 1, 2010
INSTITUTIONAL MAINTENANCE
(As a college minister in the local church, I had the benefit of sitting just behind the front lines of church growth ministry. I still participated and attempted to intersect my responsibilities with certain activities of the church, but for the most part I could watch what was driving church programming a little more objectively than most. The issue of institutional maintenance was the defining characteristic of the church for when I was in the process of disengaging from it. Since leaving the church I can see how much self-preservation drives “secular” activity as well, but the thought of the church using the name of God for personal reasons was very difficult for me. Remember as you read the following blog that it was written as a journal entry within the last few months of my time as a professional minister. If you don’t pick up on it, much of these words were written by a mix of conflicting ideas and outright anger.)
The most significant issue facing the church today is that the structuring, programming, ministry, and services all exist with the primary purpose of ensuring that the organization continues to exist. I don’t feel that leaders in a church are aware of this function of the church programming because I feel that for the most part, leaders feel a genuine sense of passion and calling for both the church and Christ. However, when one looks at how the church operates there is much evidence to support this conclusion. Many church lay and clergy leaders view success in ministry as the building up of not only the Kingdom of God, but their own organization. Every new visitor is quickly evaluated to see how the person can best serve not only the Kingdom, but the organization. If the person is skilled, then there is competition between departments for the new member. The organization will then use the results of these skills and talents to compare how they are doing in relation to other churches. The winner of the competition typically is the one with the greatest resources. Another argument that supports institutional maintenance is the emphasis on tithing and membership expectations. This exploitation of visitors and members is dangerous and needs to be discussed openly by church leadership. Again, I do not feel that this is a deliberate exploitation, but one with damaging results.
If there is any hope in the church reclaiming its integrity there are things that can be done. Church leadership is going to have to lead the way by setting the example, standing up against injustices and manipulations, transparency must increase, open dialogue must be promoted, power structures must be realigned, the clergy and finance system must be analyzed, and true priorities must be established. The most significant change is evaluating motives and reasons for programs. Many well intended churches strive to create an environment of enthusiasm in the hopes that the enthusiasm will generate interest in the church. From here, as the model works, once the person becomes interested in the church then the person will become involved in the church with either leadership or attendance. The next step would be that through the involvement in the church people would explore spiritual growth. This seems to have worked well for many. But it is not biblical. The church shouldn’t offer enthusiasm in the hopes that it would lead to intimacy. It should offer intimacy in the knowledge that intimacy will lead to enthusiasm. The growth of the church cannot happen as long as we hope that our program is good enough to build the church with a slight hope that this church growth will lead to discipleship. It will, however, grow when we realize that we need to offer something significant. This radical shift would certainly turn many away from the church. This is ultimately a good thing as it would promote the health of the Body of the size of its belly.
The most significant issue facing the church today is that the structuring, programming, ministry, and services all exist with the primary purpose of ensuring that the organization continues to exist. I don’t feel that leaders in a church are aware of this function of the church programming because I feel that for the most part, leaders feel a genuine sense of passion and calling for both the church and Christ. However, when one looks at how the church operates there is much evidence to support this conclusion. Many church lay and clergy leaders view success in ministry as the building up of not only the Kingdom of God, but their own organization. Every new visitor is quickly evaluated to see how the person can best serve not only the Kingdom, but the organization. If the person is skilled, then there is competition between departments for the new member. The organization will then use the results of these skills and talents to compare how they are doing in relation to other churches. The winner of the competition typically is the one with the greatest resources. Another argument that supports institutional maintenance is the emphasis on tithing and membership expectations. This exploitation of visitors and members is dangerous and needs to be discussed openly by church leadership. Again, I do not feel that this is a deliberate exploitation, but one with damaging results.
If there is any hope in the church reclaiming its integrity there are things that can be done. Church leadership is going to have to lead the way by setting the example, standing up against injustices and manipulations, transparency must increase, open dialogue must be promoted, power structures must be realigned, the clergy and finance system must be analyzed, and true priorities must be established. The most significant change is evaluating motives and reasons for programs. Many well intended churches strive to create an environment of enthusiasm in the hopes that the enthusiasm will generate interest in the church. From here, as the model works, once the person becomes interested in the church then the person will become involved in the church with either leadership or attendance. The next step would be that through the involvement in the church people would explore spiritual growth. This seems to have worked well for many. But it is not biblical. The church shouldn’t offer enthusiasm in the hopes that it would lead to intimacy. It should offer intimacy in the knowledge that intimacy will lead to enthusiasm. The growth of the church cannot happen as long as we hope that our program is good enough to build the church with a slight hope that this church growth will lead to discipleship. It will, however, grow when we realize that we need to offer something significant. This radical shift would certainly turn many away from the church. This is ultimately a good thing as it would promote the health of the Body of the size of its belly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)