The Marx Brothers in a scene from "A Night At the Opera".
Friday, July 31, 2009
One source was a Havard Business School Podcast discussing the book, Discovery-Driven Growth. Rita McGrath, a co-author of the book, was discussing business agendas. She suggested that if growth (or anything else) was the priority for a business, it should be one of the first items on the agenda.
The other source was a discussion with a pastor. He said, “Throw away a church’s mission statement. The real way to know what the church believes is looking at its budget.” Where does the church put their financial resources? In a building? In a program?
Jesus said, “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Luke 12:34). For the institutional church, our treasure is money, time, and talent. Where do we set our priorities in these areas? Our agendas, budgets, and staffing are practical ways in which we establish where our heart will be. As the church plans for the upcoming year, this is certainly some good guidance.
Monday, July 27, 2009
There were indeed Puritans who claimed that America had a special place in God's providence. Some even described America as the "new Israel" led from slavery into the promised land. There is a natural temptation for such attitudes to devolve into the suggestion of divine approval for a country's actions right or wrong. Linker suggests that we should blame Calvin for this “theological self-confidence” among Americans that borders on “over-confidence.” Sadly, I don't find anything in Calvin's teaching that suggests that he would approve of associating an earthly realm with the Kingdom of God.
Calvin, who described the heart as an idol factory, would understand someone who turns a nation or an ideology into a god. Moreover, he would call it a sin.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Aldrin, a Presbyterian elder, wanted to give thanks to God on behalf of all people. The meal was to be a meal of thanksgiving or Eucharist (from the Greek, “eucharistos”). Aldrin wanted to offer a response to God for God's faithfulness. I am deeply moved that Aldrin would want to respond to God in that way.
The VOA report did not delve deeply into the theology, but I was interested in how Rev. Dean Woodruff prepared for the communion service. The article took pains to suggest that this was a “personal” or “private” act. However, it wasn't. In the Presbyterian Church, Communion is a communal act. The Lord's Supper is a sign and seal of our communion with God and with each other.
Several weeks prior to the launch of the Apollo 11, the Webster Presbyterian Church in Texas celebrated communion. After the worship service, a group of elders gathered with Buzz Aldrin. (Aldrin was restricted from contact with too many people.) During that time, Aldrin was given the bread and wine for communion. A benediction was not offered so that the Lord's Supper on the moon was in fact an extension of the worship service in Webster, Texas.
Aldrin on the moon gathered with those Presbyterians in Webster, Texas and with the saints of all time and places. Over 350,000 miles away, Buzz Aldrin remained in the presence of the Lord and the bosom of the Church.
For more information...
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Every year, our church sends reports to denominational officials. We send a host of numbers. There are budgets, membership statistics, worship attendance and a host of other facts and figures. Sadly, we do next to nothing with the numbers. They just sit on a shelf gathering dust.
I wonder what would happen if we used the numbers. I know many would balk at the thought. The church they argue is not a business. We can't quantify faithfulness. Attendance or the number of baptisms do not demonstrate the vitality of a congregation. I would agree.
If nothing else my degree in mathematics has shown me that numbers have hidden dangers. As an abstraction, they are useful to make comparisons or calculations, but valuable information disappears when we reduce people or objects to mere number. In The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupery, the narrator mentions the subtleties lost when adults are consumed by numbers.
"When you tell [adults] that you have made a new friend, they never ask you any questions about essential matters. They never say to you, 'What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies?' Instead, they demand: 'How old is he? How many brothers has he? How much does he weigh? How much money does his father make?' Only from these figures do they think they have learned anything about him."Another problem resulting from abstraction means that numbers can be manipulated for ill. Scientists have been caught using only data which confirmed their presuppositions and prejudices. Politicians and advertisers have manipulated public opinion with skewed or selective reporting. As Mark Twain once said, "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
The Scriptures also suggest a danger of numbers which might surprise some. Numbers can lead to the sin of pride. In the ancient world, taking a census was a sign of control and power. Kings used numbers to coerce populations through taxation and conscription into the army. In the Old Testament, God gave Moses specific instructions relating to a census to curb this temptation. Each person involved in the census had to pay a "ransom" as an offering to God (Exodus 30:11-16). An offering was a costly reminder to the leader that God was really the one in charge. The consequences for failing to follow these rules were severe. For example, King David later took an illegal census, and God punished the kingdom with a plague (2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21). I could just imagine a church pastor busting with pride as he recites the number of new members added this year. Heck, I have been that pastor.
HOW THEN SHALL WE MEASURE?
Nonetheless, we shouldn't ignore numbers. We must be on guard against abstraction, manipulation and pride, but church leaders shouldn't be blind to the results of their ministry.
Perhaps, we are just looking at the wrong numbers. The percentage of members who come to worship might be a more useful statistic than simply attendance. The number of youth who are still active in church after college is much more helpful than numbering the crowd who gathers weekly. I would assume that there are even more creative ways to measure a congregation's impact on the community.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
A long time ago, theology was called the “queen of the sciences”. All the other sciences took their cue from the findings of theology. Those days are gone forever. In the few universities where theology is still studied, no one seems interested in the insights of the theologians. I don’t completely decry the development. Angels dancing on pinheads probably shouldn’t bother physicists, and the weight of a soul shouldn’t consume the debates of biologists. Sadly, many of the modern theological debates seem just as esoteric as their medieval counterparts. No wonder, no one seems interested.
That being said, the pursuit of knowledge could benefit from some basic theological reflection. The sciences can pursue the hows, but only theology (or perhaps her handmaiden, philosophy) can explore the whys. Modern psychology might benefit from a serious reflection on the nature of sin. Business and biology programs should take into account ethical considerations. Our epistemology, paralyzed by subjectivity, could use a little Christian humility. Our schools do not need classes on “Intelligent Design” masquerading as natural science. Instead, we need citizens willing to wrestle with the limits of knowledge and our place in the moral order. The traditional resources and insights of Christian theology are just begging to be used.
You would think that theological reflection would at least be welcome in the church. Alas, even the church is looking for insight elsewhere. Many in the church’s leadership seem more comfortable discussing psychology and business management techniques. Meanwhile the traditional resources of the church--the Scriptures, the liturgy, and the Sacraments--are under-utilized. Theology remains an orphan.
Should the church ignore the insights of the world? I cannot sit in judgment. I read family-systems theory. I am a student of Peter Drucker. I like Thomas Jefferson. Still, I should be uncomfortable. I should allow the gospel to challenge my assumptions. Perhaps the queen shouldn’t lord over the sciences. Theology after all is not God. Instead, maybe the queen at best is prophet. She calls idols by name and counsels repentance. She calls us to follow Christ.
The queen is dead. Long live the queen.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
GROWING UP TREK
Growing up in the 1970s, Star Wars was supposed to be the cultural icon of my generation of geeks. I did have the Star Wars action figures, and I can quote from the climatic scenes. “Luke, you switched off your targeting computer. Is everything all right?” Still, my heart has always been with Star Trek. I grew up on the reruns, and the show has shaped my outlook and temperament. I identify with the optimism and democracy that the series championed. I would guess that my sense of politics is still greatly influenced by this show born in the light of John F. Kennedy's New Frontier.
Let's just accept the fact that Star Trek is not high art. Plot holes and inconsistencies abound despite the best efforts of the wiki-nerds working by the internet glow deep within the mines of Janus VI. In fact, it is primarily a clunky morality play with phasers and giant Styrofoam rocks. Behind most of the shows and movies, there were messages about hard choices, human fallibility, and realpolitik. Think Reinhold Niebuhr with warp drive.
Even the bad episodes or movies had an intriguing idea behind it. Remember the fifth film, The Final Frontier? It was hailed as one of the worst of the franchise. We got T.J. Hooker-style action sequences and Uhura fan-dancing. More importantly, the crew also searches for God, and the god that they find isn't what they want or expect. Great idea. Poor execution.
Kirk and Spock are the central figures in the show. The interplay between these two characters was the heart of the original series, and a recent blog post by Mark Finn made me think about my own connection. Finn writes, “Captain Kirk, without a doubt, went into the alchemy of what I thought constituted Being A Man.” Interestingly enough, Kirk was not my model of masculinity. Spock was. Friends in high school said I was a Vulcan, and I took it as a badge of honor. For me Spock represented rationality, duty, discipline, and devotion to a higher ideal. Nonetheless, Spock is not complete without Kirk. The two need each other. As Spock wrestled with the duality, I did too.
Although the theme is present in many of the episodes and movies, a few examples might clarify. In Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Spock refuses to complete the kohlinar, the purging of all emotion leaving only pure logic. In the same movie, V'ger serves as Spock's counterpart. The probe is programmed with a simple mission “to know that all is knowable.” Without the human component of imagination, intuition, etc, V'ger cannot complete its mission. Likewise Spock needs the human Kirk with his irrational passion.
Kirk also needs Spock. In Wrath of Khan, much is made about Kirk cheating the Kobayashi Maru test, the “no-win” scenario. The test is an affront to everything that Kirk believes. Like Odysseus or the biblical Jacob, Kirk is not beneath employing trickery and deception to achieve his goals. He cannot accept his limitations, and thus he is susceptible to hubris. At the end of the movie, Spock lays down his life for the crew of the Enterprise. He tells Kirk, “I never took the Kobayashi Maru test until now. What do you think of my solution?” By allowing the needs of the many to outweigh the needs of the few, Spock redeems the lives of the crew with his own. Kirk faces his own finitude through the death of his friend.
STAR TREK REIMAGINED
All this is background for my thoughts on the new Star Trek movie by J.J. Abrams. Weeks after the release of the film, a friend greatly encouraged me to go see the film. So I finally took a look. The casting is superb. There are enough nods to the original series that even the most hardened fans will smile. There are plot holes, but no more than usual. Many have complained that J.J. Abrams took major liberties with the canon of the Star Trek universe. He did, but for some reason, it doesn't bother me.
Nonetheless, I still have concerns. If we accept a Freudian analysis, J.J. Abrams' prefers Kirk's id to Spock's super-ego. Several times, Spock learns that his logic is insufficient. Due to circumstances involving his home world, the young Vulcan grows up quickly. By the end of the movie, Spock rejects logical action in favor of pure revenge. In itself, that's not necessarily a terrible thing, but Kirk, on the other hand, gets rewarded again and again for acting like a space-age James Dean. Kirk never pays for his hubris. That bothered me. Perhaps, I am too sympathetic to Spock. Perhaps, Abrams just doesn't understand the irony at the heart of Star Trek. I assume that there will be more films. I just hope that in future movies Kirk finally gets his comeuppance.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Peter Shramm is a professor of political science at Ashland University in Ohio. I heard of Shramm through my wife who is a former student at the university. Shramm was born in Hungary, and his family made the decision to leave after the Hungarian Revolution in 1956. Shramm describes a wonderful exchange with his father about the decision to leave for America.
From the headlines we learn that tyranny and oppression are the norm still in many places. We have much to celebrate this Independence Day. Let's continue to work toward a nation that lives up to her ideals.
"But where are we going?" I asked.
"We are going to America," my father said.
"Why America?" I prodded.
"Because, son. We were born Americans, but in the wrong place," he replied.My father said that as naturally as if I had asked him what was the color of the sky. It was so obvious to him why we should head for America. There was really no other option in his mind. What was obvious to him, unfortunately, took me nearly 20 years to learn. But then, I had to "un-learn" a lot of things along the way. How is it that this simple man who had none of the benefits or luxuries of freedom and so-called "education" understood this truth so deeply and so purely and expressed it so beautifully? It has something to do with the self-evidence, as Jefferson put it, of America’s principles. Of course, he hadn’t studied Jefferson or America’s Declaration of Independence, but he had come to know deep in his heart the meaning of tyranny. And he hungered for its opposite. The embodiment of those self-evident truths and of justice in America was an undeniable fact to souls suffering under oppression.
This July 4th read the Declaration of Independence.
Check out the National Archives exhibit on the Declaration.
A big thanks to Jarvis, and a shout-out to my fellow pastors, Ron Smith and Chuck Warnock.
Friday, July 03, 2009
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14)
These aren't usually the verses that one quotes when one is at a church growth conference. In fact there is a dichotomy between the growth of the early church (“..about three thousand were added to their number that day.” [Acts 2:41]) and the hard teachings of Jesus (“From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.” [John 6:66]).
Pastors often feel pressured to lead their churches into higher and higher numbers. The pressure comes from a variety of sources. Sometimes the pressure comes from parishioners or financial needs. Sometimes it comes from a culture that screams bigger is better.
Attracting a crowd is never enough. Faith and repentance are hard work. Jacques Ellul suggests that the Church will always be small. In his estimation, once the faith becomes a mass movement it devolves into an ideology. Sadly, I do see evidence of this in the wider Christian subculture. We peddle cheap grace while preaching against a few select sins.
Mark Galli, a senior managing editor for Christianity Today, surveys the current megachurch movement and finds similar concerns. He states, “Evangelicals have become the unmatched experts in church growth, but often end up with a truncated gospel.” Galli says that he isn't kidding when suggesting that we need church shrink conferences. As a pastor, I will not be suggesting any time soon that we shrink our congregation. However, church leadership must grapple with the questions he raises.
“Many pastors and lay leaders recognize that they are in a superficially successful church, and that it's time to introduce the harder edges of the gospel. But how? How do we get comfortable people to listen to a gospel that includes a lot of discomfort? How do you deepen discipleship without introducing despair? How do you insist firmly on faithfulness without becoming legalistic?
Most important, how do you manage the loss in membership? That will happen.”
Last night, I saw the movie, Romero, about Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador. I've read only a little about the Archbishop, but I have been impressed by his faithfulness in difficult circumstances. The entire country of El Salvador was his parish, and he resisted the temptation to side with one or another. Instead, he stood firmly with Christ. Without compromise, he was pastor to the military, the ruling elite, and the Marxists.
We gather a crowd and then we disciple. Some will be drawn closer. Others will stay on the periphery. Perhaps, we should imagine that the mission field is our parish, and the parish is our mission field.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Grace is hard.
I was reminded about the difficulty of grace while reading an article on NewScientist.com about evolutionary psychology.
Human beings are willing to suffer loss if it means punishing someone who has acted unfairly. As the article states...
"Our sense of fairness and our willingness to inflict damage on one another combine to encourage contributions to the common good and deter people from cheating. Researchers call this altruistic punishment."Moreover, there is a physiological response. The striatum, a region of our brains which respond to "rewarding behavior", "lights up" when we engage in altruistic punishment. Apparently our sense of justice is deep. That is a good thing. As the Scriptures teach in Leviticus 19:15, "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly."
The only problem is that our sense of justice is limited. Someone who casually watches the evening news and condemns a man for a perceived injustice may reach a different conclusion while on a jury in a courtroom. Our understanding of justice is also perverted by sin. We often take pleasure in the fall of the mighty. Schadenfreude apparently stimulates the same part of the brain as altruistic punishment. Moreover, we often have a poor estimation of our own sinfulness. We see ourselves much better than we really are, or more rarely, much worse.
We believe firmly that everyone should be rewarded for good, punished for bad. The lead singer of U2, Bono, has a helpful way of describing this desire for fairness. In the book, Bono in Conversation by Michka Assayas, he describes the cycle of reward and punishment as "Karma."
"At the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics-in physical laws-every action is met by an equal or an opposite one,""Karma", as Bono describes it, is rooted not only in religion and according to the New Scientist article, also nature. Grace works outside of "Karma." Grace suggests that we get better than we deserve.
"And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that. . . . Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I've done a lot of stupid stuff."Grace is good news, but we resist the good news because it goes against what we believe to be true. Grace is unearned. We rarely extend it to others, and we cheapen our own response to it.