FIRST THINGS: A Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life

Barbarism is never finally defeated; given propitious circumstances, men and women who seem quite orderly will commit every conceivable atrocity. The danger does not come merely from habitual hooligans; we are all potential recruits for anarchy. Unremitting effort is needed to keep men living together at peace; there is only a margin of error left over for experiment however beneficent. Once the prisons of the mind have been opened, the orgy is on. … The work of preserving society is sometimes onerous, sometimes almost effortless. The more elaborate the society, the more vulnerable it is to attack, and the more complete its collapse in case of defeat. At a time like the present it is notably precarious. If it falls, we shall see not merely the dissolution of a few joint-stock corporations, but of the spiritual and material achievements of our history.

~ Evelyn Waugh

I happened to see this over at First Things this morning. As an eloquent and direct explication of the utter depravity of humankind, it's hard to beat.

Posted by Phil at 7:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've been reading and thinking about a discussion going on over at Scot McKnight's JesusCreed. The topic of the thread centers around how and why people lose their faith. I've had my own share of struggles regarding my faith in God. I readily empathize with those who've experienced dark nights of the soul, or who have been totally undone, emtionally and spiritually, by life's circumstances or an inability to reconcile some passage of scripture with their perception of the world and understanding of justice and goodness. I find it tragic when some of these fail to emerge from these periods with their faith intact.

Coincidentally, I read recently in Mindy Caliguire's Discovering Soul Care this passage:

Dallas Williard writes in Renovation of the Heart, "Terrorists as well as saints have had a spiritual formation." Spiritual formation, at its core then, is not some class we sign up for or an activity we do but a basic fact of human existence -- our souls are always being formed.

If our souls are always in the process of being formed, then how they are formed will inevitably have lasting affect upon our spiritual health and longevity. If our spiritual formation is intentional, organic, whole-orbed by attending to the intellectual, emotional, and behavioral aspects of the Christ-life, we will grow strong in our faith. If we focus only on emotional feeling, or understanding of "correct" theology, or spend all our efforts working to address issues of social justice and inequality, then our formation will be incomplete and unbalanced, and our faith will necessarily be weakened therein.

In the large meadow behind my home is a grove of majestic cottonwood trees. These trees are easily over 50 feet tall. They have glorious spreading crowns of circular green leaves that constantly sigh in the passing breezes and roar in our mountain winds. In the fall, the foliage turns a blinding shade of gold, burning against the sky. People all over our valley plant young cottonwoods in their backyards and on the sides of their houses for the shade and beauty they provide. For the life of me, I can't understand why they are doing something so potentially foolish.

Here's the thing; cottonwoods, especially mature ones, are beautiful. They can also be quite dangerous. Cottonwoods have very shallow, compact root systems. they have but a few deep taproots, which are comprised of relatively soft, pulpy tissue. The trees have brittle outer bark which surrounds a weak, fibrous core. In high winds, indeed sometimes for no discernible reason at all, the trees will suddenly drop whole limbs, or the entire tree will simply break at the root line and come crashing down. After winter storms, I've seen roofs, fences, and sometimes cars taken out by these trees as they shed limbs, or when the entire tree cannot support itself and falls with destructive force.

I wonder how many people lose their faith because they were like these cottonwoods. They gave every appearance, even to themselves, of being spiritually healthy and strong. Despite outward appearances, did they lack deep and strong roots in scripture, in prayer, in a healthy and supportive community of believers? Were they well-equipped with answers to life's questions, yet missing the kind of pith or core of strength in God and his Spirit which sustains in those circumstances of life wherein no answers or intellectual propositions will suffice?

I don't know; who ever can really know these things except, maybe, the person who lost his her way. I know only this much. I don't want to be that person.

Coram Deo.

Posted by Phil at 1:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Mindy Caliguire, in her book Discovering Soul Care, asserts that when we begin the process of spiritual formation, of Soul Care, we ought to analyze what tends to emerge from our lives when our souls have been neglected, and contrast that list with what emerges when our souls have been properly cared for.

Caliguire offers that some of the symptoms of soul neglect are: Self-absorbtion, shame, apathy, toxic anger, physical fatigue, isolation, stronger temptation to sin, driveness, feelings of desperation, panic, insecurity, callousness, a judgmental attitude, cynicism, lack of desire for God.

She then observes that among the symptoms of soul health are: love, joy, compassion, giving and receiving grace, generousity of spirit, peace, ability to trust, discernment, humility, creativity, vision, balance and focus.

At the risk of overstating the obvious, it occurs to me when reading the lists that much of our church work in America amounts to bandaid spirituality. We pour tremendous effort into addressing symptoms of spiritual disease (like those in the first list) as if each one were a pathology in and of itself. That's often not the case. They (shame, apathy, isolation, self-absorbtion, etc.) are not distinct spiritual illnesses but, rather, are symptoms of a deeper problem. They are symptoms of a soul that is sick, that has not been cared for properly. Treat the symptom and it may go away only to be replaced by another just as painful and debilitating. Treat the root cause, and all the symptoms are alleviated.

Posted by Phil at 5:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It is only in our "hours-off", only in our moments of permitted festivity, that we find an analogy. Dance and game are frivolous, unimportant down here; for "down here" is not their natural place. Here, they are moment's rest from the life we are placed here to live. But in this world everything is upside-down. That which, if it could be prolonged here, would be truancy, is like that which in a better country is the End of ends. Joy is the serious business of heaven.

C. S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm, pp.92-93

Posted by Phil at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One of the pastors at my church posted the following this week on his blog:

I always attend a church on the weekend even when I'm out of town, and over a month ago I attended two different churches: a large, vital church in Fresno, CA, and later that morning I headed downtown to attend the church where my parents go.

I took my kids along with me to the larger church, which we had never been to. My daughter had an interesting experience in her class.

First, her class was out of visitor gifts (so her older brother got a gift in his class but she didn't). Furthermore, apparently it was "bring your Bible to church" day for her age group so when I picked her up she told me that every child got a prize but her.

Nice.

What if if was our first time to church? What if we didn't own a Bible? What if my neighbor had invited me to church and I finally said yes?

I think it's great when churches encourage adults and children to bring their Bibles to church. But to penalize a first-time guest...that's crazy.

I don't know where I go with this one. My wife and I have four children. Like most parents, early in our children's lives we had to confront the problem of birthday gifts ~ when one child gets a gift and the others want one too. We explain that it's not everyone's birthday; it's just one child's birthday.

Sometimes the kids are involved in an activity together where prizes are awarded. If one gets an award and the others do not, it used to be a matter of no few tears. Now the kids are much better at understanding that not everyone gets an award every time. Some of these things are earned. They are based on merit.

Similarly, not all the kids get invited to the same birthday party, or the same sleepover, or the same playdate. That's OK. Not everyone gets invited to the same things at the same time.

So is the situation recounted by this pastor any different? In part yes, and in part no. On the one hand, yes, church should be about welcoming and including and embracing those who are new to the community of believers. The church should be a place which embraces and does not exclude. Most certainly effort should be made to ensure that children, especially, are not relegated to the sidelines.

In the first instance, the pastor's daughter did not receive a visitor's gift. Her brother, who attended another class, did receive one. That's regrettable, but easy to understand. It was inadvertant. Those things do happen.

The second instance presents a greater challenge. Obviously the "bring your bible to church day" had been planned in advance. The children regularly attending the class had been told ahead of time they would receive a prize for bringing their bibles. What should have been done when visitors attended on that day? Should the visiting children also have been presented a prize which they, according to the planned event, had not earned?

I don't know. Perhaps doing so would have been a demonstration of grace. A better plan might have included that possibility, and made provision for providing gift bibles to visiting children so they could share in the joy of the event. In any event, it is sad that church, for at least one child that particular Sunday, was such a disappointing experience.

Posted by Phil at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

DashHouse.com: The Drew Marshall "We'll pay you to go to church" experiment

I read this week about an experiment done by Canadian Christian radio host Drew Marshall. Marshall hired two non-Christians to visit five churches in the area, and report back to Marshall on their observations and experiences.

At one of the churches they attended, a large urban church that identifies itself as "the church for people who aren't into church," the two being paid to attend had a less than satisfactory experience. One of the observers said:

Why should the institution be rich, and the congregation not? If you really believe you should be living the ascetic life led by Christ and his apostles, why aren’t you doing it? If money and possessions aren’t important, why aren’t you meeting to discuss the meaning of Christ’s ideas and life in the local park? Notwithstanding the need to broadcast to your rather large congregation, and obviously you’d have to come up with a solution during the winter months, but really: why the son et lumiere? I found the medium more than a bit out of whack with the message.

Which brings me to another point: all that razzmatazz kind of unsettles me. We live in a culture where distraction is often misdirection - like a magician who gets you to look at his left hand while he’s disappearing something with his right. I found myself wondering why a group that liked its preacher so straightforward felt most at home in a medium of flashing lights and sound. Maybe it’s a generational thing - 30-45s are mostly Gen Xers, after all. But I still felt disconcerted.

The other responded:

I had a little problem with their arguments involving material goods and our “media saturated culture” as they make their Sunday services available on your 80Gb video ipod.

Now, it ought to be noted that the observers are not Christian, but neither are they un-religious. One of the observers wrote recently that:

I guess I just find, all too often, that the Christian world is consumed with feeling bad and sinful, instead of saying “Hey, OK, I’m a sinner - I know it. But I’m trying. And I’m trying by honestly living and loving with a devout heart. I am trying to walk every step and breathe every breath in honour of You. So let’s You and me work together to make things right.”

You’d be amazed how forgiving the gods are. I don’t know one of them who ever told their children they were unworthy, or who ever turned them away. Never forget that gods do not behave like the men and women who stand behind pulpits raining guilt and terror down on the pews.

Remember: man made religion. The gods need no interpreter. If you are a part of the divine creation, then are you not part of the message? Are you not part of the meaning? Are you not part of the vibrant, thrumming heartbeat of the universe which is the Source of all things?

And if you really think all that, how could you not make your greatest praise the act and art of living joyfully?

So what can be said about Marshall's experiment? Is there anything useful to be derived here?

First, the observers’ comments remind us that who we are and how we are perceived are often two, very different things. Within the context of church, the media we choose to communicate our values, mission, and message, and the ways in which we use those media, shape the message. Sometimes the message is distorted resulting in miscommunication.

At the same time, I have some troubles with Marshall’s experiment. The experiment appears to suggest that four out of the five churches visited had a negative impact. That negative impact included a perception that the churches were too big, technologically driven, focused on sin and guilt, and presented a cognitive disconnect between the ascetic lifestyle of Jesus and his disciples as contrasted with the affluence displayed by the modern church.

First, a paid observer, especially one who comes from a non-Christian spirituality and who demonstrates a priori some hostility or cynicism to the Christian faith, is not necessarily the best indicator of the average church visitor. The average church visitor has likely come at the invitation of a friend or family member, and probably would not have accepted the invitation absent a work having already been done at a deeper level by the Spirit. In other words, the average visitor is on some level seeking something that the church may be able to provide.

Second, there was (at least in my estimation) an underlying question of how well the churches met the perceived needs of the paid observers. I'm skeptical of "felt needs" ministry strategies to begin with, so my mental referee was throwing red flags all over this one. If the primary purpose of the local church is to be a weekend evangelistic enterprise, then the criticisms of poor use of money, the churches being too big, and the money spent of technological services and devices, might carry greater weight. I don't agree that this is the primary purpose of the local church.

I think the corporate meetings of the local church are better conceived, and encouraged, as the celebratory gathering together of believers, all wishing to exercise their gifts and talents in service to one another and to the glory of God. Evangelism may indeed be part of such a gathering, but it is not the primary focus. Where then does evangelism occur? I would argue it best occurs in the day-to-day meetings and conversations where believers, excited and grateful to have found wholeness in Christ, interact with their neighbors, co-workers, family, and friends. In my conception, the local church might be big or small. A big church will have greater resources and a greater diversity of talent among its members, and that's ok. Should the church be wise in the use of those resources? To be sure. But I see nothing wrong with big churches wherein the members are provided the opportunity to use their gifts and talents with art, music, technology, hospitality, teaching, etc., etc., in service of the other members of the Body.

In any event, Marshall's experiment was interesting, and worth further thought. At the very least, it will have me thinking about how my church communicates, and to what degree that communication may or may not be achieving its desired aims.

Posted by Phil at 6:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)