How do We Talk About Jesus and the Cross?

Who do we really promote? 

The theme of one of Albert Schweitzer's most famous works of theology was that portraits of the historical Jesus often revealed more about the author than they really did about Jesus.   Often how we talk about about Jesus in our congregations may in fact do the exact same thing.    There are many images of Jesus in the New Testament,  there are many more words used to describe him,  there are even more when one takes into account hymns, prayers. and even motion pictures that have been compiled in the time since the writers of the New Testament left us their own witness to Jesus.   The ways to describe Jesus are so rich and varied that we inevitably make choices about which words and images we use to describe him.   What I am asking you to consider is, are you intentional about the choices you make to communicate Jesus to others?   If not, how do you know whom you are really promoting?    He may be named Jesus, but is the person we are describing  simply be the reflection of our own biases and preferences, rather than who he really is? How do avoid falling into this trap?  

Atonement 

In my experience, the first part of the way to avoid the pitfalls is to make sure we are always focused on the cross and resurrection.   This time of year I often dust off my old copy of Gustav Aulen's Chritus Victor (Macmillan: NY, 1951), which deals with the very question of how do we talk about the work of God in Jesus Christ.  The ideas below are all his,  I will try to show how these affect our witness today.   Aulen looks at how people have described God's work through the cross in history.  He charts three main threads of speaking about the work of Christ. The term we use for this effort is the Atonement, which specifically deals with how Christ has resolved the problem of human sin through the action of the cross. Please know that faithful Christians hold each of these views;  they may sometimes hold all three simultaneously.  So while I have my own preference, I will try to treat each with respect, because all have their roots in Scripture and the experiences of the faithful.


Pleasing an Angry God

The view of the Atonement that may be most prevalent in many American churches both Evangelical and Catholic focuses on the idea that because humans have sinned they must make amends.  The strength of this view is it's condemnation of evil and commitment to setting things right.   The scales of justice must balance out.  Since we are so sinful, we need a perfect person to take our place to satisfy God, otherwise we are subject to God's wrath.  Jesus because of his perfection, has an infinite amount of extra credit built built up, which he gives to sinners to rescue them from the judgement of God.   The sinless human Jesus satisfied God's need for Justice.  Catholics access Jesus' extra credit through penitential rites, Protestants through accepting Jesus into their heart and having strong faith thereafter.

A version of this view particularly popular in the United States is known as penal substitution theory.   We deserved the punishment, Jesus takes our place, we get off scot-free.  This view has its biblical roots in the sacrificial system described in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the book of Hebrews in the New Testament.   This view is commonly known in theological circles as the "objective" view of the Atonement.   God is the object of the sacrifice of the cross.  This view was developed in the middle ages and became the basis for the medieval church to sell indulgences, which were basically notes of moral credit accumulated by Christ and some really good people who somehow had a positive balance.   The medieval church, through a narrow interpretation of Jesus' words to Peter about the keys of the kingdom, believed that they had the power to issue these divine bank notes to get folk into heaven.    This led to the Reformation which realized that this was a corruption of the original intent of the Gospel.

In Christians today I see this view played out in a number of ways.   One way is that is that when bad things happen they beat themselves up and say "If only I believed more, God would not have sent me all this hardship."   Prosperity and Self-Help preachers will describe struggles such as a loss of a job, depression, natural disasters as a result loss of faith. The argument goes, we are just getting our deserved punishment for being sinners; what do we have to complain about?  It places the focus of the cross exclusively upon the individual sinner.  Another weakness of this view is that it sets up a duality between Jesus and God the Father.   It is the human Jesus alone who is able to atone for us in this view, so it also devalues the gift of the incarnation.  Finally it may distort our picture of God, setting up a distant, angry, and scary god (lack of capitalization intentional).

Fixing the Broken Person 

There have always been Christians who have been uncomfortable in speaking about the work of Jesus in the terms mentioned above.   They saw the weaknesses of the "objective" view and argued that their fellow Christians had it all backwards.   God is the prime actor through the cross to heal and restore people.   This view is known as the "subjective" view, because God is the subject who does the action and people are the objects of God's redeeming work.   This view began to rise to prominence during the enlightenment and reached it's zenith in the liberal theological movement of the nineteenth century.   God loves human beings so God will restore them through the sign of the cross.    God, in this view, at all times only acts benevolently and graciously.   The atonement therefore is not so much a work that does something, but a symbol of God's love for us.   The sacrifice of the cross gets us to recognize our need to make amends, we give our faith over to God, we are born again and then are healed.  There is much in the New Testament to justify this.  The strength of this view is that it does restore some of the focus back to God and the act of love on the cross.   It does not take God for granted and does guard against an entitlement mentality that can spring up in an un-reflective person with the objective view.

This view has been popular for many modern Christians.  It has some very enticing aspects.  We become the objects of God's love, evil is really explainable as an illness that can be corrected,  God is safe.   However the things that make this view attractive betray its weakness.   First, it does a poor job of dealing with the reality of evil.  Those who experience great evils like poverty, war, crime and abuse will find this explanation wanting.  Secondly, it feeds into our narcissism, it seems to communicate that God just has to love us.  This takes away God's free will and choice.  Finally, by reducing the cross to a mere symbol it proclaims the powerless god (lack of capitalization intentional).   Evil can not be assuaged by this god, people can only be persuaded to change.   It is therefore easy to see how this can lead one who holds this view into either despair or apathy.   It may soothe people in the short term, but once bad times come folks will see no need with the I'm OK, your'e OK vision of the subjective view of the Atonement.

The Good Story

Both the above ways of talking about the atonement can help Christians in their faith life in certain situations.   They both developed historically to help proclaim the Gospel to people of a particular place and time.   That the views have weaknesses should not betray that both views have much truth embedded in them.  God is committed to truth and justice,  God is loving, that love has been demonstrated by Jesus.   Luckily for us we do not have to choose between the subjective and objective views. We can choose what works in our situation to best be there for our Christian brothers and sisters, and thankfully there indeed is a third way.  It is the story of the Gospel itself which should keep us all grounded.

The Dramatic View

Aulen calls the final view the  "dramatic view" of the atonement.  Its focus is the Gospel itself brought home in its fullness with a powerful view of the biblical imagery in all its colors.   It is also called the "classic" view in that it was formulated during the classical period not long after the writing of the New Testament.   In this view the drama is this: people are captured and bound by sin, death, and the devil.   Sin as in the writings of Paul, is a power that binds us, corrupts us, and most importantly is beyond our control to remove without the work of God.    God sends Jesus on a special ops infiltration raid to rescue God's children from their prison to the three demonic powers mentioned above.   (Luther, who also held this view speaks of God deceiving or tricking the devil).   In this view, the cross sets off an explosion that establishes a complete new reality.   The temple curtain torn in two,  graves opened (in Matthew) earthquakes, black skies etc.   In this view all the Biblical actions of God in the Gospel demonstrate their remarkable consistency.  God sends Jesus as a human in the incarnation to deal with sin death and the devil,  God defeats these on the cross (atonement),  and finally God validates the redeemed by inviting them into a new freedom in life in communion with Jesus Christ (justification).   God is loving, but also does not tolerate evil.    Sin and evil are real powers that can hurt both morally pure and impure alike, but are never insurmountable by God.   God is sovereign, powerful, and cosmic in this view, not limited to dealing with only personal concerns.   This view has always been with us and has been promoted by many of the giants of the faith,  Luther, Bonhoeffer, Barth etc.

The rise of the other two views happened because people sought to explain in rational terms how the cross worked.   So in the other two views the most vivid imagery of the Bible is often discarded because it can't be explained.  It may even be that in trying to explain Biblical imagery, people were led to see things they really did not want to see.  This is because these remind us of our own powerlessness in confronting sin, death and evil when they plague our world.    The truth is that Jesus is God,  God is bigger than our words.  All our efforts to explain what God does will always be incomplete.   That is why I like the idea of accessing the truth of God's action through the Story.   Everyone loves a good story,  no matter your theological persuasion,  your world-view, or your politics you can be moved by the Story of the Gospel to a new reality. We love stories because they usually work better in communicating deep truths than our efforts at explanation.   Jesus taught us this himself as he used stories to teach about God's kingdom.    Looking at the they way speak about Jesus, and critically examining how if our description may coincide, or deviate from the story will be helpful in our calling to be humble disciples.  So to be intentional about speaking about Jesus, and to avoid the problem that we might only be promoting ourselves, we will need to tend to the story of the Gospel and let it speak.

Why Churches Fail

My BA is in economics and from time to time I still like to read and think about it. I have recently been Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty by Daron Acemoglu and James A Robinson. It is a work of historical economics that uses history to formulate a hypothesis of why some countries like our own are prosperous and others fail to deliver even basic needs to vast numbers of their citizens. I found that much of the book was resonating with my experience in serving communities much smaller than nations, churches. While sociologists and economists would have to do a formal study to see if there are indeed parallels with micro-communities, the principles of Why Nations Fail seem to correspond nicely to my own theological orientation.  This is merely an exercise of making connections, understand I could be totally off base.  I am the kind of guy that is often excited about the last thing I read.
reading the book

Extractive Communities

The authors' premise is pretty straight forward. Societies where an elite sets up the rules so that they alone can reap the benefits of its resources are doomed to a reinforcing cycle of poverty and zero sum conflict that will lead the nation to fail at some point. The authors call these extractive societies. The goal of those in power is get the resources out of the ground in any way possible and then to keep all proceeds of the resources for themselves. Even some of the poorest societies around the world have an tiny elite that is fabulously wealthy by global standards. The late Kim Il Sung of North Korea, where millions are repeatedly affected by famine, spent $800,000 per year on cognac alone. The reason for this is that society is set up exclusively for their benefit. The point the authors want to make is that without people working together to build up society for the common benefit of all, a country can only tolerate all this extraction for so long before it collapses.

This leads me to the introspective question about our congregations. Can churches become extractive? Are some set up for the benefit of a few insiders? Are things in others organized to give the pastor or key families the majority of benefits of the fruits of the congregation's life?

I am sure each of you has in mind a case where a pastor built a cult of personality around her or himself in some mega church somewhere. The ministry is set up around the pastor's life and becomes synonymous with it. Sometimes the pastorate is passed on to the children like in a monarchy. The worst cases are where the congregation becomes playground of predator. Remember Jesus's words against the religious leaders who devoured the property of the vulnerable.(Mark 12:20) Perhaps even more common, especially in smaller churches, is when an oligarchy of insider families take control of a faith community and set things up so that they are real power brokers and the majority of the congregation is on the margins with no real say.  In both of these cases the congregations would be less resilient than healthier communities.

In congregations where people have the choice to go and worship elsewhere, people will not tolerate being used and abused by others for very long.  Even those who may stay around and worship become less engaged, often volunteering and giving less.   Is some of the decline in church participation witnessed in recent years due to the fact that too many churches are set up to be extractive for the benefit of a few?   The argument of Why Nations Fail states that communities can grow for a while under extractive conditions, but they will always end up collapsing at some point.  When religious observance is more socially valued perhaps extracive congregations can hang on much longer.   When the prestige is ripped away how healthy the church is will really matter.

Inclusive Communities

The argument in "Why Nations Fail" continues that societies that are prosperous and resilient tend to be inclusive.   By inclusive the authors mean that a diverse group of people has a stake in society;  many can participate in the decision making process.   Rights and obligations are well defined and respected.  There is a clear rule of law and no one is above it.  Particularly important for the authors argument is that their property rights are respected.  All of this provides a stable environment where people will invest in the local economy, innovate new products and work hard to improve their lives.   This tide raises the standard of living in the society.

If you think about what the authors mean by inclusivity,  you will see is something deeper and more powerful than using the correct pronouns or having the right pictures in your brochure.   At their core, inclusive communities protect the dignity and worth of all the community's members.  In economies that dignity is symbolized by private property.   It is a tangible measure of how a particular society values the dignity of its citizens.  Notice that even in our own society, which is inclusive by world and historical standards,  the poor are more likely to have their property rights abridged than the wealthy.  Just think about how interstate highways are built,  wealthy towns can usually get them diverted or even canceled, like what happened with the continuation of 1-95 in New Jersey.  Poorer communities will not have as much of a say unless they can mobilize a broader support base to make their case.  It is a blessing to live in a relatively inclusive society where this can happen.    This does not mean our society is always just, but we do have tools to do something about it, unlike those living in many places around the world.    

Each and every Christian should realize that inclusivity is a core virtue of the Gospel Message of Jesus Christ. The church of the New Testament was a radically inclusive community by the standards of any time.  The first Jerusalem church found in Acts 2-4, the types of communities Paul is trying to build as seen in his letters, and perhaps most importantly the church of Antioch, which we find in the heart of  the book of Acts demonstrate a biblical view that places a high value on inclusivity.

Building an inclusive congregation is hard work and takes intentional effort.  In micro-communities like churches, we do not have a  reference like property rights that can quickly symbolize dignity, so we have to work harder to maintain it.   It congregations dignity is maintained by being intentional about communication, extending trust, giving permission to follow one's true gifts , respecting differences. and most importantly active listening.   Active listening and responding graciously to the people of our communities is how we show we value the dignity of those who comprise it.

Another key toward inclusivity is paradoxical.  A certain degree of centralization is necessary for societies to become inclusive.   People need a common bond in which to engage the community.   In congregations that common bond is maintained by the twin pillars of mission and message.   The message will be how the community uniquely proclaims the Gospel to its service area,  the mission will be how it lives out the Gospel by serving the people where they are located.   It is critical that both are in sync, right belief is right action.  If our congregations are not clear about these two areas it will be hard for them to become inclusive because their members will be unsure of how to engage them.

Healthy Institutions

Acemoglu and Robinson argue that institutions matter for the health of society. Societies are less likely to turn extractive where institutions set limits on the exercise of power, protect private property, appropriately value labor, and most importantly allow for broad base of people to engage in making decisions.  Good institutions are set up to promote inclusivity.

In reality this is really all about appropriate boundary setting, and healthy boundaries and limits are important for communities of any size. In congregations where boundaries are fuzzy bad things are more likely to happen, because those who wish to abuse power have nothing to stop them. So while we may at times lament that our structures and boundaries may give us some extra work, calling meetings, making reports, having one more conversation about an issue that was already settled, these actually help keep a wider group of people engaged in our congregation.  The work of good boundaries in a congregation can be fruitful when they are constructed to draw out the ideas and contributions of the widest possible extent of the community's membership.

Fear of Creative Destruction

The real Aha! moment of the book for me was the premise that in extractive societies the leaders will always resist change and innovation for fear that it will upset the current power relationship and the leaders will will be less able to exploit the society.   There is a fear of creative destruction.  A dictator will not allow land reform because if the citizens had property rights, it would limit the power of the leader.   A labor saving device like a back hoe would throw hundreds of peasants out of work.  They would then have nothing to do except advocate for change which would threaten the dictator's hold on power.    Extractive societies are set up for zero sum power struggles over resources, therefore any change is a threat.

In many congregations fear of creative destruction is palpable.  When wanting to widen the circle of the community often some things have to die, and new things have to take their place.   If a local congregation does not let those things which fail to reach the outside world die they risk stagnation and decline.   Often people in churches participate because of the sense of empowerment.   This is a good thing generally,  but when the feeling of empowerment overrides the unifying mission the congregation will resist change because it will bring some destruction as well as new life.   As Christians we should realize this, when the temple curtain was torn in two at the death of Jesus it was God's act of creative destruction.   Replacing something that had become exclusive with a new reality that is inclusive.

In the end churches will fail when they are no longer able to that which they were created by God to do for Lutherans like myself that is to preach the gospel, administer the sacraments and provide a place for people to mutually care and support one another.

Requiem for Advent

Last year, as I posted a picture of my children on Facebook with the caption "getting ready for Christmas" I received comment post from my cousin Luise in Germany that said "Happy Advent." Hmmm, "Happy Advent, I like sound of that" I mused. "Whatever happened to Advent?" I wondered. Then the very same day I read an article by theologian Diane Butler-Bass called "The War on Advent," which makes the case for recovering the practice in our communities. Well, I hate to break it to Dr. Butler-Bass, but the war is over and it is a total rout (at least in the US). Advent is dead; wounded by a blow from the left as secularists stamped out the ancient and deeper meanings of the season as incompatible with modern political correctness. Right after this, it was maimed by the right waging the nihilistic "War on Christmas," whose rules of combat require the litmus test of saying "Merry Christmas" continually starting at 12:00 AM on the Friday after Thanksgivng. Finally it was finished off by the retailers, who once knocking it down pushed Christmas' border all the way to Labor Day. What was once 12 days is now four months. So Advent is dead. Its passing mourned only by a few liturgy professors and their seminarian acolytes. Too bad, because if you do not grasp Advent, you do not understand what Christmas truly is at all.

Luke 1:45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord.”

God's Word of promise is more wonderful than any of us can imagine. It is the fuel which allows us not only to endure times of trial, but lets us breathe in every moment and realize that life is a gift. Advent is a time to rest in the promises of God. As we quickly learn in life, expectation is often more fun than fulfillment. The people of Israel look back continually as its most meaning time to when they were wandering in the wilderness and the land was only a "promised" one. Advent likewise, is a time to take delight in expectation. In the Bible, faith is always commended during a time of expectation, whether it is Abraham setting out into the wilderness in search of a homeland, or a young mother Mary receiving affirmation from her cousin at what must have been a confusing time. Faith thrives in an atmosphere of expectation. It is where it lives and breathes. It is why these times are so happy.

Advent should be happy (it is not Lent!) as it is focused on God. The sad thing is so many in my community are not happy at all. Their faces show the strain of the rush to get everything done, so perhaps Advent can be grace for you. You don't have to fulfill everyone's wish, or even your own, you can focus on God, and rest in a promise, stop worrying and be happy! The pressure to eradicate Advent comes from those both secular and religious who are just incapable of doing this. These are the folks who will not wait for the time to be fulfilled. They may even believe that it is thier responsibility to make the world right so God can come. Their actions say if things are prepared the right way than it will be all hunky dory. This is actually a pretty inclusive group including some end-time Christians, communists, environmental zealots, and most prevalent this particular time of the year home decorators trying to create "the perfect Christmas."

Galatians 4:4-5 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children.

When the Protestant Reformation began it tried to recover the faith reflected in the writings of the Gospels, Paul and the early church of the classical period. It began with a simple premise, the actions of God come first. So it is God who fulfills. The twentieth century theologian Paul Tillich called this "the Protestant principle". So Advent is deeply evangelical, it is nothing more or less than being expectant of the promises of God in Jesus Christ. While this may be a requiem, it is not a lament. I am a Christian, I know that resurrection exists. Every time someone expectantly looks for God to do something in her or his life, there you will find Advent. It will be ever eternal as it is a time of taking delight in the gift of faith, and it is certainly a time to be happy.

Happy Advent!!!!

Function or Mission?

What's your Function? 

 If someone asked you what is the function of your ministry, how would you answer? Is it to bring new members to your church? Is it to instruct the next generation in the faith? Is it to make sure the people in your congregation are cared for? Is it to make sure that the corporation (yes, legally most congregations are corporations) continues to be financially viable?

What's your Mission? 

Now what if someone asked instead what is your mission, how would your answer be different? I would hope that one would not merely search the files and old newsletters to pull out the mission statement ratified by the church council in the 1970’s, but give a ready answer about what his or her church feels called to do. The question I would like to explore is is there a difference between function and mission? Some of the corollary questions are: is there tension between the two ideas? Do we at time confuse them? What do you think? Let me know in the comments section.

Update: September 26, 2013 

Some helpful Distinctions:

In seeing some of the responses so far I have come up with these ways to help distinguish between mission and function.

1. Focus: Mission is outwardly focused on God and those God calls us to serve. Function is internally focused on the self or organization.

2. Purpose: Mission is concerned with tending to the relationships with those involved, God first and then those who God calls us to be in mission with. Function is concerned with the output. How good are the sermons the pastor writes, how many meals delivered by the soup kitchen etc. So function is accomplishment based while mission is concerned with the health of relationships and their interactions.

3. Scope: Mission is always open to new information, in fact helpful mission strategies are always look for new information to help see where God is leading. When thinking about function the scope is always limited to the task at hand so new information can even be harmful at times.

4. Nature: Mission is at its core an entire way of life. It relies on a holistic attitude to bring all areas on one's life into focus to follow God's call. Function is a component of this, but just a part. In the end our functions must serve the mission we have partnered with God to carry out. It is when we elevate our function to the level of the overall mission that our confusion comes.

By praying regularly and coming back to the cross through remembering our connection to it in our baptism, we can help remember our identity and focus our various functions on the overarching call to God's mission for our world. By staying grounded in God's Word contained in the bible we can help put the pieces our our lives together.

Where's My Hardware Store?

A few weeks back my six year old son hung on the coat hooks next to the front door in our vestibule. He pulled the entire rack out of the wall. I told him he had help fix it and pay for the materials necessary to do the job, which amounted to a small container of joint compound to fill in the holes where the moly-bolts were. He got his allowance money and we drove to downtown Springfield to buy our supplies at our local hardware store. We parked our car in the back of the store and went to the door and saw that is was locked. We looked in the windows and all the stock was gone, and got in the car and drove to the massive Home Depot in Vauxhall. I know this is not the first hardware store to close in recent years, but this affected me deeply because something I relied on to be there was now gone.

I like going to the small store and knowing the proprietor. The people in Home Depot are usually pleasant and I do not usually have any complaints with the service or products, yet the anonymity and the scale are intimidating when all I need is something small to do a quick job. The economy these days has made the small scale hardware store a thing of the past, unless a store has niche it is doomed.

I began to obsess "is our congregation like that hardware store?" Have the economies of scale and the expectations of people in our our area that the church will provide high quality program with minimal commitment conspired to doom the midsize congregation to oblivion. Statistics seem to be leading in this direction. Large congregations are chugging along, many small congregations do wonderful ministry by using their intimacy as a strength. The midsize church seems to be most at risk. The small congregation seems to be analogous to the home based business and the large to the big box store or prominent franchise. Where does that leave the rest of us.

We Are Not a Store 

The hope that I cling to is that the community I serve is not a store, but as Eugene Peterson writes a “community of sinners gathered week after week… the Holy Spirit gathers them and does his work in them." (Working the Angles p.2) Our task is not to be a purveyor of goods, services, or an experience, but to simply bring people together with God. Dietrich Bonhoeffer shakes us out of our stupor and fear with these explosive words, which open his masterpiece The Cost of Discipleship: “Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our church. We are fighting today for costly grace. Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjack’s wears.” If we are to be Biblically faithful (rather than market driven successful) we need to call people into a relationship with God and their fellow sinners to join in this movement, which is dedicated to following our savior Jesus Christ. This means we understand that we are part of a wider family than our congregation and hopefully realizing that we are not in competition with the other expressions of Christianity in our vicinity.

We Still Need a Niche 

Yet we still need to recognize that how the people of our communities engage the world matters. In a recent Alban Institute post, Peter Coutts blogs here “We live in a fully democratized, consumer-oriented society in which people believe they have the autonomous power to make choices, including within the realm of religious belief, practice, and participation.” So we have to use the tools of Law and Gospel to reveal the truth of God’s Word to the people we serve. The law is that every human choice whether to shop at the hardware store or home depot, or to go to the mid-size church in town or mega-church by the highway is bound by our innate sinfulness. The grace of God reveals that God makes himself available to be freely chosen. As Christian leaders we are called to help people make the right choice, the choice of Jesus, the choice of life. Hopefully if we really do it right, those who walk with Jesus will realize it really was not a choice at all.

The way for us who have more limits on our people and resources to begin to live out this calling is to help the communities we serve find their niche or place. This usually means leading people to prayerfully discern where their gifts lie, communities can then specialize according to the gifts of the Holy Spirit given to them. One community will allow people to see the grace of God through excellent and passionate traditional music, another will demonstrate it by serving the poor, another through good preaching, another through education, still another through support groups for people in critical phases of life, and even some that just provide a well rounded spiritual home. So yes my hardware store is gone, but our church still lives, breathes and moves to bring God’s love to our world.

Humility is for Losers!

Unappreciated Humility 

A recent study by the most respected Christian church social science researcher George Barna asked practicing Christians what qualities do they think are essential for Christian leaders to have.(you can find the article here) I was surprised to find out that humility was only mentioned by 7 percent of the respondents.

You would think that the church whose head humiliated himself to the point of going to the cross for our sins would look upon humility more favorably and value it more highly as a quality for Christian leaders than we apparently do. But alas, it seems that no one values humility anymore. We value things like assertiveness, independence, strength, and power. It beguiles me how so many can miss the importance of this central quality of Christian leadership. To be sure integrity scored highly, but I do not know how one can have integrity without being humble. For younger people authenticity seems to be highly valued, but how can one be truly authentic if one is not humble first?

Humility Defined 

According to the survey, the definition of humility is a willingness to give credit to others. This makes its lack of respect by those who attend evangelical and mainline churches even more surprising. How can one be truly Christian leader if one does not give credit to God and others? Humility according to this definition is the central characteristic to help us live out the great commandment to love God with one's heart, soul and mind and to love one's neighbor as oneself.

Perhaps the decline being witnessed in Christian communities across the board has something to do with the lack of appreciation of the concept of humility. If one pays attention to the various contemporary media outlets, one will see whether one is liberal, or conservative, hip or intellectual, that self promotion is the current modus operandi of our culture. There is apparently no such thing as bad publicity. To give credit to others according to a common worldly understanding is to throw away a valuable resource. Why do it if I do not get the credit? Asks the world.

Biblical Humility

However by living this way and ignoring the contributions of God and others in our relentless search for credit, we damage the relationships necessary for us to live a life of peace and wholeness as God intended. The Biblical definition of humility has a different nuance than that we have seen so far. We can see the Biblical view of humility in Peter's words "Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, so that he may exalt you in due time." 1 Peter 5:6 (NRSV) To humble oneself is to allow God to work within you. If one does not live humbly one therefore does not live for or with God.

Perhaps when Christians ignore humility we are really just revealing our attitude of wanting to go it alone. In the end, if we go it alone all the time our lives will be less full than they could be. We see this wisdom written in Ecclesiastes " Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up the other; but woe to one who is alone and falls and does not have another to help." Ecclesiastes 4:9-10 (NRSV) Humility is essential to facilitate community and build relationships.

The Humble One 

This is the exact reason why God sent his Son Jesus in humble fashion; he wanted to create a community of people in relationship to him. God does not want us to go it alone. Paul wrote the Christians in Philippi "he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross." Philippians 2:8 (NRSV) I gave this posting a provocative title because this is how the world views the humble these days. However there is often truth in satire, Jesus himself reminded us that world will always view the humble as those who lose, but that when one loses that which is temporary one gains the eternal. "For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it." Matthew 16:25 (NRSV)

In the Bible sometimes losing is winning, especially when one is giving up that which keeps him or her removed from The Lord of Heaven and Earth. In the eyes of his Roman executioners the humble Jesus was a loser because he did not challenge their political dominance. Yet this same empire would itself be conquered by the followers of Jesus who used humility to defeat injustice and evil. To be humble is to appreciate life as it actually is. So consider the humble, you may just see the stuff of life in them.

Keep the Faith,

Pastor Knecht

Left or Right Mission Strategies?

Confrontation or Accommodation? 

Christianity has always had a tension between challenging the culture it finds itself in on the one hand or learning to adapt and live with it on the other. During my time in Taiwan I learned about this tension by witnessing the polar opposite mission strategies embraced by Roman Catholics and Protestants. In many ways the Roman Catholic church sought to make peace with the culture and translate teaching and practice to the Chinese culture. Early on Roman Catholic missionaries accommodated ancestor worship into their proclamation. Ancestor worship is the central practice of Chinese folk religion. One is called to make sacrifices for and to one's forbears. If you have seen the Disney film "Mulan" you may remember how the shrine to the ancestors played a prominent roll in the film. By adapting its doctrine of the saints Roman Catholics sought a way to proclaim the Gospel in the Chinese context. They accepted where Chinese people were at theologically and made accommodation for them. Most Roman Catholic churches in Taiwan have a set place where one can pray to and for their ancestors. For the sake of discussion I will call this a left handed mission strategy.

Protestant missionaries from the beginning adopted the opposite strategy and basically continue to to so today. While the reasons for this are more theological than missional, the result ended up being an effective mission strategy. When one becomes a Christian as part of a protestant congregation in Taiwan, one gives up ancestor worship. In fact, many churches have a ritual demolition of the family ancestral shrine and any household idols around the time one is baptized. While we in the secular west may be aghast at this level intensity, many Chinese see it as a natural outcome of one's coming to Jesus. Most protestant Christians in Chinese contexts accept this. The reason for this acceptance is fairly clear. There are many in Chinese cultures who find the system of ancestor worship to be oppressive. It's system of obligations is particularly hard on women. To realize that one's loved ones are ultimately in God's hands can have an effect of profound liberation for a person. So I will call this type of delineating a clear alternative to the culture a right handed mission strategy.

Winners and Losers 

Perhaps another way to look at this is to take a look at who are focusing our mission toward. When we embrace a left handed strategy that accommodates cultural trends, we are embracing those who are fine with the culture the way it is. In stark terms, it is mission to and for the "winners". When we take up a right handed strategy we are focusing on those beat up by the culture who want liberation from it. So a right handed strategy that presents an alternative to the culture is a a mission to and for the "losers." Now before we get on our moral high horse and either defend or justify ourselves, let's get both feet firmly planted on the ground and realize that Jesus ministered to both winners and losers. As we the lectionary texts from Luke are revealing to us this summer, Jesus sometimes used a left handed strategy and at others used a right handed one. The place for us to figure out how to proceed is prayer. We are called to discern, pray and to ask the Spirit to guide us how to minister to those God has placed before us. In the end most, churches have a mix of right handed and left handed strategies unique to their contexts.

Consumer Society 

The discussion about whether to adapt or provide an alternative to the culture we live in the North American context will eventually always come around to how do we deal with the fact of consumerism. In sociological terms "the consumer" is the chief archetype of our society. Do we accept this and find ways to mission using the language and practice of the culture, or do we reject it and seek to provide a clear liberating alternative? The most fascinating aspect of this discussion for me is the fact that the many of the prominent conservative churches in our country have adopted strategies that embrace cultural norms of consumerism. Rick Warren (Saddleback), Bill Hybles (Willow Creek) and Andy Stanley (North Point) have all presented mission models that accommodate consumerism in some way. In short, the right wingers are using left handed strategies. Conversely much that I read from liberal circles makes consumerism synonymous with a form of demonic possession. Shane Clayborne, Brian McLaren and others from the emerging church movement (along with many who write at the Alban Institute) have embraced notions of ministering to those beat up by consumerism or a right handed strategy.

Please be aware that I have simplified things for the sake of having a discussion. The reality will always be a bit murky. I have accommodated aspects of the dominant culture into my ministry at times, and at others I have sought to fight against it. The simple point of this is to ask us all to be in prayer so that we are being intentional about which strategy we embrace. The point of this intentionality is not effectiveness but love. It takes intention to truly show love, this is one of the primary aspects of the cross and resurrection. Without love, it matters not whether we use our right hand or left, because without love we are not in mission. May you be blessed in your service to Christ today.

 Keep the Faith,