Bigstock/Bankrx
The demise of the Church Growth model by Thomas G. Bandy
This article is featured in the Fall 2018 issue of HeartBurstsHeartbursts: Churches Empathizing with Cultures is a regular column helping leaders plan, implement, and evaluate credible and relevant ministries based on cultural trends.
Leadership models come and go; this is true in all sectors. Anyone who follows business management, for example, can see enormous shifts in corporate leadership philosophies just by the books you buy at the airport. This is especially true for sectors that are sensitive to cultural shifts like politics and religion. I think church leadership models also have a limited “shelf life” and should be labeled with a “best before” date. For example:
- The “Great Preacher” leadership model should have the label: Best Before 1965. That was the year all denominations started chronic and accelerating membership declines. The “Great Preacher” model was all about crafted sermons and persuasive pulpits. It was quite successful through the first half of the 20th century, and then came television and the image-rich world.
- The “Therapeutic Caregiver” leadership model should have the label: Best Before 1985. That was the decade when clergy scandals started getting public attention and litigation against churches accelerated. The “Therapeutic Caregiver” model was about pastoral care and counseling and the psychologizing of faith, and was quite successful for 15-20 years. Then came the internet and the self-help world.
- The “Social Crusader” leadership model should have the label: Best Before 2001. The new millennium has seen violence increase, natural disasters multiply, denominational subsidies shrink, and political polarization blamed on Christianity. The “Social Crusader” model was about advocacy and radical social service, and was quite successful for a time. Then came social media and the rise of personal religion.
The “Church Growth” leadership model has filled the shelves of modern culture for about thirty years. It emerged in the 1990’s as a maverick and often maligned alternative to the previous models. By 2000, however, it had become increasingly normative for church expectations and as the career advancement path for most clergy. Unfortunately, like all leadership models, it has a shelf life. It should be packaged with a label: Best Before 2025. In about seven years, it will start to become increasingly stale; it is already being shifted to the sidelines.
The “Church Growth” leadership model is a blend of what I describe as the CEO-Discipler identities for spiritual leadership (see Spiritual Leadership: Why Leaders Lead and Who Seekers Follow). It is usually associated with “organic” churches (mega- and multi-site churches and church plants). These are churches that measure success in “multiplying disciples who multiply more disciples.” The metrics are wide audiences and membership growth; local, regional, and/or global community dominance; political influence and denominational presence; and capital pools and expansive generosity.
* * *
"Sideline Church: Bridging the Chasm between Churches and Cultures" (Abingdon Press, 2018). Order here: http://bit.ly/SidelineChurch
In the beginning (i.e.1990’s) the “Church Growth” leadership model was refreshing. Clergy who were physically exhausted struggling to attract members and money so that the institution could survive; emotionally exhausted trying to keep up with the neediness of individuals clamoring for personal attention; and politically exhausted trying to patch together donor networks to support controversial causes and fragile non-profits welcomed a leadership model that helped them be more effective and feel more faithful. It was all about seeker sensibility and faith formation, shaping a lifestyle and customizing a spiritual practice, communing with God and being a good neighbor. The model called for clergy to get out of the study, eliminate bureaucracy, overcome hypocrisy, and get real.To do this, the “Church Growth” model expected the leader to:
- Empathize with seekers who were used to customer service, and shape hospitality and style to keep their attention long enough to hear the message. Theoretically, this was not about dumbing down the Gospel, but about making the Gospel relevant.
- Challenge the controllers who want to sidetrack the church, and rigorously align with a single purpose. Theoretically, this was not about insensitivity to the expectations of members, but about loyalty to the visions God reveals.
- Eliminate committees that slowed down change, and dramatically increase the speed of decision-making. Theoretically, this was not about centralizing power, but about delegating responsibility and authority quickly and appropriately.
- Transform the clergy from stodgy, professional experts, who understood the creed into approachable, likeable, role models who were good at listening and adapting. Theoretically, this was not about personality types but spiritual gifts.
- Penetrate through abstractions and ambiguities to get to the secret spiritual knowledge that really mattered. Theoretically, this was not about following a guru, but about listening to someone with an intuitive methodology who skipped the necessity for study.
The “Church Growth” leadership model proved difficult to imitate. Clergy tried and failed… relocated… tried and failed… and relocated again and again. As denominational expectations became greater, clergy self-esteem got smaller. There were a great many small and unsustainable churches, and all too few large and growing churches. The overweening confidence of a relatively few successful church growth leaders bordered on arrogance, and the underappreciated discouragement of a great many unsuccessful pastors bordered on despair.
The vulnerability of the “Church Growth” leadership model, like all past leadership models, is that church growth has less to do with leadership and more to do with culture. Sensitive, assertive, decisive, charismatic, and gnostic leaders grew churches, because culture wanted them. Culture once wanted great preachers and religious therapists, and voila! Preachers and therapists were successful, too. But what happens when culture no longer wants sensitive, assertive, decisive, charismatic, and gnostic leaders on a mission to multiply disciples who multiply more disciples?
Bigstock/nito
I hear a note of desperation in the voices of Church Growth leaders today. Their preaching is more strident; their work ethic more obsessive; their fund raising more aggressive; their statistics more inflated. Culture is pressuring the theory of the sensitive, assertive, decisive, charismatic, and gnostic leader into something they never intended.- Seeker sensitivity is morphing into catered consumerism. Style is increasingly more important than content. The message is more about ideology than theology.
- Pastors are forced to be the new controllers. Followers are less and less able – and unwilling - to distinguish between the leader’s goals and God’s vision.
- Power becoming more centralized. Leaders delegate responsibility, but not authority, because followers want liberty without accountability.
- Celebrity is becoming more important than credibility. Culture gravitates to personalities but is cynical about role models who have feet of clay.
- Disciplers are becoming gurus, because culture does not want to explore profound mysteries; it wants to hear pat answers and demand guarantees.
Whatever emerges will be a new paradigm that shatters our old conceptualizations. The model of disciple-making will no longer be based on the paradigm of Paul and his missionary journeys. It will be based on Phillip following a desert and encountering some Ethiopian on a spiritual pilgrimage. Here are some clues:
The very concept of “church leader” is changing. What is emerging is the “Christian influencer.” The “influencer” is emerging in the world of blogs, social media and “TED Talks,” one who focuses on mobility and migration, meaningless work, the impossibility of home ownership, and debt. The “Christian influencer” is a pilgrim and mentor, and casts a vision of hope that is far-reaching and all-inclusive.
This “Christian influencer” will be part of a non-institutional and apolitical movement. He or she will be called to a second vocation expressed in or alongside another career, unpaid although not unrewarded. Their credibility will not come from a certification, but a lifestyle that is both sacramental and pragmatic, open to mystery and living simply, modeling the fruits of the Spirit as the way of Christ.
The disciple-making process will not be a timely program managed by a pastor, but a timeless process that is motivated and guided by the Holy Spirit. A “Christian influencer” is just one wave in the global current of God’s movement. Leaders don’t make disciples. The Holy Spirit makes disciples, and the “Christian Influencer” will use spiritual disciplines to get caught up in a Kairos moment.
The “Church Growth” leadership model will not completely disappear, but it will go the way of all other church leadership models that preceded it. The paradigm for Christian leadership in the emerging world will not be Peter preaching, or Thomas doubting, or even Paul exhorting the faithful. It will be Phillip mentoring and believing, here today and gone tomorrow, whisked away by the Holy Spirit and ready to do it again in another context, at another Kairos moment, with another spiritual traveler.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Thomas G. Bandy
Tom Bandy is an internationally recognized consultant, conference speaker, and leadership coach for Christian read more… 
Sponsored
Bigstock/Zyabich
Prayer is the end of preaching by Thomas H. Troeger
My goal is to show that when “Praying’s the end of preaching,” prayer is not an escape from the terrifying realities of here and now to a privatized piety, but rather prayer is a different mode of being and doing that engages us with the world in ways that can start and sustain the impulses of transformation.Henry Ward Beecher holds prayer in as high a place of esteem as Herbert does. Beecher titles one of his major lectures with the single word: “Prayer.” In that lecture he s
“I think the most sacred function of the Christian ministry is praying. . . And it is better than a sermon, it is better than any exhortation. He that knows how to pray for his people, I had almost said, need not trouble himself to preach for them or to them; though that is an exaggeration, of course.”[1]
I believe that Beecher here comes close in spirit to putting in prose what Herbert expresses in verse:
"Resort to sermons, but to prayers most:
Praying’s the end of preaching."
At least one subsequent Beecher lecturer strongly shares Beecher’s desire to have preachers give more attention to prayer. William Pierson Merrill, who lectured in the academic year 1921-1922, observes: “Protestantism did a great service when it re-exalted preaching: but it went off the rails when it did so at the expense of praise and prayer. Preaching will not lose, but gain, when it is seen in proper proportion, and when it is rightly related to other acts, in which worship obtains a more complete expression.”[2]
"The End of Preaching" (Abingdon Press, 2018). Order here: http://bit.ly/EndofPreaching
“Praying’s the end of preaching” is a deceptively simple statement. The matter is much more complex than it sounds. For prayer is a comprehensive, multi-dimensional phenomenon. As Carol and Philip Zaleski observe in their magisterial volume, Prayer: A History:"Traditional spoken and written prayers display a breathtaking variety of forms, including invocation, proclamation, exorcism, novena, meditation, hymn, didactic wisdom, and lament. They may be intricate and lengthy. . . Or they may be as short and sharp as a dagger. . . They may conjure or abjure, curse or jest, praise or blame, plea or give thanks; they may be joyous, bitter, calm, choleric, charitable, or vindictive; they may burst forth at any hour, under any circumstance, in any place."[3]
As complex and multi-dimensional as prayer is, there is something elemental about its character, as though it is a reality woven into the very fabric of the world. The Zaleski’s write:
“When we ask men and women from traditional cultures, those endowed with a lively mythic consciousness, about the origin of prayer, their answers send us back to the beginning of time. Prayer, they tell us, is written into our world primordial charter; it echoes the creator’s speech, the animal’s lament, the angels’ chant.”[4]
The contemporary poet Ellery Akers reveals how we, supposedly sophisticated, post-modern people, may in fact be in touch with the primordial character of prayer through the kind of common experience that Akers probes in his poem: “The Word that Is a Prayer:”
One thing you know when you say it:
all over the earth people are saying it with you;
- a child blurting it out as the seizures take her,
- a woman reciting it on a cot in a hospital.
- What if you take a cab through the Tenderloin: at a street light, a man in a wool cap, yarn unraveling across his face, knocks at the window; he says, Please. By the time you hear what he’s saying, the light changes, the cab pulls away, and you don’t go back, though you know someone just prayed to you the way you pray. Please: a word so short it could get lost in the air as it floats up to God like the feather it is, knocking and knocking, and finally falling back to earth as rain as pellets of ice, soaking a black branch, collecting in drains, leaching into the ground, and you walk in that weather every day.[5]
George Herbert provides us with a framework for responding to this question through his metaphor of the temple. Carol and Philip Zaleski reflect on how temples help to sustain the praying that goes on in a multitude of places:
“We may pray in the bedroom at dawn, in the fields at midday, in the kitchen at dusk. But we are able to pray there because we pray also in a more powerful place, where prayer goes on endlessly, day and night. Prayer does have a wellspring, and its name is the temple.”[6]
When Herbert says “Praying’s the end of preaching,” he has in mind the prayer of the temple, the prayer of the house of worship, the prayer of the church gathered together in holy service. For Herbert the corporate nature of prayer does not domesticate and smooth the ragged edges of what the human heart wants from God. Mark the astounding range of images and phrases that Herbert employs in this sonnet that is one continuous series of appositions for prayer:
- Prayer the Church's banquet, angel's age,
- God's breath in man returning to his birth,
- The soul in paraphrase, heart in pilgrimage,
- The Christian plummet sounding heav'n and earth
- Engine against th' Almighty, sinner's tow'r,
- Reversed thunder, Christ-side-piercing spear,
- The six-days world transposing in an hour,
- A kind of tune, which all things hear and fear;
- Softness, and peace, and joy, and love, and bliss,
- Exalted manna, gladness of the best,
- Heaven in ordinary, man well drest,
- The milky way, the bird of Paradise,
- Church-bells beyond the stars heard, the soul's blood,
- The land of spices; something understood.[7]
[2] Batsell Barrett Baxter, p. 203 originally appeared in William Pierson Merrill, The Freedom of the Preacher, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1922, p. 45.
[3] Philip Zaleski, Carol Zaleski, Prayer: A History, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005, p. 251.
[4] Philip Zaleski, Carol Zaleski, p. 22.
[5] Ellery Akers, “The Word That Is a Prayer” in NY Times Magazine, July 5, 2015 p. 21.
[6] Philip Zaleski, Carol Zaleski, p. 241.
[7] George Herbert, pp. 45-46.
Excerpted from The End of Preaching by Thomas H. Troeger. Copyright © 2018 Abingdon Press. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Thomas H. Troeger
Thomas H. Troeger, Lantz Professor emeritus Yale Divinity School and Institute of Sacred Music, has written 24 books in read more… 
A heart at peace by Grant Hagiya
This article is featured in the Decision 2019: One with Christ, One with each other, One in ministry to all the world (Aug/Sep/Oct 2018) issue of Circuit Rider
The Commission on a Way Forward (the group of thirty-two set apart to make recommendations about human sexuality by the General Conference in 2016) read together The Anatomy of Peace by the Arbinger Institute. The book had a powerful influence on our work of coming together as a community of very diverse and sometimes opposite points of view. Some of the concepts in The Anatomy of Peace are so important that we are recommending that every annual conference delegation read the book together in preparation for the Special Called Session of General Conference in February 2019.In the midst of daily living, and especially during conflict, the book demonstrates how we are either functioning with “a heart at war” or with “a heart at peace.” A heart at war means that we are closed by our own position or beliefs, and we are not willing to compromise or listen to anything contrary. Our actions are to defend, protect, and conquer. A heart at war means that our souls are restless and unsettled, and we are willing to aggressively enforce our beliefs. When we have a heart at war, we see people as objects, and we treat them as vehicles that we use, obstacles that we blame, and irrelevancies that we ignore.
In contrast, a heart at peace means that we know where we stand, but with a “convicted humility,” we are open to explore all sides of an issue in order to be open to where God is leading us. Our actions are to be curious, open-minded, and willing to say, “I might be wrong about this.” When we have a heart at peace, we see people as subjects, and we seek to know their needs, concerns, and challenges. We treat them with the love and compassion that we yearn to receive from others.
Our United Methodist General Conferences, for more than two decades, reflect an ethos sustaining a heart at war, especially over issues that clearly divide us, such as human sexuality. During my very first General Conference, as a young clergyperson, I was taught that I must be ready to defend my position and to fight for those concessions that would affect “our” point of view. There was no talk of what God’s will was, but rather the reinforcing of a select theological and political position in the church. I was taught to live with a heart at war!
Tragically, I was not the only one schooled in this way. It is too ironic, because we are not a military, a for-profit corporation, or a political institution whose mission is to win, overpower, and conquer the competition.
We are part of the church of Jesus Christ, whose main purpose is to love God and our neighbor the same way we love ourselves. We should be taught not to win but to sacrifice, not to overpower but to love, not to conquer but to show compassion, not to lecture but to listen. In short, we should be taught to have a heart at peace, not at war.
At the deeper levels of the Arbinger principles, they teach that organizations have been going about reaching their desired outcomes with the wrong motives. Most organizations try to shape the behavior of their workers in order to get to desired results. Examples are: “sell more,” “recruit more,” or “produce more.” We do this in the church also: “attract more people,” “raise more money,” and “recruit younger people.” By focusing on these behaviors, organizations believe that they will achieve the desired outcomes.
However, cajoling coworkers to drive harder seldom works. It is extremely difficult to change or alter people’s behaviors, because behaviors alone do not deliver success, vitality, or health. A classic example of this resistance to adapt is the American Medical Association’s research, in which people with chronic heart disease were told directly that unless they changed their lifestyle, they would soon die. Only one in seven were able to change their behaviors or lifestyle, even when told they would die as the consequence.
Unless we change our mindset or attitudes, as well as our hearts (our emotions), we will not be able to achieve the desired results. The holistic internal reference of individuals must change for the cultural shift to take place. We are describing metanoia (translated in the Common English Bible as “changed hearts and lives”), which is a 180-degree shift in our internal reference. This is how we become “part of the new creation” in Christ Jesus (2 Cor 5: 17).
The United Methodist Church’s General Conference falls into this same trap each quadrennium. We try to control delegates’ behavior through the organizational rules and regulations that are set for the conference. Parliamentary procedure, legislative processes, and the long-standing cultural norms of General Conference, such as sitting in order of delegate election, rule the day.
We pay very little attention to developing the minds and hearts of delegates in a positive and constructive way. In fact, we harden the minds and hearts of our delegates by preparing them for conflict, war, and winning others to “our” side. This kind of power has led to the current impasse concerning LGBTQ inclusion. We have hardened our stances vis-à-vis the other side and are not willing to be open to where God is leading us.
What if we prepared for the Special Called Session of General Conference and future General Conferences differently? What if we worked toward a heart at peace instead of a heart at war? What if we came together with the desired outcomes of the whole church as our main priorities: mission, outreach, compassion, justice, and the “Making of Disciples for the Transformation of the World”?
So, as we prepare for the Special Called Session, what does it mean to have a heart at peace? The theological statement that the Commission on a Way Forward uses is “convicted humility.” As it is described in our Commission’s theological framework:
This is an attitude which combines honesty about the differing convictions which divide us with humility about the way in which each of our views may stand in need of correction. It also involves humble repentance for the ways in which we have spoken and acted as those seeking to win a fight rather than those called to discern the shape of faithfulness together. In that spirit, we wish to lift up the shared core commitments which define the Wesleyan movement, and ground our search for wisdom and holiness.
If the majority of our delegates can come with this “convicted humility” as an expression of a heart at peace, we will have a chance to shape The United Methodist Church in a whole new and fresh way. At stake is the future of our denomination, and we dare not allow our selfishness, sinfulness, and hearts at war to jeopardize what we offer to the world. A heart at peace is the answer, and one that must not falter.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Grant Hagiya
Grant Hagiya is currently serving as the bishop for the California-Pacific area of the United States. He completed read more… 
Bigstock/Srdjanns74
Last week, I explained why I am fond of the likelihood that the author of James was the brother of our Lord. In this week’s text — James 2:1-10, (11-13), 14-17 — he echoes the beatitudes (Matt. 5), and cites Leviticus 19, just as his brother did. In chapter 2, James gives us more on what “authentic religion” is, which might appeal to our culture, especially younger generations, for whom authenticity is the rage. How we treat, think about, and act around the rich and the poor is a test of authenticity. Most churches and Christians flunk this test miserably.Churches, of course, are deeply segregated — not just by race, but by class. We might gripe about preferential treatment for wealthy, well-placed people, but if we find ourselves in the company of someone famous or wealthy, we get all chipper, so very polite and interested, preening, proud of ourselves for just being there.
All this is normal in our culture. But Christianity is a peculiar movement. Luke Timothy Johnson puts it well:
“The assembly gathered by faith, says James, must act on the basis of another set of values. Those whom the world most despises are to be regarded, in faith, as heirs of the kingdom and therefore honored by the specific hospitality of the community: its greetings, its body language, its space. It is by this measure that the community is to be judged. Woe to the church that does not meet this measure of mercy, for it will face merciless judgment.”
The preacher can hold up this text to ask, gently but clearly, some questions about our space, our body language… Yes, there’s pressure on wealthier churches (like mine), but no church can dodge the inquiry.
How we fawn over the wealthy poses a spiritual crisis; our doting on them might only be via gawking at the TV or gazing far down at the people with the choice seats at an event. Johnson reads James (rightly!) as suggesting that we wind up divided not only among ourselves but also within ourselves; the one who sees and lives into division is divided in soul.
James’s text fascinates, in that it seems to allude to those who have been oppressed themselves suddenly becoming oppressors of others! Pheme Perkins explains this phenomenon pointedly:
“They have learned from their oppressors, not from God! The tendency of the oppressed to adopt the behavior of their oppressors frequently emerges in revolutionary movements. The lowly may prefer the limited power they can exercise against others to the exaltation that comes from God.”
"Weak Enough to Lead: What the Bible Tells Us about Powerful Leadership" (Abingdon Press, 2017). Order here: http://bit.ly/2rYxHac
The litmus test of authentic Christianity is how we live with the poor — not, as Sam Well has pointed out so eloquently in A Nazareth Manifesto, what we do for them. We foolishly think Jesus is tickled when we, the haves, offer to solve their problems for them because they are (in our usually unarticulated view) incapable. Every encounter then reinforces their humiliation. Christians don’t send stuff to the poor. They are with them; they befriend them. A local story of being with the poor, of how all benefit when such friendships arise, is illustrative in the greatest sense of the word.
* * *
A curious enactment of James’s principle is found in our Gospel, Mark 7:24-37, when his brother encounters the Syro-Phoenician woman and frankly treats her quite rudely, shockingly to us. There must be some rationalization, right? Floyd Filson, in his 1960 commentary on Matthew, suggested that he winked at her when he spoke these words, implying insider status for this one. Or was it a clever ploy on Jesus’ part to evoke deeper faith in her, or those watching?Morna Hooker, noting how Jesus confined his attention to the Jews, suggested that “the Gentile woman requests a cure outside the context of Jesus’ call to Israel; she seems to be asking for a cure which is detached from the in-breaking of God’s kingdom, merely taking advantage of the opportunity provided by the presence of a miracle worker. This is perhaps the reason for Jesus’ stern answer; his healings are part of something greater and cannot be torn out of that context.”
Joel Marcus is mindful of the history of bad blood between Tyrians and Galileans, of how the farm produce of Galilee so often wound up in Tyre while the peasants in Galilee went hungry. So Jesus’ words make a bit of compassionate sense. Or should we suggest, as many have, that Jesus had a growing moment, a learning experience, a maturation in himself? Mistakenly he turned her away, and her persistence cracked open a bit of hardness in Jesus’ Jewishness to leave space for a desperate Gentile? Depending on the height of your view of Jesus’ humanity, this may or may not work.
Martin Luther examined this text and thought of the ways Christians are to persist in trusting God, even when God seems to turn his back on them. They must learn to see the ‘yes’ hidden in his ‘no.’ There's much wisdom here — although the preacher dare not resort to trifling ideas such as those articulated in Garth Brooks’s “Unanswered Prayers.”
The Syro-Phoenician woman’s persistence has recently been likened to the persistence of women insisting on their place in the church. “Nevertheless, She Persisted” became a popular slogan, t-shirt and hashtag this year. Persistence of this kind is a biblical thing, falsifying the absurd notion of God’s will being associated with “the door was open.” Many open doors we most surely should not walk through. Many closed and bolted doors should be knocked down.
I am fond of Sheila Nelson-McJilton’s probing sermon, “Crumbs," cited in Leonora Tubbs Tisdale’s great book, Prophetic Preaching. “Crumbs. That’s all they are looking for. Crumbs. Not the whole life. Not even a slice. Just crumbs. You and I want the whole loaf…” She then speaks of our wealth, access, and all the poor lack. But then she presses further: “Crumbs. They want more than crumbs because deep in their souls, they know they deserve more. And yet they often do not know who to ask or how to ask…”
The second half of the Mark reading has its own possibilities with its echo of Isaiah and the inspired music of Handel. The Aramaic word, miraculously preserved, ephatha, has been used in many baptismal liturgies. The priest touches the ear of the infant and asks that it be opened. We should redo such a prayer for ourselves daily so we might hear God. The “prayer for illumination” before the sermon: open our ears, O Lord. (And do we pray before the sermon? or before the Scripture reading? or at the very opening of the service?)
"What can we say come September 9? 16th after Pentecost" originally appeared at James Howell's Weekly Preaching Notions. Reprinted with permission.
OUT THE AUTHOR
James C. Howell
Dr. James C. Howell has been senior pastor of Myers Park United Methodist Church since 2003, and has served read more…
Sponsored
Bigstockphotolirika
Around the time of Jesus, a man was thinking about converting to Judaism. So, he sought out the renowned Rabbi Hillel and asked him to summarize the Torah while standing on one foot. Hillel said, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. All the rest is commentary; go and learn.”Sensing the need for a second opinion, the man posed the same question to another prominent rabbi named Shammai. The seeker said, “Teach me the Torah, that is, teach me all of your traditions, your values, your practices, and your theology, while standing on one foot.” (Shabbat 31a) In answer, Shammai beat the man with a stick.
On another occasion Hillel and Shammai reflected on whether or not Torah allows us to tell a homely bride that she is beautiful. For Shammai, a white lie is still a lie, and Torah prohibits lying. By contrast, Hillel said that all brides are beautiful on their wedding day.
Hillel and Shammai founded the two great schools of Jewish thought that permeated the intellectual, moral, and spiritual atmosphere that Jesus breathed. Their discussions and debates about how the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible and its application to everyday life shaped a portion of what is called the Oral Torah.
The Talmud preserved the Oral Torah in written form about two centuries after Jesus’s death and resurrection. As you may know, the Talmud remains central to the religious, spiritual, and moral life of Judaism. Even though the Talmud is a printed document, it is still sometimes called Oral Torah. And I think that calling it the Oral Torah helps us understand some of Jesus’s conflicts with the Pharisees.
"A Resurrection Shaped Life: Dying and Rising on Planet Earth" (Abingdon Press, 2018). Pre-order here: http://bit.ly/2K2M3wB
Frequently, Christians read the New Testament’s conflict stories as if Jesus is a theological good guy and the Pharisees are bad guys.Some interpreters read the text as if Jesus has already started a new faith tradition called Christianity that is clearly delineated from Judaism. So, they hear in the Gospel’s conflict stories a clash of religious traditions. Christianity is cast as all about grace and Judaism is portrayed as crass legalism.
For some people, it’s a startling news flash to hear that Jesus was not a Christian. Jesus was a devout and learned Jew. (He also wasn’t white and hailed from the Middle East, but let’s just deal with one shock to the system at a time.)
So, when Jesus debates the Pharisees, he’s participating as a fellow Jew in what they all recognize as Oral Torah. They all acknowledge that the Hebrew Bible comes alive—means something—only when we wrestle with it together as we try to navigate the messy particulars of our real lives.
To put this another way, Scripture is always a living conversation. Its meaning emerges in the varied, often unpredictable, and wildly unique situations and circumstances of real human life. Scripture is not a set of stand-alone instructions that we can memorize and then simply follow without interpretation and application.
We can assess the adequacy of our interpretations of Scripture by what our interpretations have done to our souls. What are our encounters with Scripture making of us as spiritual beings? That’s what Jesus is getting at when he calls some Pharisees “hypocrites.”
This group of Pharisees has criticized Jesus’s disciples for failing to adhere to traditional spiritual cleanliness practices like washing vessels and hands. These traditional practices are themselves part of Oral Torah. They are rabbinic guidance designed to ensure that our outward actions never violate more significant laws found in Hebrew Scripture.
This moral reasoning process is called building a fence around the Torah. If you follow simple regulations about your ordinary routines you’ll never be in danger of breaking God’s moral law. So, wash up!
Good Jew that he was, Jesus probably saw how useful building a Torah fence could be and likely followed many of these practices habitually. But he also recognized that the usefulness of how Torah had been previously interpreted must remain open to question. A key for testing previous interpretations was to ask: What are the interpretations we’ve received doing to us now?
The same can be said about how we Christians engage Scripture today. Jesus challenges us to take our soul’s temperature.
Do we respect the dignity and celebrate the worth of others? Or do we objectify them, condescend to them, or harbor contempt for them?
Do we respond with joy—or with resentment—for someone else’s good fortune?
Do we seek the well-being of everyone, or are we content with a world divided into winners and losers?
Jesus puts it like this:
For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person. (Mark 7:21-23)
If a potential disciple asked me to summarize what it means to follow Jesus while standing on one foot, I would initially think of how Jesus echoed Hillel. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Matthew 7:12)
But this is what I would end up saying. Live your life like God is sloppy in love with you and everyone you meet. Love God back. Love your neighbor like you couldn’t live without her. Because, actually, you can’t.
Then again, maybe I would just leave it at this: Love.
"On One Foot" originally appeared at Looking for God in Messy Places. Reprinted with permission.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jake Owensby
Jake Owensby is the fourth Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Western Louisiana. Jake is the author of several books read more… 
In Part 3 of Redlining & White Noise, we go to the campus of Texas Southern University to speak with Dr. Merline Pitre about the tumultuous period in American history known as Reconstruction and its aftermath.
Merline Pitre is Professor of History and former Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Behavioral Science at Texas Southern University. A former President of the Texas State Historical Association, she is author of several books including "Through Many Dangers, Toils, and Snares: The Black Leadership of Texas, 1868–1898, Revised Edition", and "In Struggle against Jim Crow: Lulu B. White and the NAACP, 1900–1957".
Merline Pitre is Professor of History and former Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Behavioral Science at Texas Southern University. A former President of the Texas State Historical Association, she is author of several books including "Through Many Dangers, Toils, and Snares: The Black Leadership of Texas, 1868–1898, Revised Edition", and "In Struggle against Jim Crow: Lulu B. White and the NAACP, 1900–1957".
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
reClaimed podcast
Charles Rotramel and Gregg Taylor host the reClaimed podcast on challenging subjects and social justice issues facing read more… 
Bigstock/Elnur
For many of us, giving blood can be a nightmare: the needles, the smell, feeling light-headed — even though we know it is for a good cause. At the age of 14, after a significant chest surgery, James Harrison’s life was saved through blood transfusions. After that, he vowed to give his own blood to help others. However, that was just the beginning!A few years after James began donating blood, doctors discovered that his blood was extra special. According to Jemma Falkenmire, of the Australian Red Cross Blood Service: “Every bag of blood is precious, but James’ blood is particularly extraordinary. His blood is actually used to make a life-saving medication, given to moms whose blood is at risk of attacking their unborn babies.” Jemma also explained that “in Australia, up until about 1967, there were literally thousands of babies dying each year, doctors didn’t know why, and it was awful. . . . Australia was one of the first countries to discover a blood donor with this antibody, so it was quite revolutionary at the time.”
A rare commitment
Now that Harrison has given blood nearly every week for sixty years he can retire knowing he has made a significant impact on the lives of many families. How big of an impact? Experts estimate that Harrison alone has saved around 2.4 million babies. Obviously, Harrison endured quite a bit over the course of sixty years as he continued to give blood. Nevertheless, he did so for the good of others.
Faith is not a seasonal sport
Endurance is rarely so visibly impressive. Often it simply means doing the right thing or staying true to our word over a long period of time. Our commitments matter, and none matters more than our faithfulness to God. Just like Harrison’s enduring commitment to blood donations, we can consistently give our time, energy, and love to God to help change the world for good.
Question of the day: What journey has God called you to endure to help bring about good in this world?
Focal scriptures: Romans 8:18-28; Hebrews 12:1-3; Numbers 11:10-17
Romans 8:18 I don’t think the sufferings we are going through now are even worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed to us in the future. 19 The creation waits eagerly for the sons of God to be revealed; 20 for the creation was made subject to frustration — not willingly, but because of the one who subjected it. But it was given a reliable hope 21 that it too would be set free from its bondage to decay and would enjoy the freedom accompanying the glory that God’s children will have. 22 We know that until now, the whole creation has been groaning as with the pains of childbirth; 23 and not only it, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we continue waiting eagerly to be made sons — that is, to have our whole bodies redeemed and set free. 24 It was in this hope that we were saved. But if we see what we hope for, it isn’t hope — after all, who hopes for what he already sees? 25 But if we continue hoping for something we don’t see, then we still wait eagerly for it, with perseverance.
26 Similarly, the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we don’t know how to pray the way we should. But the Spirit himself pleads on our behalf with groanings too deep for words; 27 and the one who searches hearts knows exactly what the Spirit is thinking, because his pleadings for God’s people accord with God’s will. 28 Furthermore, we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called in accordance with his purpose;
Hebrews 12:1 So then, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us, too, put aside every impediment — that is, the sin which easily hampers our forward movement — and keep running with endurance in the contest set before us, 2 looking away to the Initiator and Completer of that trusting,[Hebrews 12:2 Habakkuk 2:4] Yeshua — who, in exchange for obtaining the joy set before him, endured execution on a stake as a criminal, scorning the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.[Hebrews 12:2 Psalm 110:1] 3 Yes, think about him who endured such hostility against himself from sinners, so that you won’t grow tired or become despondent.Numbers 11:10 Moshe heard the people crying, family after family, each person at the entrance to his tent; the anger of Adonai flared up violently; and Moshe too was displeased. 11 Moshe asked Adonai, “Why are you treating your servant so badly? Why haven’t I found favor in your sight, so that you put the burden of this entire people on me? 12 Did I conceive this people? Was I their father, so that you tell me, ‘Carry them in your arms, like a nurse carrying a baby, to the land you swore to their ancestors?’ 13 Where am I going to get meat to give to this entire people? — because they keep bothering me with their crying and saying, ‘Give us meat to eat!’ 14 I can’t carry this entire people by myself alone — it’s too much for me! 15 If you are going to treat me this way, then just kill me outright! — please, if you have any mercy toward me! — and don’t let me go on being this miserable!”
16 Adonai said to Moshe, “Bring me seventy of the leaders of Isra’el, people you recognize as leaders of the people and officers of theirs. Bring them to the tent of meeting, and have them stand there with you. 17 I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take some of the Spirit which rests on you and put it on them. Then they will carry the burden of the people along with you, so that you won’t carry it yourself alone (Complete Jewish Bible).
For a complete lesson on this topic visit LinC.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Paul Bonner
Paul Bonner loves the LORD, his family, and working with teenagers. Paul has a passion to help young people grow in read more…
Bigstock/enterlinedesign
Over the last four years, the number of children entering the foster care system has been on the rise. Although not yet at the historic high reached in 2002 (when the number of children reached a whopping 524,000), 2016 saw a continued rise in the number of children in foster care, reaching 437,500, up from 397,000 in 2012.According to the United States Children’s Bureau, foster care is the “24-hour substitute care for children outside their own homes.” Children can be removed from their homes and placed into foster care due to “maltreatment, lack of care or lack of supervision,” and children of any age can be placed in foster care, although late teens can apply to be legally emancipated instead. Over the past several years, the age of children being removed from their homes has decreased. In 2006, the median age of a child placed in foster care was 7.5 years old. In 2016, the median age at the time of entering foster care was just 6.3 years old.
Foster care extends to many settings and situations, including the care of nonguardian relatives, nonrelative foster families, group homes, preadoptive homes, emergency shelters and residential facilities. Children may be placed in foster care for a short period of time — hours or days — or remain in foster care for years. The most common length of stay in foster care is one to eleven months, with 35 percent of children staying in that range. Another 28 percent of children will stay in foster care for 12 to 23 months. While reunification with the parents or legal guardians is ideal, only 55 percent of children in foster care have a case plan goal of leaving the system through reunification. Another 26 percent have the goal of being adopted.
As the number of children entering the foster care system rises, there are fewer resources to support them. The Chronicle of Social Change found that “at least half of the states in the U.S. have seen their foster care capacity decrease between 2012 and 2017. Either these states have fewer beds and more foster youth, or any increase in beds has been dwarfed by an even greater increase in foster children and youth.”
Foster care and families
Thirty-four percent of the children removed from their homes in 2016 were removed as a result of substance abuse by a parent. Areas in the country where the opioid epidemic has been at its worst have seen the most dramatic rise in children being removed from their homes and placed in foster care, according to The Atlantic.
“The continued trend of parental substance abuse is very concerning, especially when it means children must enter foster care as a result,” Steven Wagner, acting assistant secretary at the Administration for Children and Families, told NPR in a 2017 article.
Many of these children are entering foster care and staying for long stretches of time. However, this increased demand isn’t being met with an increase in volunteers to be foster parents. This imbalance is particularly evident in rural communities.
While each state sets its own requirements for certification, all families willing to take in foster children must undergo background checks, a home study (visit and inspection of the home), and training and have recommendations of community members on their behalf. It’s no surprise that such a time- and resource-intensive certification program discourages many potential foster families from even starting the process.
In Arkansas, several nonprofit organizations have sprung up to address this specific issue. Children of Arkansas Loved for a Lifetime (CALL) is one such organization. CALL works to make foster family certification easier to navigate. For instance, CALL offers the required trainings at churches over the course of a weekend instead of one night a week for several weeks in government facilities. It also teaches churches and pastors to be advocates for foster children and to recruit foster families.
According to the Arkansas Times, between 2016 and 2017, 220 additional families became certified and took in foster children. While this is a modest number in comparison to the number of foster children in need, it points toward a hopeful trend among nonprofits and church groups who are working to recruit more foster families.
Being a foster child
Children removed from their homes may be leaving behind a bad situation, but they’re not guaranteed a significantly better one in foster care. Sherry Lachman, a former domestic policy advisor to Vice President Joe Biden, was placed in foster care when she was six years old. In an article for Time magazine, she writes, “I know what it feels like to be the child of the government. . . . In under two years, I was shuttled between three different homes. My first was an emergency placement. . . . Within a month, just enough time to grow attached to my warmhearted foster mother, I was removed.”
Lachman describes being placed with a family who had four biological children and being forced to stand aside as the “real” family took a photo together. Later, when she was sent from their home to another foster family, she found it was because the family had a vacation planned. “I learned that I was less valuable than a weeklong getaway.”
Children may also experience abuse and mistreatment while in foster care, resulting in even more dire situations, as Lachman details. A third of all homeless youth have been in foster care at some point, and less than three percent of foster children graduate from a four-year college. Foster children are also much more susceptible to human trafficking.
“Kids in foster care, they don’t really have parents or certain individuals or a caring safe adult that they can go to or that they can confide in,” said Kristina Fitz, a case manager with the Los Angeles-area Children’s Law Center, in a recent Reuters article. “They’re the quickest ones to fall into the hands of an exploiter.”
Lachman encourages everyday citizens to become advocates. “Let’s not give up,” she writes, “until every child receives the unconditional love and individual care they so desperately need — and that no government entity can come close to providing.”
Teens in foster care
Teenagers who find themselves in the foster care system face struggles that their peers are significantly less likely to face. Just getting accepted by a foster or adoptive family is less likely for teens than it is for younger children. Consider these factors from the National Foster Youth Institute:
High school dropout rates are three times higher for foster youth than other low-income children.
Only 50 percent of teens in foster care will graduate from high school.
Less than three percent of youths raised in foster care graduate from a four-year college.
Youth in foster care consistently underperform in school compared to their general population peers.
Once teenagers have “aged out” of foster care at 18, many of these newly minted young adults have no support system or social safety net. Eric Gilmore, founder of Immerse Arkansas, a nonprofit to support teens who have aged out of the system, has spoken about the lack of support for older foster youths. In a recent Atlanticarticle, Gilmore recalls one young woman telling him that “the day after her 18th birthday, she was given a bag of clothes, one night’s worth of bipolar medication, and a one-way ticket to some biological family members.” In the end, teens in foster care are far more likely than other teens to end up in the juvenile delinquent system and subsequently more likely to be incarcerated as adults.
Be sure to check out FaithLink, a weekly downloadable discussion guide for classes and small groups.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Laura Brekke
The Rev. Laura K. Brekke serves as Benfield-Vick Chaplain at Davis & Elkins College in Elkins, West read more…
Bigstock/Wayhome Studio
The longer I study Christian Scripture, the more convinced I am that the Christian mind is a peculiar oddity. (I’ve written on this before, here, here and here.) Put differently, what Wesley called the “ordinances of God” — which include worship, prayer, the Lord’s Supper, the reading of Scripture and fasting — our habits of mind become different than they were before. In this day and age, it is particularly important that we seek what might be called “cruciform” habits of mind, which will mean that we think, speak and act in peculiar ways.Transformation and preparation
The verse that will immediately come to mind for many is Romans 12:2: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God — what is good and acceptable and perfect.” According to Paul, then, the present transformation (metamorphoō) that God effects in our lives comes through the renewing (anakainosis) of our minds.
It’s noteworthy that the imperative is plural. In other words, Paul’s instructions in Romans 12:2 are not to one person, but to the whole church. It’s not “you” but “y’all.” The transformation of individual minds brings a change in the collective mindset of the church. With the renewing of the mind, moreover, comes an ability to discern the will of God. Therefore, it should be characteristic of the church to be able to discern God’s will. Correlatively, apart from renewal, the human mind cannot consistently discern God’s will.
I am not suggesting that Christians will always walk in lockstep with one another. What I am saying is that the transformation that God works in our minds should begin to lead us toward a common vision of our life together. To the extent that this doesn’t happen, to the extent that we cannot collectively discern the will of God, perhaps it is because we have not pursued the ordinances of God with sufficient fervor. Or, perhaps we avail ourselves too freely of influences that lead our minds away from a transformed vision. Put differently, perhaps we have too much conformity and too little transformation. I count myself as in no way immune to this intellectual illness.
Another relevant passage is 1 Peter 1:13: “Therefore prepare your minds for action; discipline yourselves; set all your hope on the grace that Jesus Christ will bring you when he is revealed.” A literal rendering of the beginning of this verse is, “Therefore gird up the loins of your mind; be sober minded!” Sobriety in the ancient world can be a metaphor for spiritually enlightened thinking that allows us to see the world as it really is. This doesn’t happen on its own, however. It requires preparation — and thus we are back to the ordinances of God. Sober-mindedness means that we guard ourselves from the “drunkenness” that comes from imbibing too much of what the world has to offer and too little of the living water of Jesus Christ.
There are cruciform habits of mind. We cannot form these habits on our own, but rely on the power of the Holy Spirit to shape our thoughts, desires and will. Here’s another way of saying the same thing: God can so shape our hearts that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ becomes the lens through which we see all the world around us. This, I think, is what Paul means when he makes the remarkable claim, “We have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:16). The mind of Christ is an all-consuming attitude, a way of seeing and thinking and being in the world. On our own it is utterly beyond our grasp. We are entirely reliant on the Holy Spirit, whom we encounter in practices such as prayer, the reading of Scripture, worship, and the sacraments. We must, as Wesley insisted, attend upon all the ordinances of God.
Thinking politically
In many cases, our first instinct as postmodern Westerners is not theological, but political. The reason for this is obvious: we do attend consistently upon the ordinances of politics. It is hard not to do so these days. We are bombarded with politics through the various forms of media we access. The world around us is bound to shape our thinking, particularly if we are not intentional about the renewal of our minds through the church’s means of grace. What’s more, especially in this time of deep polarization and mistrust, our drive to protect the political ground we’ve taken, or to take political ground from our opponents, can be quite strong. In other words, it’s not simply that the ambient culture is so deeply politicized, but political statements often evoke strong emotional — often defensive — reactions within us that keep such thoughts at the front of our minds.
For Christians, this presents a serious problem. Our national political parties do not develop their policies based upon Christian theological reflection. Of course, sometimes the values of Christians come to bear on these policies, but no party can claim that its policies unequivocally stand upon the firm foundation of Christian belief. Policies emerge from a whole host of both pragmatic and ideological concerns which may or may not have any relationship to the Christian life. What’s more, political groups at times claim Christian values and identity as a way to gain support and leverage power. As a result, they offer a distorted view of what it means to think and live as a Christian.
One might counter that every theological claim is also political. To this I would respond that every theological claim has certain political implications. I am not, however, willing to collapse theology and politics. Theology is faith seeking understanding. Politics consists of the means by which we influence communities of people toward certain ends.
One might further protest that politics has always been a part of the life of the church. No doubt this is true. Over the last few years I have become better acquainted with church politics than I ever would have wanted. To make matters worse, church politics often mirrors the politics of the surrounding culture. That is certainly the case in the United States today. Nevertheless, this doesn’t have to be so. In some cases, the church has rightly come to understand itself as a counterculture, not a mirror of the surrounding culture. This requires ongoing self-examination, confession of sin and a strong ecclesiology.
Here’s the rub: unless we choose to abstain entirely from political life (which I am not recommending), we will have to cast our lot with some party, probably Democratic or Republican in the United States. These are the options available to us. I’m in no way suggesting that Christians should withdraw from politics. I only want us to realize the limitations of a primarily political view of the world. We must understand our political allegiances are imperfect and contingent. There will be times when we simply must part ways with the parties we support. This will be the inevitable result of having been properly formed in the faith.
Our minds require renewal because our thought processes are broken by sin. That is the human condition. Politics cannot renew the mind. It cannot renew the church. It cannot save the world. Only God can do that. Christ taught us, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matt 22:21). Our minds belong to God. Let us understand them thusly.
David F. Watson blogs at davidfwatson.me.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
David F. Watson
David F. Watson serves as Academic Dean and Associate Professor of New Testament at United Theological
Ministry Matters
2222 Rosa L. Parks Boulevard
Nashville, Tennessee 37228 United States
***
No comments:
Post a Comment