Families: The church on a bell curve

The stratification of what we call “family” looks a little like a bell curve. On one end are any number of single people, who often become married, (curve increases) and create families of their own. These families grow, and eventually the goslings leave the nest. We begin to see the curve retract, often concluding quite sadly, with the passing of one lover before the other, returning the household to a state of singleness.

Most churches struggle with issues related to being who God has called them to be, and at Oasis we are no different. Having an ongoing conversation, when the members of the family range in age from one week to 97 years old, can be a bit challenging. For the most part it is an enjoyable struggle, but it is a challenge none-the-less. So I was struck by the juxtaposition of two passages in Matthew chapter 19. The first relates to the single life, and the second, to the life of the child.

v. 12 - Others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.

v. 14 - Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Many of us find ourselves in the middle of the family bell curve, (married with children) myself included. The tendency for all of us is to relate best to those we are most like. But what of those on the edges of the bell curve? Scripture teaches, and in our head we know, that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. But to live it out, that is a challenge.

Too often the church responds to this bell curve in much the same way as the rest of the world, not with authentic love, but with programs, throwing money at the “problem”, and further stratification. We place the children over here, those poor singles over there, and the weak and aging somewhere else. This way, we who are the majority can get on with the business of life and church, unencumbered with the distractions of people not like us; people who quite frankly remind us of our own mortality and the fragileness of life at beginning and end.

At Oasis, we are no different. We don’t excel at breaking down these barriers, but we would like to. (You may have some suggestions on how to do this.) To further complicate things, running up against the value of togetherness is a value for communicating appropriately within a given culture. This value includes children, and so in the near future we will be starting up a “children’s church”, something which at first glance would seem to perpetuate the conflicts of interest we have been talking about. And to some degree it does. What we want is to have our cake and eat it too, and I think we can, if we approach this challenge with the right attitude. We want to value our children, and at the same time communicate with them in ways that meet their needs, without simply shoving them off on a volunteer.

Also present on this bell curve are those who are single, whether young or old. And these too, the church constituted by the majority, (those married with children) often struggle to embrace. Our first reaction is often to help them be just like us. We want them to enjoy all the benefits and consequences of marriage; forgetting that both the apostle Paul and Jesus suggest that in fact it may be better not to get married. We in the Evangelical community would do well to consider other traditions, which seem to have done a better job of embracing the life devoted to God.

At Oasis, (and where you’re at as well I’m sure) we would like to create a community where young and old can live, and play, and serve together. The question then is how? I believe we begin by learning to truly believe that the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. The next key, as it is in breaking down any barrier, is intentionality. We need to intentionally build relationships with people who are different than us, and create structures which facilitate this. Children are not a nuisance, the elderly are not a problem, and singles do not need to get married. We are humans created in the image of God, and together (not apart) we are the church.

Beleving : A Short History

One of my friends, Mike, sent me this link: Biggest Intellectual Fights of All Time with the following question.

David,

I had a conversation with the guy who sent me it. I asked if he agreed with me that the Socrates part was slightly mistaken. I explained that the Sophists believed truth was not absolute but established by persuasion or argument (or truth is constructed by language as Post Modernists would say, basically the same thing as there is nothing new under the sun.) The headline reads something like "Socrates vs. the Gods, logic wins". It seems that logic lost if people can just make up whatever truth they want.

He went on to say that our senses can deceive us and truth can't really be known.

Thoughts? How would you take that conversation? It went out ok, I learned from him and hopefully he heard some of what I said. Hit me back when you can.

Peace

This is how I responded.

Mike,

There used to be powers that controlled what people thought. In centuries gone past, the perception was that to run afoul of the church seriously put one in danger of hell. Something similar happens today in terms of being "politically correct". To run afoul of these norms has dire political or professional consequences; though many feel free to ignore these norms and live outside of their power, some for the better, others for not. (Commitments to a particular religion on the good side, but sexest or racist jokes, the KKK, and things like that on the bad side...) Cultures in every age have always had their norms and ways of controlling people, and conversely those that chose not to be controlled; sometimes for better, "the earth really is round", sometimes for worse, "sex whenever, wherever is a great idea"

I think logic and science still play a huge role, but their scope has shrunk. In answering questions like "what should we do about terrorism, or the global financial meltdown?" you will probably use logic, and quite possibly some kind of economic, or political science.

Unfortunatly, the church at the time of the enlightenment had WAY overstepped it's bounds, beveling itself to be the sole owner of ALL truth. Imagine if the church had embraced science and logic as complimentary to theology and philosophy. It didn't and we reap the consequences to this day. Eventually it did, but by then it was too late. Today the church continues to use science and logic when most people have quit using these tools to determine spiritual truth. (more on that in a second)

Science and logic eventually replaced the church as lords of authority. Unfortunately, many in that community make the same mistake the church did, and imagine that those gods can control all knowledge. However, most people in today's culture recognize that not everything falls under the authority of science and logic. Consequently, when it comes to religion and spirituality, people feel free to believe whatever they want. Convincing people to accept a particular authority in these areas requires spiritual authority, not usually the authority of science and logic.

Sincerely, David

At $347,000 Per Baptism Maybe It's Time To Rethink Church

In at piece at Inside Work - Business Spiritually Engaged (an organization I just discovered which I think I really like) Bernard Moon writes an article analysing how much money is given to churches and Christian non-profits world-wide in relationships to the baptisms produced globally. A number of estimates put the number in the $300,000/baptism range.

Here is how he got this number.

The International Bulletin of Missionary Research estimated $410 billion/year in giving to “Christian” causes worldwide over the recent years. This was broken down to $160 billion to churches and $250 billion to parachurch organizations every year. Let’s assume that $347,000 per baptism is simply the total giving of $410 billion divided by the number of baptisms tracked. If this simple method was used, then the cost per baptism is tremendously overstated since we would have to assume a large portion is allocated to the operations of those churches and parachurch organizations.

I am assuming the primary mission of these organizations has something to do with making followers of Christ. The question is how much is being spent on the core mission of these organizations and how effective are they? A comparable question in the business world is asking how much do we spend on marketing and how effective is our program? For many companies, the benchmark is approximately ten percent of budget. Ten percent of $410 billion is $41 billion, which would make the figure $34,700 per baptism.

I would assume though that a church and parachurch organizations should be more focused to their mission than a companies, and, one could argue, their core mission should be their only focus. If a church were a business, would it really only devote 10% of the budget to getting out their message? Eyeballing, 30% or higher seems more appropriate. If this really is the case, I think $104,000 per baptism—or higher—is flabbergasting. And I suppose if one went with the argument that the only mission of a church or parachurch is making new Christians—a premise I don’t think stands up to biblical scrutiny—then the simple arithmetic of total expenditures ÷ number of new converts = cost/baptism, more or less. $347,000.

I agree with him that this is very troubling.

However, while I think the point that he is making stands, I'm concerned that the method this was arrived at is not quite right, which we talked about in some comments on the site.

I had this to say (among other things).

Just wanting to better understand what your saying. I guess what I’m hung up on is this part.

"And I suppose if one went with the argument that the only mission of a church or parachurch is making new Christians—a premise I don’t think stands up to biblical scrutiny (I agree)—then the simple arithmetic of total expenditures (you just said this is not "biblical", I must be missing something) ÷ number of new converts = cost/baptism, more or less. $347,000."

Do you see what I’m getting at. If the mission is about more than making new Christians, (that’s kind of been my point all along) why are we dividing new converts by total expenditures, when much of these expenditures go to something besides conversion efforts? Wouldn’t it make more sense to capture the amount being spent on advertising/evangelism/whatever you want to call it, and then come up with a number? Which I would probably agree with you is still too high. Am I nit-picking? I guess my concern is that if were going to put a headline out there $347,000/baptism, people are going to want to know where that came from.

I believe churches are unique organisms, which have multiple mandates. Consequently, not just baptisms, but alleviating suffering, pursuing justice, and making disciples, to name a few, are all aims of the mones given to the church and other Christian organizations world wide.

That said, his larger point, that there is no doubt way too much waste going on stands, and I agree with him.

You can check out the original article and our comments conversation here.

In the Worst Way

Integrating our faith with the culture that we are is paramount, but it has to be done appropriately. It's hard to define when that is being done well, vis-a-vis poorly, but you know it when you see it. This article How Soccer is Ruining America, is a mixing of faith and culture in the worst way. Take heed.

Evangelicals should stand with those who suffer in Israel and Gaza

A Christianity Today blog post on the current bloodshed in Gaza says this: In counting their losses, Christians, Muslims, Jews discover common ground in grief. The article goes on to suggest that placing blame helps to perpetuate the violence.

I disagree.



The disproportionate nature of Israel's response to Hamas must be condemned by the Evangelical Christian community because it is unequivocally unjust, and horrible evil. The way that innocent children are dying in the Gaza strip is completely unacceptable!

Wikipedia calculates the numbers this way: As of 13 January 2009, 13 Israelis (including 3 civilians) and 933 Palestinians are estimated to have been killed in this conflict. The Palestinian fatalities include 292 children and 75 women.^{[42][43][44][45] [46]}

Many would in turn respond with questions about Hamas, "Israel is just responding to the evil perpetrated on it." they would say. And they would be right, but as we teach our children, two wrongs don't make a right, particularly when one wrong is grossly disproportionate to the first.

I do not want to join my voice to the thousands of antisemitic voices that turn a blind eye to the evils of Hamas. I could comment on their atrocities, but their conduct is well documented and condemned. What is problematic is the unequivocal backing of Israel's terror practices by the United States, the Christian community and Evangelicals in particular.

As Evangelicals the Word of God is our first guide. The Bible gives us a history of the working of God in history, often through his chosen people Israel. It is natural that we would have a special affinity for the place and people where God first chose to work. However as Proverbs 27:6 says: wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses. When we fail to warn our friend Israel of her failure to defend the human innocents on both sides of an artificial international border, we are an enemy multiplying kisses.

One of the favorite Old Testament passages for the Evangelical is Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.

But notice the passages that precede that verse

Isaiah 1:15-18
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; 16 wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, 17 learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. 18 "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool

It may be appropiate for Israel to enter Gaza and chase down Hamas, though that is debatable both on practicle and philosophical grounds. However, if it is going to do so, it must do so in a way that conforms to international law, and a basic sense of justice and respect for human life. The Christian perspective on what this looks like is well documented in its many writings on Just War theory. Which it seems the Christian community is wofully ignorent of when it comes to the war between the Palestenians and Israel.

What I am really concerned about is the voice of the Evangelical on the street and the poor name we give our Savior when we and our nation turn a blind eye to the atrocities and terror going on in Gaza. Hamas is a terrorist organization. However when an overwhelming number of children are terrorized by the Israeli army, what are they?

The message of Christ taught by the Evangelical community must seek to love, respect and restore all people, regardless of race, creed or nationality. And we must stand in solidarity with all who suffer. And more than that, like Christ, we must speak out against all who perpetrate this violence. In this case that is both Hamas and the Israeli Army.

Don't Imitate - Lead

Recently, some "Christian" reality shows have hit the airways on various cable TV channels. While the message is positive, and at first glance relevant and integrated to the culture around them, ("punk" Christian skaters sharing Christ by all means necessary, or an inside look at a Christian rock festival) a closer look revels nothing more than a cheep knock-off of a lousy medium, not so reality TV.



One of the skaters said it best, "We don't not use all of these platforms and avenues that make up society (to share the gospel)" Key word: use. It's not creative, it's not original, it's predictable, old and tired.

As Christians we should be leading in the creative arts. Our God is a creative God, and he calls us to create, not copy old worn out story lines. In contrast the Christian community spends much of its time trying to catch up with the culture, and ends up arriving late and looking stupid. We are that guy at the party trying way too hard to look cool.

I love audio book downloads from my library

So I recently discovered that I can download audio books from my local library's web site, and guess what, I like it a lot!

For quite a while now, whenever I go on a trip I try and bring an audio book or two. This last time, I decided to look into whether there were downloads available and if they could be transferred to my mp3 player. They were, and I did.

I like to learn, I don't like to physically read. With audio books you can do simple multitasking while enjoying the latest non-fiction or an ancient classic. Plus it's fast, they don't stop the way you or I tend to do when we are actually reading.

Look at this list I have listened to in just the past few weeks. There is no way I could read all these books, but via audio downloads...

• War and Peace - by Tolstoy (just started)
  
• Hearing God's Voice - by Blackaby
• Beyond Band of Brothers – The War Memoirs of Major Winters. – by Winters
• The Problem of Pain – by C.S. Lewis
• God's Politics - Why the right gets it wrong and the left doesn't get it. - by Wallis
• Conspiracy of Fools - The rise and fall of Enron - by Eichenwald
• Three Cups of Tea – One mans mission to start schools in Afghanistan. – by Mortenson
• Legacy of Ashes - The history of the CIA - by Weiner
• Dispatches from the Edge - A Memoir - by Anderson Cooper

(Someone should really pay me for this post, a blatant advertisement.)