Reflecting on the Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day A Week Later – Post 3

I concluded Post 2 by mentioning I would respond to a couple of the pushbacks I received and then I’ll finish this little series with my suggestion of what Chick-Fil-A could do now. So it’s said, I appreciate how polite those responding have been. I’ve received texts, emails, FB messages, and a DM with various thoughts – all have been gracious, which isn’t always the case in the blogosphere. As always feel free to reply somehow or comment below but thanks for keeping it all so classy.

The first was on what do I think Dan Cathy should have said? Before I go further, if this is the first time reading this series, [Read more…]

Reflecting on the Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day A Week Later – Post 2

As I mentioned in yesterday’s post, though it’s been a week later since Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day, I’m still processing.

This whole Chick-Fil-A scene affirms the position of the futility of the Christian engaged in the “culture war.” Last Wednesday, “taking a stand”, ordering a chicken sandwich and setting a sales record galvanized countless people. But at the same time, it hurt countless others, those within our community and those outside. The point is simple, If the Church truly desires to reach out in love, the culture war is the wrong approach.

I know some are eager to point out that “the truth hurts” and so forth and I get all that. This is ever more reason that the culture war [Read more…]

It’s Time for Believers to Talk Graciously About Abortion Again #QDC

There have been a number of Q Talks that stood out to me and this is among them. Part of it is because we need to talk more about the abortion issue but we need to do it with more grace and compassion. Given the sensitivity of the conversation, I’ve been waiting to re-listen to the talk and it has recently become available on Q Premiere. (You can subscribe here and please know that I promoting this completely out of my own volition. I am receiving no compensation or courtesy membership. My gain is participating and the sharing of the conversation).

This panel was moderated by Rebekah Lyons. The panelists include Jenell Paris, professor of anthropology at Messiah College in Grantham, PA; Sarah Brown, CEO of The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy; Angie Weszely, President of Caris, a faith-based nonprofit providing support to all women facing unplanned pregnancies; and Johnny Carr, National Director of Church Partnerships for Bethany Christian Services, America’s largest adoption agency (panel description taken from the Q site)

So the first thing that seems obvious to ask is why are some of us still not ready to talk about abortion? It needs to be said that there is a sizable evangelical demographic that is still not ready to talk about it. Of course the abortion issue has never gone away but many cannot bear the thought of discussing it again which begs the question why.

For some of us, we were brought up in “culture war” settings where abortion was the classic example of evil and those that performed them or had one were cast as the worst type of human. Some of us are still drained and disillusioned from this part of the culture war and cannot bare to bring it back up again. I understand that some people will not find that acceptable but among the lessons that I take is the “culture war” does too much damage to too many people (including our “own”).

Further, even if we/they have never actually stood in protest at an abortion clinic, having a pro-life conviction cast a great deal of tension with those that were pro-choice. And many of those that have pro-choice stances hate abortion as much as we do, but they are convinced that the choice must be honored. For me, these include some dear people whom I regard as good friends. We may disagree but it makes less sense to me/us to break fellowship.

So here’s the interesting part. It turns out that despite a sizable demographic not talking about it, teen pregnancy has gone down, the number of teen abortions has gone down and there is always a story of an abortion clinic that has had to close its doors so why bring it up now? This has also resulted in the number of adoptions having gone up. In light of that, it’s tempting to think that if we wait a few more years in complete silence, the whole issue might all go away.

That’s the interesting part. The crazy part is the beginning of the bestseller Freakonomics where there is a connection between the reduction in crime in major cities like New York and the increase in abortions among particular demographics that are believed to would have contributed to the crime rate. It’s horrifying and offensive while being statistically staggering.

Sitting in silence is not going to do any long term good and statistics implying the social benefits of infanticide is not going to help either. It’s time for Christians to talk graciously about reducing abortion.

The first thing that some of my conservative brothers and sisters will notice about that last sentence is why I chose to use “reducing abortion” language than say, overturning Roe v. Wade. My answer is threefold: First using overturning Roe v. Wade rhetoric is a hyper-politically charged conversation, therefore polarizing, therefore not helpful for legitimate conversation.
Two, the reducing language not only avoids villiianzing others but it suggests that people sincerely want to help others.
Three, just about everyone publicly agrees that we need to reduce the number of abortions – therefore we have common ground.

During the panel discussion, Sarah Brown pointed out that of the 1.2 million abortions per year, 85% are by unmarried women and fewer than 20% are by teens. Majority of women who have unplanned/unintended pregnancies and having abortions are unmarried twenty-somethings. Among them are women with stable careers.

Three-fourths of evangelicals have admitted they have had pre-marital sex so as others have pointed out, the message of abstinence has not exactly been well-received. Whether certain people care to admit or not, among the key reasons the teen pregnancy rate has gone down is because of the increased use of contraceptions. Which brought up the need for discussing the use of contraception in churches.

I’ll admit, I don’t really hear myself saying from the pulpit, “Those women who do not wish to get pregnant, you are to be abstinent and if you can’t, use contraception …” For one, when I preach, I don’t preach like that (not intended to sound condescending to those that do). Further, I am not a weekly preacher so most of my ministry happens away from the pulpit. But I am not uncomfortable talking about the use of contraceptives. Truth is, I have in specific instances for years because frankly, you don’t have to wait for the Pew Forum to release the research saying that 3/4s of evangelicals are having pre-marital sex to figure out what’s going on.

And while I do I try to avoid sending conflicting messages, these messages are contextual. If you really listen to what some people are saying whether in your office or your small group or wherever people are choosing to be vulnerable, you might understand what I’m saying here. My point for saying all this here is – let’s be faithful with these opportunities to help reduce the number of abortions.

Which brought up a major theme in the panel discussion. Those in the church need to better express “grace theology” when it comes to women and unplanned pregnancies (and to the men who don’t cut and run). I will say this doesn’t feel as big of an issue in the churches that I’ve been a part of but sadly, I have heard too many horror stories of women feeling shamed in some way. The flip side though is I don’t know how many people never came to the churches I was a part of because of what attitudes and judgements they thought may have been lurking inside. We need to make sure that the church is a place of many things including belonging, grace, and unconditional love.

This is where the graciousness conversation comes in. In my scope I do see a number of churches (and Christians in general) getting better at encouraging each other to adopt, foster and support children. Some are also getting better at reaching out to single moms and families whose financial circumstances make it almost impossible to survive. Some pulpits have eliminated culture war language and a spirit of hospitality is emerging but not only is there so much work to be done, very few actually regard the Church as a place of welcome.

For serious Christians, that needs to change. Much of the work to be done begins in conversation as it is one of the elements that changes culture. We need to invite those that have stopped talking about this issue back into the conversation and foster a gracious discussion on such a crucial issue. Thoughts, concerns, push-backs, feel free to comment. Also, if you share some similar feelings here, please share – the more people that talk about worthy things, the better.

Here are a couple other posts on QDC  – thanks for reading.

Reflecting on Andy Crouch’s Discussion on Power (And How it Relates In the Church Sector) at Q

As I mentioned at the end of my last post and in one last week, I want to blog a little on the Q Conference in Washington DC that I was able to attend. I do find myself thinking about a number of the presentations and a few that I force myself to think again about. I’m not sure I’ll admit to which is which, nor am I sure how many of these I am going to actually blog about but I am intentionally trying to take the time to do so for a number of reasons and they include:
1. I found many of them to be really important for me.
2. Grateful for the sacrifices and blessings to be able to get there.
3. I really believe in the work.
4. By taking time and reflecting on the content and what it means to me in context and application, it allows me to move beyond “conference junkie” and consumer of content (at least I hope to move from this).

Although it makes more sense to begin at the beginning, let’s start at the second presentation with Andy Crouch. His discussion on power continues to evolve so well. Having been privileged (can I use that word in this context?) to hear Andy speak on this a few times, it’s really great and helpful material. And it continues to get even better – looking forward to the book. I am also grateful that Biblical Seminary kept trying to find ways to bring him in to speak to us because I am truly hungry for this conversation.

I would love to give you all the sound-bytes but I wouldn’t be able to do them justice but here are a few:

Andy’s big question was, “Who is flourishing through your power? That is the test of power.”

“God has entrusted power to His Image bearers.
Vulnerable image-makers (even realize their own nakedness)
To deal with our vulnerability, we misuse our creativity.
Deepest use of power is not force but creation.
Deepest corruption of power is misplaced creativity – this is idolatry.”
Idols promise everything, demand nothing … but they extract everything
Idols work cheap and fast and they work … at first. (don’t keep working)”*

For one, I’m a sucker for the whole Imago Dei-idol conversation. So what he says at the end, I find myself yelling Amen at.

Andy is one of those speakers that make it sound so clear, yet when you find yourself explaining it to someone later, you say things like, “Well you know, he was talking about power … and stuff. Oh and I really liked what he said about idols – it was good.”

But here’s where I am two weeks later since listening to the presentation.
I have been contextualizing this in my sector (The Church) and asking the obvious questions like, “Who in the Church has the power?”
To some, it may seem obvious to say that the Sr. Pastor has the power but that’s not completely true, at least not in the evangelical tradition (can’t and won’t speak of any others). I’ve seen churches where the Sr. Pastor seems to run the show and others where they clearly didn’t.

Well, if not the Pastor (and the staff) then the elder board! Yes and no. Then, perhaps it’s the members, the community (power to the people!) and the answer again is yes and no.

What I’m learning in the Evangelical Church is that the “power” is scattered, limited, temporary and contingent on so many factors.

That church where the senior pastor micromanages every decision will never grow past 400 because he can only manage/control 400 people. It’s scattered and limited for a number of reasons. Among them is the pastor will only have their limited attention, generally Sunday mornings, funerals, weddings, etc. Half of them will change churches within a few years, a new crowd will take their place; this makes it temporary and it’s contingent on an endless number of factors like the preaching, the music, family ministries, the elder board, the budget, the parking, who and what was said in the last congregational meeting, factors contributing to the building and losing of momentum and various other wildcards. Or at least that’s what it feels and looks like from the inside and from the outside. It turns out the micromanaging senior pastor is not really that powerful.

The small congregational church with the revolving door right next to the pulpit seems to have given the power to the people but it hasn’t. Some of the congregants may have been there for fifty years, but the power is limited and certainly scattered. It seems to me that some of the “flatter” churches have similar struggles and being new in a large church environment, indeed there are hinderances at work here. To test it, we could ask “Who is really in charge?” to different groups and representatives. Pastors all tell you that the leadership has been granted authority but the attendees affirm this. But they’ll also say if/when people stop coming/serving/giving/connecting, their power is revealed and “The elder board has no legs!”

In all of these instances, idols are created. Idols are created out of man-made dreams, attendance, the budget, the ministry model, the customer satisfaction huh, I mean … well, whatever you want to call it.

I love the idea in theory that the power needs to be shared and given. I really do. Though I am a pastor, though I see myself as a leader, my prayers won’t be genuine if I know that people are responding to my control rather than their response to the leading of the Holy Spirit. We won’t share the power unless we trust each other.

I also love the idea that power needs to be unifying. It’s an amazing and scary thought of what could be if we truly trusted each other.

Further, I am thinking about what it means for the exercising of power to be a true act of worship. In some sense, this is what Andy is already saying about using power to create and in the Church sector, I see that happening in moments like, during our praise of God (whether it be Sunday morning, small groups or personally and privately throughout our week) and especially outside the institution of the Evangelical Church.

But lastly, I am returning to Andy’s original question in the church context “Who is flourishing through your power? That is the test of power.”

I’ve been thinking about this for almost two weeks and here’s where I am today. There are a number of people who are actually “flourishing” because of the influence and ministry of the church. The frustration is that it’s not nearly enough in terms of the number of people that are hurting around us and the depth of the “flourishing.” It was great to think of people, to know names and stories but again, it’s sobering to see how many more are in need of redemption from the hurt, pain and evil.

Plenty to think about, plenty to act upon and so may we be faithful with the creativity and the power/influence/calling we’ve been given in the Church sector as congregants, pastors, elders, as followers of God’s Kingdom.

Andy said so much more, maybe I’ll post again on it but if you are interested, check out his incredible book Culture Making and this presentation at Q Austin called “Power, Privilege and Risk.”

Wishing Andrew Sullivan a Beautiful Easter – 3 Things I Liked About His Newsweek Feature

A few times a year, Time Magazine or Newsweek will feature Jesus on their cover  and we’ll debate a sucky article full of  twisted examples and typical rhetoric.

So when I heard of this week’s new issue of Newsweek, I figured it would be more of the same. I clicked the Twitter link, saw it was Andrew Sullivan and was even more disappointed because I generally like him.  I read his blog every so often and frankly, I respect his mind and his soul.

Scanned the article once, except for the title, I liked the piece and knew I must have missed something. Why would Newsweek put this out? Read it again and appreciated it even more on a number of levels. Here are three things I liked.

1. I think he got the crisis right. If you are undecided in reading the article or your time is limited, here’s how Sullivan describes what he calls, “The Crisis of Our Time”:

“All of which is to say something so obvious it is almost taboo: Christianity itself is in crisis. It seems no accident to me that so many Christians now embrace materialist self-help rather than ascetic self-denial—or that most Catholics, even regular churchgoers, have tuned out the hierarchy in embarrassment or disgust. Given this crisis, it is no surprise that the fastest-growing segment of belief among the young is atheism, which has leapt in popularity in the new millennium. Nor is it a shock that so many have turned away from organized Christianity and toward “spirituality,” co-opting or adapting the practices of meditation or yoga, or wandering as lapsed Catholics in an inquisitive spiritual desert. The thirst for God is still there. How could it not be, when the profoundest human questions—Why does the universe exist rather than nothing? How did humanity come to be on this remote blue speck of a planet? What happens to us after death?—remain as pressing and mysterious as they’ve always been?

That’s why polls show a huge majority of Americans still believing in a Higher Power. But the need for new questioning—of Christian institutions as well as ideas and priorities—is as real as the crisis is deep.”

I couldn’t agree more, people area always asking the big questions and looking for purpose and meaning. Obviously as a Christ-follower, I feel that Christianity has the best answers to these questions and searches. But as a Christ-follower, I fear that we as a Church are squandering its power and opportunity for lesser things. I’ll fight for Christ and the Church but I completely understand why some are pursuing the former without the latter. I’m left thinking Andrew gets these broad strokes right.

2. He may have redeemed Jefferson for me or at least motivate me to take a deeper look. I like Jefferson. A particular set of former youth group kids would lead you to believe that I’m obsessed with him because I “forced” our group to visit his memorial in the heat of July. Whatever. I do appreciate Jefferson on a number of levels – founding father, architect of the Declaration, and key promoter of separation of church and state. If that last line surprises you, I believe in the importance of a secular society because I believe a strong Church is not threatened in such a context. One friend emailed me encouraging me to express that sentiment more. Perhaps I’ll also write a post on that some time.

But back to Jefferson, I’ve never been able to share any more of an affinity for him because of his denial of the supernatural aspect of Jesus. It’s not enough for me that he believes we need to serve the other if Christ has not been raised. As a humanist, it would be enough for me, but not as a Christian. From what Sullivan was saying, it’s clear I need to look further into what Jefferson was not only doing with the famous edited Bible but with his practice of Christianity.

3. Sullivan doesn’t write as an outsider, but as a Christian acknowledging its weak points and proclaiming its essential ones. I may push back on some parts (I think everything is political, but do agree that too many in the evangelical church are overly-concerned with power in our political system). Regardless of my push backs, I appreciate what he’s clear on.

“Whether or not you believe, as I do, in Jesus’ divinity and resurrection—and in the importance of celebrating both on Easter Sunday—Jefferson’s point is crucially important. Because it was Jesus’ point. What does it matter how strictly you proclaim your belief in various doctrines if you do not live as these doctrines demand? What is politics if not a dangerous temptation toward controlling others rather than reforming oneself? If we return to what Jesus actually asked us to do and to be—rather than the unknowable intricacies of what we believe he was—he actually emerges more powerfully and more purely.”

I read the article a couple times. I’m not sure the cover of “Forget the Church, Follow Jesus” is what the article is actually saying. Again, I ‘m biased because I do believe in the Church. You would expect a pastor to say that of course but I’d like to think that I’d believe in the Church even if I wasn’t. Jesus went through hell to establish it, we Christ-followers need to be the Church Christ has called us to be, I’m grateful to be serving in it and am praying I and many will be faithful to Jesus’ way.

In any case, for a Newsweek cover, this is perhaps the most Christian article on Jesus that I recall seeing.

Nice job Andrew Sullivan and may you have a beautiful Easter.