"I feel like I'm a project to you"
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Recently, Matt, one of our pastors at "the Vine," told me "people don't want to be pastored anymore." He said that often, when he tries to reach out and minister to younger people who are hurting and struggling, he gets the unexpected rebuff. It's like they are saying "I feel like I'm a project to you." Interestingly, Matt reports that when he reaches out to the older group, he is welcomed.
There could be many reasons for this. Most obviously this could simply mean Matt's pastoral manner isn't very good. The older ones are just more polite. But I don't think so. I think this attitude reflects the further onset of the conditions of post Christendom. Here's three observations.
• Gone are the days when the pastor, with his/her credentials is assumed to have professional authority and expertise to speak into the spiritual/emotional problems of people. This trust must be earned relationally in community. Older folks are still used to the idea that a pastor should care for and shepherd the hurting during their struggles, whether they be financial or physical etc. The younger ones however now view it with suspicion?If the above is true, then:
• The newest generations want someone to be their friend, not their professional pastor.
• The post-mega-church generation simply cannot seem imagine that the pastor they see up front is someone who actually knows the people in the community. They see the pastor as a figurehead, a media figure, who leads through image and a hierarchical corporate position. They cannot fathom that this person would actually be in their home and talking about their real lives. This has hastened the end of the pastor as "pastoral care" professional.
- This hastens the day when the church must become an actual community, not a professionalized society. The church must be a community of friends, the pastor one among many, walking and mentoring and leading among, not above as some sort of professional. The dramatic shift into post Christendom pushes Christendom models of professional pastoring aside for a "leadership among" that can lead the struggling by walking alongside.
- Relational pastoring necessitates de-centralized leadership in our churches. A pastor can know relationally at most twelve to twenty people. Our churches then either have to be this small so that everyone is the pastor's friend, or become more decentralized in leadership. Leaders must mentor leaders and give away pastoral authority. And we need places where the spiritual disciplines can be practiced in small groups, where confessing sin, penance, discernment takes place among friends.
- The visiting of our sick becomes an exercise of the whole community not the professional domain of the pastor. I still advocate that all of our pastors must visit the sick in the hospitals. We must model it to others as well as engage in ministry to our friends. I also see the hospitals as places of incarnational ministry. The hospitals are the place where the poor(in spirit) and dying reside. There is nothing more incarnational than ministering Christ's presense in our austere business-like hospitals of the West.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Just to let those know who missed it, Andrew Jones and I are featured in this month's issue of Next-Wave.It's great to see that two people in McLaren's corner can still engage his work critically, yet charitably in a pro-emergent e-zine. Check it out!
Posted by David Fitch | 7:51 PM
COMMENTS:
David, I think the last two points you made are the strongest; people wanting friends and seeing the pastor as a "media figure". Decentralized leadership is a great solution... but how does this play out in staunch denominations like Lutheranism, where the Pastorship is firmly established?
9:28 PM
David,
Wow. I had someone say this to me this last week in our discipleship group.
I would offer that this is a symptom of the immaturity of the post-Christendom generation. It's a defense mechanism to wanting to grow up in our faith. There are so few elders who have nurtured the young.
And I'm a postmodern.
9:31 PM
I think you're right on with your assessment. I belong to the tail end of the boomer generation, but didn't get involved in church until my 20's. I still remember the day I showed up to work at a (relatively small) mega-church and everyone on staff kept asking me, "Have you met X (the senior pastor)?" with the same tone they might have asked, did I know Jesus. Not the guy I was going to run to with my personal struggles, that's for sure!
10:03 PM
Yes, it is over for younger generations. So, it really does not matter if a group/denomination currently is hierarchical, that will change over time even for those groups. In other words, institutional expressions of church that do not change will disappear.
"....real revolutions don't involve an orderly transition from point A to point B. Rather, they go from A through a long period of chaos and only then reach B. In that chaotic period, the old systems get broken long before new ones become stable." Clay Shirky in "Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations". We are at the front edge of the chaos period.
9:30 AM
David,
I’ll take the challenge you set forth on the Next-Wave site, but I’ll do it here since it is lengthy. I’ll be glad to suggest why you are wrong. Please keep in mind this is 100% in the spirit of dialogue and I enjoyed your criticism of Brian. It is valid and worthy of discussion even while I disagree.
1) Your entire argument is based on the notion that the “social gospel” (I’ll play along with your label for argument’s sake) has somehow failed. I suspect you’ve made this assumption because of the decline of mainline denominations in America and the rise of Evangelical churches in their place. This is an entirely different subject for a different day, but the reason for this phenomenon is strictly cultural not theological. It is about electric guitars, blue jeans, and overbearing irrelevant structure. It has nothing to do with theology. The majority of church attendants are theologically under-informed so assuming they’ve jumped ship for theological reasons is a product of poor analysis and an experiment executed without a control group to balance the evidence. Find me an Episcopal church that ditched the robes and brought in drum set but still failed and I’ll rethink my analysis. Otherwise, I see no reason to say the social gospel failed. It simply lost ground to a culture that favors cartoons over books. Over 40% of our nation still rejects evolution and I just had a conversation with a grown man that thinks global warming is a myth. Society rejected Jesus. It doesn’t mean he was wrong. This isn’t a popularity contest.
2) Brian is right to differentiate between the message about Jesus and the message of Jesus, if only for the means of figuring out what they both are. When you mingle the two, you risk losing both, as Jesus would then become nothing but a mythical superhero and Christianity becomes nothing but believing he is really what the stories present him to be. We need both sides of the coin. We need the message of and the message about Jesus, but by separating them, we can see that they both point to the same thing. The message OF Jesus tells us squarely that the way of Empire is doomed to fail, but the way of non-violent protest through justice and mercy is our only hope. The message about Jesus tells us the same thing but ONLY when we realize it is a mythical narrative written by later followers meaning to retell the same message. It is a story about Jesus that shows us through creative dialogue, character development, and allegory, that this new way will win in the end. Even as we weep in the despair of defeat on Friday, there is a resurrection Sunday waiting for us. Jesus’ way non-violence, justice, forgiveness, and mercy will work. That is the “secret message”.
3) I am a big advocate of the separation of church and state, however what you’ve suggested is the separation of Jesus and reality. I think you’ve implied (please correct me if I’m wrong in these implications) that the work of Jesus and the church is done in some other space than reality. (A spiritual realm or dream space?)
4) You’ve implied that a transformed society isn’t any good if the church isn’t the institution that made the change. That seems horribly prideful. Why must the church be the only avenue for change? Wouldn't we be more effective if people of all faiths including atheists band together for change? This is called a government.
5) You’ve correctly identified past and present mistakes by governing bodies, but then you’ve made the assumption if a church did those things it would not make mistakes. You’ve assumed that because people running governments have been corrupt that government is therefore unable to do good work. I don’t think it is wise to draw those conclusions.
12:54 PM
I'm zigging back to your original post:
Though I see it with my next gen friends (and my own young adult kids), I am in the same camp as those who've told Matt and other pastors, "I'm not your project". I need spiritual friends who'll walk through life with me. And friends don't make other friends feel patronized.
Perhaps this distaste of both Big Business ministry and CEO Pastors will bring us back to congregations with pastors who guide their congregation of friends first and foremost because of spiritual gifting.
1:28 PM
Thanks to everyone for the comments ... I appreciate the feedback and thoughts ... I've bee away for a few days at our denom.'s district meetings so I haven't been able to respond. sorry. What I'd like to do quickly is respond to Mike l.'s comments concerning the Next Wave piece. Here goes some quick respones.
Regarding #1. Your point is valid. Let me simply say however that I wasn't referring to the decline of the mainline church when I was saying the "Social Gospel" had failed as a strategy. I was saying that indeed the social gospel had failed to make advances in the struggle against the social ills of poverty, violence and racism in our country. I could get into a protracted debate on this. There are certainly many voices who would say advances have been made. Maybe let's say on racisim. Yet this country appears from other vantage points to be more racist, and the various minorities and the poor more enslaved to the forces of multi national corporatism, than ever before. Violence indeed is at an all time high. Yet, I admit, this too could be argued and I am willing to have this discussion, and ask why we might even have regressed as a country in these areas, precisely for the reason that the ethics of the kingdom in the church got subverted as a conceptual message by the powers and forces of the statist and corporatist enterprises. conference.Suffice to say for now, what you thought I was saying was the furthest thing from my mind. I do not consider the evangelicals as a church movement to have "won" over the mainliners in any way,shape or form. Some of my other writings make this clear.
2.) Although I agree with some of your statments here, paticularly about the way of Jesus as non violence, I disagree with this assessment of the story "The message about Jesus tells us the same thing but ONLY when we realize it is a mythical narrative written by later followers meaning to retell the same message." What do you mean by "mythical narrative"? And why would I assume the epistles (of say Paul) are more mythical than the gospels yet written earlier than the gospels? I'm not new to the study of hermeutics and the many ways we use the word" myth." I'm just wondering how you're using it?
3.) I have no idea how you got this? I in fact am pushing for teh church to be the very concrete politic of Jesus.
4.) Transformed to what? Whose justice? Are you assuming that there is a justice and a transformation that is apparent to all. What version of justice will all faiths including atheists be called to and how? If Brian wants to argue for a universally acessible justice for all, then he need not apal to Jesus. Am I right? But I don't thik that is what he believes. He's too postmodern for that (IMO).
5.)I think this point is a good one. For the church's trackrecord has its own problems to say the least. Nonethless, there are reasons I want to argue for the church as the means to bring in justice versus the government. The church is defined by its social embodimnet as the redeemed people called by God to spread justice via the work of God in the world. The government, especially liberal Western gioverments, in colusion with global capitalism by defintion have other motives. Justice eventually becomes subsumed in the quest for power and rofit.
Mike l, Thanks for these excellenet challenges. I haven't done them justice, yet would enjoy a protracted discussion of these issues
Peace
9:45 PM
Great three points. This is a complex issue with no single explanation about the sense of being a pastral project.
The two biggest modern models of the evangelical "pastor" are centered around the "professional" (not as in professional counseling) CEO and the Bible answer man (focused on expository or biblical preaching as the core discipline to address spiritual, emotional, and relational issues).
As you know,, these "models" were not done in a vacuum--but in the modern context of distrust in any kind of friendship model with modern Protestant and evangelicals emphasizing a universal, "distanced" model of love (reaching the apex with Nygren) with a fear of "preferential" love and friendship.
I think the older generation, as you say, is more comfortable with pastor addressing soul care issues.
However, I think the younger generation is questioning even that issue--they are looking for friends--people who are wanting to form intentional community in relationships not professional appointments with a pastor about their struggles where the relationship "ends" (the appointments or phone calls end) once they work through a particualr problem.
7:34 AM
David,
Thanks for the thoughtful response David. There is no doubt that we agree on many things. Unfortunately, in online discussions the differences are often the focus rather than the agreement. I don't want you to think I've overlooked that aspect of the dialogue.
1) I think there is ample evidence that progressive political/social movements have been the major contributing factor to civil rights as well as the development of a social safety net and the development of a middle class that cannot exist in a 100% market driven capitalist environment. This is true not just true in America, but also with the end of the British Empire affecting the freedom of millions of lives. I would suggest that it was the theological assertions of liberal faith across denominations and religions worldwide that proved as a catalyst for many improvements. MLK, Gandhi, Wilberforce, and many others are fine examples.
I feel the decline of late in America (the last 30 years), is a result of the intentional injection of an anti-community and hyper-individualism approach to government and economics. The neo-conservative movements that started with Goldwater and took our nation captive in the 80's created a propaganda blitz that resulted in mass distrust and a loss of faith in the concept of "we the people". We are yielding the results of that mentality.
2) Our difference in biblical literalism is probably too deep a topic for discussion here. I'll simply say, I see the stories as mythical and not meant to be told as historically accurate. They obviously have historical elements, as do most myths. I didn't say Paul was "more mythical". What I mean is that Paul developed some theological assertions. The later Gospels put those assertions into narrative form by creating stories (including genealogies) to be retold in liturgical format and used to illustrate the meanings of Paul's theology. The gospels are like screenplays written to articulate the growing theology of later generations of Christians. They reference the historical Jesus, but present a non-historical Christ. By seeing this we can come to understand the intentions of the authors.
3) In this point, I was referencing your suggestion that Brian "left out" the literal wording of the Gospel's metaphors (Jesus died to provide a victory over sin and that gets us into heaven). Instead, Brian talks about what the truths beneath the symbolic story rather than being stuck on the surface of the symbolic language. I think you feel slighted because Brian talked about the meaning without restating the metaphor. Am I correct? I don't mean to put words in your mouth.
4) The whole purpose of the bible from genesis to revelation is about the transformation of people and communities from selfishness to selflessness (dying to self in order to bring God’s will on Earth). You are right to suggest that Brian need not appeal to Jesus, he could appeal to a variety of evidence that point to this same need for transformation. But for me, this is the sign that I've seen. Jesus is my savior and Lord. I know no other way. Jesus was clear that it was not him, but what he points to, that is the reality we must accept even if Jesus is the only way we Christians know. I can’t speak for Brian on this. He has not made his views clear.
5) I understand your issue here, but I don't see how the church can bring justice. It can and should be a catalyst for justice, but do you really want a society where churches pass laws? Do you really want churches to operate as regulatory agencies? Churches can inspire us, provide incredible places for growth, community, and character development, but I think they need to stay out of the business of implementing justice. That is the role of governments.
Again, thanks for the dialogue!
8:56 AM
Mike l
It's a shame we couldn't get into this on the Next wave site ... and I respect your diligence and sharpness here. I really want to say alot more. Do you live in Chicago area? We should have a coffee? eh?
In lieu of being able to go whole hog I just throw some comments back at you. I learned my theology at the foot of Hauerwas and friends after the failure of both evangelical theology and liberal theology (having come from evangelical and still consider myself one) and studying at Northwestern wit the Garrett faculty there. So,my first reaction is that most of your assumptions I recognize from my past, and have gone through a deconstrsuction of sorts ... and I hence offer a form of response that dissects what you say from Yoderian Hauerwasian, Milbankian, post liberal ... and even worse .. Continental sources.. So I acknowledge my lenses . you know? And these lens may be unfair? But in shorts sentences .. here's what I would say to your five statements above.
1.) we're simply not seeing it the same. Indeed, I wouldn't view MLK, Wilberforce and Ghandi (who Yoder claimed got his pacifism from Jesus) as assertions of liberal (as in Western politcal liberalism)faith. Indeed, their force came from deliberate practices they learned from the church or derivative of the church. I know Ghandi would be very contested.
2.) I gave up on all the pretensions of the modern socio scientific myth to gain objectiity over a text after I read Gadamer, and Ricoeur and the Derrida. Now I simply join a community of tradition which (by His Spirit) enables us to carry on our Narrative in faithfulness and reality. It's what I have left (and its alot) after the demise of the pretension of scientific objectivity.
3.) I'm sorry, but "gets us into heaven" is still weird to me. So we probably need to talk. But I think I know what you mean by metaphors, but truths beneath the symbolic language assumes too Cartesian non Wittgensteinian view of language? Have I got that right in any way?
4.) "Jesus was clear that it was not him, but what He points to." We disagree ... but it definitely represents a point of view that has now a 100 year old heritage. But have you read Yoder? I'm just wondering.
5.) I file these kind of arguments under "failure of imagination." That's the only thing I can say in less than ten paragraphs.
Hey ... I can't respond in depth anymore ... I'm buried til next Tuesday. But I'll buy that cup of coffee, and thanks for coming on here and talking..
Blessings ...
11:00 AM
Thanks again. Your answers have been helpful. I'm in Augusta, Georgia so its a long commute for that cup of coffee. Maybe one day we will get to have that conversation. Words so often fail and this medium is no help to our cause.
One thing I'm learning in more of these “emergent” conversations is that there is a strange connotation to the word "liberal" in which I'm completely unfamiliar. Maybe I’m too young and have never been a part of a mainline church, so I’m oblivious to the disdain it creates in people. The “L” word is tossed around and misused. For example, I’m shocked that you said:
“Indeed, I wouldn't view MLK, Wilberforce and Ghandi (who Yoder claimed got his pacifism from Jesus) as assertions of liberal (as in Western politcal liberalism)faith.”
I agree that Ghandi got pacifism from Jesus, but it was through Leo Tolstoy that he found Jesus! Do you suggest MLK was not a liberal? Are you kidding? As for the others, calling for the end of slave trade in England and staging non-violent protests against Empire are a bit left of center, don't you think? I have a hard time imagining those 3 men supporting Jerry Falwell or George W. Bush, so I’m not sure how you could see them as anything other than Liberals in both religious and political contexts. They each seemed to be fervent in their critique against the static views of the established dogma and structure while supporting open inquiry and placing a high value on reason and knowledge. That smells like Liberalism to me (a rose by another name…). There is a very strange misconception in emerging circles about what Liberalism is. I feel like this comes from having been told it is demonic somewhere in their Evangelical past, so now they want to embrace progressive values without using the “L” label. I know because I grew up the son of a southern Baptist minister.
Yoder and Hauerwas seem to be overreactions to the dogma of the secular left that wanted to throw the baby out with the bath water. I feel there is a postmodern alternative that can embrace the wonderful contributions of modern secular liberalism without throwing out the core stories that are so dear to us all. The key is embracing rather than running from the word “Myth”. Both fundamentalists and secular liberals have disdain for myths as a result of their modern preoccupation with dogma and facts. Postmodern Christianity has a tremendous future if it can embrace the word myth and restore it as an important vehicle for truth.
peace
12:11 PM
Mike ... ... I think you're right ... we are not using liberal(ism) in the same way. I think Jerry Falwell was a liberal ... as long as we're throwing around names. I agree postmodernity offers all sorts of new freedoms from past cages (enlightenment driven). But when I say liberal, I'm not talking so much about the political parties or the old liberal prot-versus evangelical fundamentalist diatribes ... so perhaps we'll return to this in another day ... Blessings .. hope to meet along the way ...
Blessings David Fitch
1:08 PM
Ok, I've heard it all now... Jerry Falwell a liberal? Did have a conversion in the afterlife? I hope you explain that somewhere.
I'm not sure how productive conversations can be if you veer from standard definitions of terms so drastically. It just complicates the whole communication process. You should at a minimum make those kinds of creative definitions public BEFORE the conversation gets so deep. Now I’m completely lost.
You know, this is a perfect example of why I always answer, "it depends" when somebody asks me a question about faith. I'm never sure I know what they mean, so I have zero confidence they will interpret my answer correctly. I agree with Derrida when he puts a caveat on top of every caveat. I guess we have to do that.
Peace (I hope by that you don’t think I'm suggesting a fight)
1:29 PM
Mike ..hah ... ok .. I'm sorry ... let me explain ... I view Jerry Falwell as a liberal because he understands (understood)the world and salvation through the frameworks of enlightebnment individualism and the goods of freedom and democracy, as the way forward for America. These foundations form the basis also for mainline protestant Christainity. In fact, I view each one as different sides of the same coin.
Peace ... (in the best sense of the word)
2:18 PM
Wow! I feel like you've loaded up some personal baggage onto those terms that may not be grounded in reality.
If your definition is what liberalism really was, then I don't think there would be any liberals! For me it simply means a willingness to ask questions and seek understanding through critical analysis of the established structures and dogma. It means progress instead of the status quo. It is not so much a product of the enlightenment, but the reason for the enlightenment. It means the end of epistomology grounded ONLY in superstition and tradition.
I agree with your "2 sides to the same coin" analogy. Both modern secularism and religious literalism/fundamentalism are poor responses to the enlightenment. Neither could come to grips with how to value their stories once they were discovered to be non-historical. Maybe something will emerge that salvages both the knowledge we gained from the enlightenment AND retains the value of our ancient myths.
5:53 PM
David,
You have written a refreshing post on incarnational ministry. I will read this one again!
12:07 PM
Two thoughts:
I think the talk of doing away with institutionalized pastoralship works well in already deinstitutionalized churches, like megachurches who can mostly make up the rules as the go along or churches with a democratic polity. Simply put, I wonder if we are talking about the de-celebritizing of the megachurch clergy. This I buy.
However, I'm not sure I buy that in a post-Christendom world, everything will lose its hierarchy and pastors/priests will lose their authority and the need for professional training will be no longer. I think liturgical churches, many of whom are thriving (though perhaps not "growing" in the numbers sense), will continue to value clergy as long as members continue to grow up in that denomination. That said, I kinda wish it wasn't the case.
Re: the failure of the Social gospel discussion. Since when should we measure the worth of a project, movement or mission based on its effectiveness? It sounds awfully *modern.* Even if the path of Jesus is futile, wouldn't we still walk it because we believe it to be the right way to live? Just a thought.
2:46 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home