There is a pressure that young people face upon graduating from college. I see it and hear it all the time. Get married, get the secure job, buy a house, have 2.5 kids, and then spend the majority of your life keeping up with that lifestyle. Keep working and ascend the proper rungs on the ladder. By the time you’re 50 years old, your kids out of college, and a huge chunk of your life has been swallowed up in the black whole of the American dream, maybe now you can think about ministry/mission?
I have had a least a dozen people talk to me recently about these pressures. From my 20 year old nephew to a 50 year old woman, we all face these pressures – to make a certain salary, live a certain lifetstyle, talk about your kids, and provide all the comforts and accoutrements of everyday American life. When I had about fifteen young future missional leaders over to my house a couple weeks ago, some admitted they feared the lack of security in the missional pastor/church planter life (I pulled it out of them). It would be much easier to go the more secure route and do the typical pastoral route in order to ascend to the position of a professional senior pastor with full salary and benefits.
It is default mode in American society to attach one’s identity to a certain version of success. We judge our lives, attach happiness to a.) being successful in career, b.) having the basic comforts of status and provision, c.) have a family. Ironically, most pastors coming out of seminary, with professional degrees, attach their identity to their success in their churches. How fast were they able to grow it? How many conversions? How successful were they at managing the growth of this church into a mega/influential church.
What do you do with all this if you’re a missional community leader/pastor?
All of these pressures work against the missional verve for every Christian – not just potential leaders in churches. If we give in, inevitably our energy gets focused elsewhere. Church turns into a few hours of volunteer work a week. We get sucked in and compromise, our lives become busy, we must work 60 hours a week, we must spend countless hours making up for our absense from our families. Church becomes this side activity which we take on to get the warm fuzzy comforts of being spiritually secure – and to support the vacuity of this same lifestyle (and to provide our children with a good Christian education). Living the Christian life becomes a sub-therapeutic accoutrement we take on to balance the pressures/demands of the American consumerist/capitalist/Focus on the Family kind of life. And of course most of our evangelical churches find ways to make this feel alright.
Now I should say: I have no problem buying a house – when it is a missional discernment. I have no problem having children when we do not make our children into idols for our own gratification and self-glorying (and please – let us also elevate celibacy as a noble standard for Christian mission). We raise children for the Kingdom unto God’s glory not our own. I have no problem even when a career is blessed by God in wealth – when this wealth and success come as a surprise (in other words our goal was to do the job for God’s glory not our own wealth accumulation) and when this wealth is seen as God’s and used for His Kingdom. But we need another way even to make these attitudes possible.
We must cultivate an appetite and a vision for another way of life. To do this we will need a posture of resistance to the American dream. Zizek, in his recent book The Parrallax View points to Melville’s character Bartleby (in the short story Bartleby, the Scrivener: a Story of Wall Street) who began to challenge the demands of his office where he worked with the phrase “I would prefer not to.” For Zizek it is a gesture that provides the posture for a resistance which means something amidst an all the pervasive ideology that seeks to absorb anything we say or do into its own ways. Paraphrasing Zizek, We can imagine the varieties of such a gesture in today’s public space: … There are great chances of a new career here! Join us!” “Thank-you but I would prefer not to.” You must get married in order to have children or you will have nothing to live for “Thank-you but I prefer not to.” You haven’t bought a house? You’re wasting your money. Throwing it down the drain in rent (I can’t tell you how often I heard this in the last decade) “Thank-you but I prefer not to.” Zizek says this is more than the kind of resistance which parasites upon what it negates (example: we must bring justice to the minority peoples who have been excluded from economic prosperity! Yes, let’s make it possible to sell them houses they can’t afford too!”) This is a resistance which opens up a new space outside of the hegemonic culture.”(383-384)
I can’t explain all of what Zizek means here. And it’s not all relevant to this post. And Bartleby of course ended up opting out of society as a whole. The best lesson of Bartleby may be in the people he would stun by his refusal to play the games allof them felt so pressed to play. All I’m trying to say here is that our missional communities need to provide training in the posture of “No Thank You- I would prefer not to” for the purposes of opening up a space for the nurtuance of the Kingdom of God in and among us. Yet I’m afraid this doesn’t provide enough help? Do you have any ideas, practices, ways of nurturing resistance to the forces I am referring to above in this post?
And don’t say “thank-you – but I’d prefer not to.”
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Dave, thank you for this post. It’s a great encouragement for those of us who have sacrificed various aspects of the American dream to pursue whatever we felt like God was leading us to. Even those of us in more traditional church settings
. You just can’t be reminded enough of this stuff.
David – when we were running ‘Upstream’ this was the very ethos – one of choosing to ‘swim against’ the dominant motifs of society.
A simple one we choose is not to have a plasma as it is iconic of what we value these days.
After several years working all this thru I don’t think there are any simple answers to these questions and to proffer them is to veer into a new kind of pharisaism.
Somehow we have to let the HS convict people and yet be around to graciously challenge, love and encourage.
Thanks David! I have just forward this post to all our leaders at Little Flowers. They are a group of very passionate young leaders who are willing to ask these questions, but face the pressure of society, family, etc. to “participate” in the status quo. PLEASE explore this more.
As for suggestions, I will have to give it much more thought. The only thing to come to mind is by creating alternative communities where the source of needs being met are through a localized, relational community who support each other for the purpose of sharing life, faith & mission together. We’ve been trying to form this where we are at, but are still at VERY early stages of it.
Peace,
Jamie
I’m not sure we should group “getting married” and “having a family” with “buying a house” and “getting a secure job.” To put it pointedly, the Jesus I follow loved children, and didn’t see them as a distraction from his mission.
Actually, I would suggest that much of the empty pursuit of creature comforts, material wealth, status, etc. takes us away from loving our children and our family. In other words, I prefer not to own a TV because I love my family.
I agree that we can honor celibacy and singlehood much better than we do. And I know, David, that you say you have no problem with people getting married and having kids.
But I think we ought to do better than just not having a problem. I think missional ecclesiology has to happen through marriages and children (though not exclusively!), not just in spite of them.
My own missional congregation is focused very much on the children of our neighborhood, becoming for some of them a stable place, held together by love, that their home life doesn’t provide.
I’ve seen too many marriages suffer or disintegrate because, in part, the church didn’t provide the environment, accountability, and support necessary. But I’ve also seen marriages and families that are the foundation of missional engagement with the world.
Nate,
i think I agree with everything in your comment. What I wanted to get across here however is the overlooked danger covered over with many of the thoughts (pure as they are) that you express. This is danger that we make idols of our children and we then make them the primary purpose for our being. i.e. we idolize our children as an idol unto ourselves, as a reflection of us biologically and otehrwise. We then hunker down in iour nuclear families and make life all about this. To me … this is the dirty untold secret that goes on and which allows churches to succeed and being bavel gazers … worse… it makes self centerd narcissists of our children when they eventually grow up under this formation. Yet I think the NT is all too clear that we raise children unto the glory of God … and the biological family is second to the family of God … how’s that for stoking more gas on this flame! Thanks for the comment
I’m a little late to this discussion because I just ran across your blog yesterday on Google, but I felt it was ok to comment. I would suggest that we find people who have successfully steered away from the American dream into a mission focus and ask them how they did it. But ask them in front of the church so people see that this is important. Then keep asking them. It has to become the background for all conversations (the choice not to follow the American dream). Of course, this can present a problem as well, because the minute a church elevates a man/woman/couple to the status of “they are successful in what they do” then technically, they have found part of the American dream and others might think it’s hypocrisy. Still, without example, this is just theory. It’s good theory, but that’s all it is.
Dave,
I think you underestimate the extent of the calling of the local church elder/pastor/bishop/overseer as well as the calling of the father. I’ve tried it, and you can’t truly, fully, faithfully shepherd even a moderately sized group of people on a part-time schedule… at least if you’re the primary teaching elder (I say “the” and “primary” b/c most churches struggle just to find one person qualified to be a minister of the Word, let alone a plurality.)
Secondly, fathers are called to be providers (anathematized if they do not provide!), and that includes, but is not limited to, finances. Getting along in society may be equivalent in your eyes to the American Dream, but I see a real distinction. Lest we, following the Amish and Bartlesby, established a distinct, parallel society, my responsibility as provider for my wife and children entails maintaining a certain standard of living that goes above the first tier of Maslow’s pyramid. I would say it includes every tier. Of course there are limits, namely, need rather than wants. But needs are relative. The aspiring, and not-yet-aspiring, doctor or Senator or university professor has different needs than the natural extrovert who will do fine with a high school diploma and charisma to spare. To say that wealth is OK under certain conditions is to concede that certain circumstances which produce wealth are OK. Unless you are prepared to validate only inherited or happenstance wealth, you must validate at least one path of obtaining it, and all of them involve, to one extent or another, a concession to the rules of society at large.
Dave,
Thank you for opening my mind to a question; Am I seeking a “professional” pastoral position because I want the security of a pay cheque? Do I fear the lack of security for my family in being a missional pastor as I am called to?
I believe the hard answer is Yes. I’m convicted. I really appreciate it.
Matt,
1st comment … Agreed!! on the calling of a single elder/pastor Senior pastor overseeing the whole church … I’m rejecting that model for missional type churches that seek to implant themselves sin a missionary situation. THERE’S NO WAY ONE COULD DO THE JOB OF A TYPICAL SINGULAR PASTOR OF A CHURCH OF TWOHUNDRED … ON A PART TIME BASIS. In fact I could argue there’s hardly a way to do it as a full time paid pastor … I am arguing for a missional lifesttyle of mukltiple shared ordained ministry .. abnd I have always said if you tried to even plant a church as the singular leader you would “die trying.”
On the family vocation? and earning a living … I’m afraid we talked past each other … sorry … but what you said does not make sense to me .. but we need probably a little more nuance here to flesh it out .. hopefully over time .. thanks for dialoguing …
DF
I think I’m with you there.
As far as providing for family goes, I guess there’s a lot between the lines that would need to be fleshed out.
Thinking about Matt’s comments I think part of the problem is that it is hard to merge paradigms. We have a concept of what pastoring a church looks like from a traditional point of view, and we have a concept of what living life is like in today’s society (e.g., the U.S. & Canada). Both of these are heavily influenced by individualism. If those concepts are reframed in a community context, things look very different.
What I mean is that if you want to maintain an individualistic concept of pastoring and living life, what David is saying doesn’t fit very well. From an individualism point of view you are going to have a hard time surviving financially unless you make a career out of the ministry or at least have a way to pursue personal wealth. Additionally, meeting the needs of a congregation without committing full-time to it will be nearly impossible. If, however, leading is seen as one gift/role among others in the community, the focus of which is not being the provider of everything but a mentor and catalyst to help the body function as a body, you will then be able to carry other responsibilities as well.
John Driver puts it better than me, “…church structures which make it difficult for individuals to share fully in responsibility for the life of the Christian community deny the true nature of the body of Christ. Structures which relegate responsibility into the hands of a few, no matter if they are congregational or intercongregational, only encourage passive participation and loss of interest in brotherhood welfare by the members.”
Regarding finances, if economic practices are reordered, things look much differently. In other words, if I must ensure my own financial survival, and that is the limit of the scope of my concern, the pressures to produce personal wealth will eclipse the communitarian reality and needs of the body. On the other hand, if some kind of economic sharing becomes the norm, where communion isn’t consigned to the “spiritual” but encompasses the whole person, then the weight of financial survival is shared. It becomes “simply a matter of Christian love, of the love of God made operative in the new community of Pentecost.”
To cut to the chase, shifting from an “I” paradigm to a “we” paradigm is necessary to embody the values David is talking about.
I guess what I’m getting at is that our relationships are ordered. The idea that flesh and blood comes before spiritual family is a New Testament one (1 Tim 5:8). In 21st century America, as in most of the “developed” world, making ends meet is nothing to take for granted. It takes a lot of hard work and a lot of hours–40 at the very least–to provide for the basic material needs of one’s family. Most fathers work much more, and many families must have both parents working–hardly a Kingdom ideal. When you add the other needs of a family which require both quantity and quality time investment (again, I’m talking basic needs, not isolationistic indulgence), the amount left over for even a small leadership role is minimal. 5-10 hrs/wk maybe. Maybe this is sufficient in the Anabaptist ecclesiology, but as a minister of the Word myself, I know that 5-10 hrs is far from sufficient time to accomplish what a teaching elder is responsible for. There’s no way he has time to prepare an expository lesson on a logical unit of Scripture. And the chances of each local church having a team of pastors who are qualified to teach Scripture to the congregation are miniscule in most contexts. Of course, I’m betraying my bias here for original language exegesis over well-meaning eisegesis. OK, that’s a bit of hyperbole, but I believe every teaching elder ought to be able to exegete the Scriptures in the original languages. That naturally has massive implications for our ecclesiology, which is why you can see my dilemma.
PaulTSeptember 18, 2011Sam,Kruger and Kostenberger dtaenstrmoe that Erhman’s argument originates from the “Higher Criticism” of that school. They take apart the argument of Walter Bauer whose presupposition dominates the liberal view of reality. It seems to me that many hyperpreterists whether they realize it or not assume to be fact a view based on Bauer’s assumptions that have been adopted as the conventional wisdom by liberals. Although I haven’t finished the book, it has certainly been eye-opening as to the basis for many of the arguments I read.
Matt,
the relativization of the family before the new family of God is evidenced quite strongly by Matt 12: 48-50; Luke 14:26 … etc… and of course the elevation by the apostle Paul of celibacy in the community. But this would not suggest that we somehow are to be negligent in providing for our own families… or for being good father’s and husbands … It is just that our identity and the reason for which we di these things are subordinated to God and His Mission or they become idols unto themselves … Peace
Adam,
If I read you right, you’re positing the community as a source of economic stability instead of the individual. In other words, I don’t–and by proxy, my family doens’t–have to be self-sufficient if we live in a community that supports one another holistically, including economically.
My own church community does this to some degree, but that is in large part dependent on the generosity of some wealthy families. I’m not sure how this model works if there aren’t some members of the community who make a lot of money.
Now, it is possible to reduce consumption–and therefore, the need for income–through more intentional ways of communal living. So much of American income is spent on maintaining individual autonomy–our own houses, our own appliances, our own cars–that theoretically we could work together to share in common.
I see this most effective in co-housing situations, but those kinds of intentional communities are hard and messy, and there are more failures than success stories.
David,
I think I’ll need more concrete examples to understand your context. In my context, the kids in our neighborhood need more hands-on attention, not less. Perhaps I can offer two scriptures that speak to the kind of posture I think we are called to have toward children.
The first is in Mark 9, where Jesus says “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.” I don’t think this is hyperbolic, but it expresses a kind of mystically reality–that when we minister to the poor, the least, when we welcome a child, we are doing the same to Christ. It feels to me like the same kind of mystical reality that we pray for when we say “pour out on these gifts your Holy Spirit, that they might be for us the body and blood….”
But Jesus also says (in Luke 14), “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.” That is, if we let even our families take the place of God, we cannot be Jesus’ disciples. And how tragic it is, both for the parent AND the child, when one of them tries to make the other their God. It is an impossible task, to be God for someone else, and a horrible thing to expect it of someone.
I would be neglecting and/or harming my children by raising them to believe that the universe revolves around them. I don’t think the answer, then, is to say, “Stop devoting yourself to your children so much!” It’s to say, “start really loving your children–teach them the freedom found in the abandoning the pursuit of self and joining with the missio Dei.”
David,
Very good post. Thought-provoking comments as well.
Makes me ask the question: On a practical level, how should a father live and provide a living (even a simple one) for his family while leading/pastoring a missional community? This question is being asked from one in a current context of a “full-time” ministry position in a “traditional” church setting.
A follow-up question: How does one start out toward this without any sense of financial security? (a celibate individual need not worry as much about this, but a father in a family of four must, right?)
I guess I’m trying to ask specific, personal questions in a general way and on a public forum – it may not work.
N8,
Let me weigh in with a personal story of my own, that I think might illuminate some of the pressures against mission to which David alludes. (not trying to put words in your mouth, David!)
My wife and I are organizing a mission trip to Haiti in June. When our hearts became captivated by the plight of Haitian orphans, and we determined that we each sensed a call to go in order to support the mission work of friends we have there, we had several people, all well-meaning, ask, “are you going to take your kids?” Of course, we said. Why? they asked. Why would you subject your children to that? Why put them in that kind of danger?
The missio Dei is risky. It involves sacrifice. When children are a part of mission, inevitably people will ask (and we even ask ourselves), is this right, fair, compassionate to put them in this situation? It’s a legitimate ethical question, I think. But my response is this: who decided that my children get to live free of pain, free of want, free of hunger, but that Haitian children have to suffer? And why would I want my own children to grow up thinking that a life with Christ is a life of ease, comfort and safety? I have to both show them the pain and suffering of the world, so that they are not blind to it, but also show them that grace has the last word, that mercy triumphs over judgment, that Love is greater than all the suffering of the world.
If this means my kids are less financially secure but learn to trust in the Love of God more, then I am a better father for it.
Dave,
Couldn’t agree more.
Nate,
I’m with you all the way re: the local church as an interdependent, mutually supportive community vs. a collection of autonomous individuals (and/or families). I buy that vision and I’ve invested a considerable about of capital–relational, temporal, financial, intellectual–in it over the last 6 years or so. Given my comments here, you all might be humored to read my very first blog post: http://theincarnate.blogspot.com/2005/12/community-physical-incarnate-presence.html), which will no doubt seem like a fairly stark contrast. My wife and I started a center-city missional community with another couple four years ago (www.thecoredowntown.com), but something never felt quite right. We never got the traction we anticipated. I didn’t have the intellectual resources I needed to pastor effectively in that setting. Asking people to commit to this radically different way of life just didn’t pan out in terms of results. People came and went. The cost was too great.
What I did learn was that there are many practical decisions we can make that will enable us to function more interdependently without forming a monastery or commune. But the other pastor and I still had to work full-time jobs, both our spouses worked (albeit part-time), and the overall task just exceeded our time capacity. Now he has established the ministry on a pretty solid footing, but I know he’s operating largely on zeal, which is difficult to sustain.
Anyhow, I hope each of us on here is taking practical steps toward living more simply, more communally, and more Christ-like.
Blessings!
*a lot of capital (sorry)
Nate,
My point is that in the community of Christ our financial practices will be reordered and that koinonia includes economic sharing. Obviously, each person is responsible to work to provide for themselves (“he who will not work will not eat”), but it doesn’t stop there. Members of the community, modeling (however imperfect) God’s jubilee society, make the scope of their concern greater than the nuclear family. We practically “worry” about everybody’s financial needs. Instead of climbing the economic success ladder as an end for my own family, I labor for financial provision of the community.
How this is practically structured varies. The actual structure isn’t the point, it’s the principle I’m thinking about. The church is now our family. Financial survival is *our* problem together.
How does one get from point “A” to point “B” to live this out? That’s another discussion.
@Nate
“So much of American income is spent on maintaining individual autonomy–our own houses, our own appliances, our own cars–that theoretically we could work together to share in common.
I see this most effective in co-housing situations, but those kinds of intentional communities are hard and messy, and there are more failures than success stories.”
Well said. This kind of living is hard and messy. Relationships are what it’s all about and relationships are hard, but this is where the church must succeed. This is our witness (John 13:35; 17:23). Unity is all we have.
As for co-housing and intentional communities “failing,” yes they do. But many don’t fail and have survived throughout church history (although I’m not sure that’s the point). Individual families fail as well. I’d say that individualism mostly isn’t “succeeding” from a N.T. perspective. It kind of depends on what you mean by failure and success.