The Sensible Church

Church leaders are sort of freaking out these days.

There are many reasons for this, and I am sure you can relate to more than a few of them. The uncertainty of participation in a COVID world. The decline of membership. The decline of finances. The reckoning of Christian nationalism. The nationalization of everything. The intersection of justice and mercy. Denominational splits and local church infights. New theologies and new mediums for communication…

The uncertainty of the sea change prompts church leaders dive into the resource reserves in the hopes to find something to help navigate the choppy waters. The way we typically think about how to solve problems is to either look to the past or to the future. Generally, conservatives look to see what has worked in the past to solve present problems. Progressives scoff at conservatives and say something like, “what got us here cannot take us there.” And so, progressives tend to look to the future to solve present problems.

This way of framing things overlooks the flaw that conservatives and progressives share. If we look to the past or the future church leaders are looking for what is sensible.

And that is a problem.

Sensible is attractive because, well it is sensible. Our minds tend to gravitate toward what makes the most sense and go in that direction. The sensible option is often an easier option to “sell” to others and get people on board. That which is sensible is also well supported by loads of books and resources, so it gives the impression that the sensible way is the best way.

Of course what is sensible to a progressive may not be sensible to a conservative. The Bible is full of examples of people doing the sensible thing but it is not what God desires. And for as easy as it might be to “sell” the sensible, it also instantly sets up an us/them divide where the “them” are idiots because “they” don’t do what is sensible able. In fact we often look to the other and say that their actions “don’t make sense.” It is also unhelpful for church leaders to be looking for the “best” way when we should be looking for the “faithful” way. But these are not the deeper problems with the sensible church.

It does not take any courage to be sensible. Faith is not needed to be sensible. In fact, courage and faith can be liabilities to the sensible church.

The call of Jesus to the church is not to be sensible, but to have courage to be faithful. The way of the cross is not sensible. Trusting that God is alive is not sensible. Resurrection is not sensible. Unconditional Grace is not sensible. Forgiveness is not sensible. Rejecting many leadership principles is not sensible. Reconsidering the core mission of the church is not sensible.

Desiring to be the sensible church is the symptom to our lack of faithful courage. We look to the past and the future for what is sensible, but the Good News is that we are liberated from being the sensible church. We are freed from having the answers, the best plan, the business model, the strategic vision, the marketing campaigns or any other action an organization might consider sensible. We are freed to be the foolish followers of the folly of God in Christ Jesus.

Maybe Paul was writing to the Sensible Church in Corinth when he wrote 1 Corinthians 1.18-25:

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
   and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.’
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.

What Marty McFly Has To Do With Jesus Christ

Marty McFly is a character in the "Back to the Future” movies. When I watched these movies as a kid I really thought he was a moron. I mean really, who gets all in a tizzy and looses all sense of self when called a chicken? It was a clever device for to move the character along in the movies but he seemed really over the top as a human being.

But maybe not.

Recently Hidden Brain had a podcast called “Made of Honor”. It explores cultures called “honor cultures”. These are the places in the world where ones honor and reputation are at the very center of one’s life. It is the defense of that honor that dictates behavior that seems irrational. McFly’s behavior may be over the top, but it makes rational sense in an honor culture. At its best, honor culture can spur acts of bravery and courage. It can ensure that the weak are defended and the integrity of a community/family/person are upheld in the face of a threat. At its most unhealthy, honor culture can lead to spirals of violence, systemic power structures, and rationalizations that justify all sorts of unethical behavior. The McFly family is steeped in honor culture values, which get him into all sorts of trouble while also is a contributor of his motivation.

Jesus was one who was also steeped in honor culture, you don’t have to go far into Biblical studies to learn about how the honor/shame culture influenced behavior. To be very reductionist: one avoided shame and tried to gain honor. It might be thought of as a bank account. Where one wanted to accumulate honor (credit) while avoiding shame (debts). This is not a “bad” culture, but it can influence and even condone harmful things.

Jesus, born and raised in the honor culture of his time, teaches a different culture. Specifically, Jesus teaches a “dignity” culture. Where honor cultures circle around protecting honor, dignity cultures circle around the worth of every person. In an honor culture, children can be dismissed since they have little honor. In dignity cultures, children cannot be dismissed because every person is a child of God. Dignity cultures uphold the dignity of those “caught in the very act of adultery”. It upholds the dignity of sinners and tax collectors. It speaks out against those who take advantage of others (Mark 5:25-29) or are stumbling blocks (Romans 14:13). Dignity cultures are scandalized when an innocent victim is killed. Dignity cultures take seriously that some lives need to be protected because those lives are more at risk for harm.

Dignity cultures can be threatening to honor cultures (which contributes to why Christianity is counter cultural), because dignity cultures do not keep score of where honor is. The hierarchy of honor is broken in dignity cultures. In dignity cultures people are asked to sometimes look the fool (1 Cor. 1:23) and forgive seven seven times seven times. Dignity cultures can be threatening to honor cultures because we loose all sense of who "has merit” and who “has earned” what. We loose who is of value and who is not - because we come to see that all people have dignity.

The problem with dignity cultures is not they go too far, but that often those who live in dignity cultures do not go far enough and fall back into a version of honor culture. When we reserve dignity for some and refuse the same dignity to others, we are using dignity language to reinforcing honor culture.

The Conversation on the Other Side of the Red Sea

There is a midrash story told about the splitting of the Red Sea. Specifically about who will go into the sea first. I collected this translation from Conservative Yeshiva Online. I hope you might read the original writing as it is very good.

(Exodus 14:22) "And the children of Israel came in the midst of the sea on the dry land": Rabbi Meir said one interpretation. When the tribes stood at the sea, this one said: ‘I will descend first into the sea’ and the other said: I will descend first into the sea’. In the midst of their argument, the tribe of Benjamin jumped and descended into the sea first, as it is written: ‘There is little Benjamin who went into the sea (rodem), the princes of Judah who stoned them, the princes of Zebulun and Naphtali. Your God has ordained strength for you, the strength, O God, which you displayed for us on high.’ (Psalms 68:28-9) Do not read “rodem – ruling them” but “rad yam – descended into the sea” Then the princes of Judah threw stones at them, as it says: ‘The princes of Judah stoned them’

A parable. To what can this be compared? To a king who had two sons, one older and one younger. The king said to the younger one: ‘Wake me up at sunrise’ and he told his older son: ‘Wake me up at the third hour of the day‘. When the younger son went to wake his father at sunrise, the older brother did not let him, saying: ‘Father told me to wake him at the third hour.’ The younger brother responded: ‘He said top me at sunrise.’ While they were standing and arguing, their father woke up and he said to them: ‘My sons, in any case, both of you only had my honor in mind. So, too, I will not withhold my reward from you.

Here the ironic part of the story that the tribes who wanted to prove that they were the most faithful to God were the ones who attempted harm. One might think that God would reward the tribe of Benjamin for their faithfulness and also punish the other tribes for their attempted harm towards Benjamin. And yet, the midrash calls that into question with the parable in which neither son fulfils the commandment of the king. It is also worth noting that each son attempts to stop his brother in the attempt to accomplish the commandment the other was given. Then the king wakes up and does not punish either son for their failure to follow either commandment nor for being an obstacle to the other.

Be it the LMC, the GMC, (both of which have an image of communion on the homepages) or the UMC (with an image of serving those in need on the homepage), or any other movement/denomination that ends in “MC”, there is a strong temptation to pick up stones and take aim at the other we see being “irresponsible” while our side is “faithful”.

The current UMC stands at the edge of the sea. We are stuck between the fear of being powerless to stop the coming armies of change, and the frustration as we face a legislative sea we cannot navigate. Some are arguing, others are quite, still others are jumping in.

The parable suggests that God can give contradicting commandments to the children. This parable suggests to me that it is our unease with contradiction that is the problem, not the commandments. Until we come to peace with the contradictions we find in the Bible, the contradictions we find in ourselves, the contradictions of being a church, we will be tempted to thwart and stone one another. Rather than try to eradicate the contradiction by splitting and breaking and “othering”, the contradictions give us a chance to practice living with one another - even as we disagree - so that we can learn to love fully.

We spend a lot of time focusing on the conversations we are having on this side of the sea. However, one day we will get to the other side of the sea. The crisis will subside. The threat will be gone. And then we will have to turn to one another and realize God did not leave anyone behind.

I wonder what the conversation was like on the other side of the sea between the tribes? I doubt they argued about who was the most faithful, but turned their attention to thanksgiving and praise for God’s faithfulness. I wonder what the conversation of the sons were after the king rewarded them both, even in their failures? I bet it was less about who was the better son and more about how can they mirror the king.