Hauerwas: Care vs. discipline

The church seems caught in an irresolvable tension today. Insofar as we are able to maintain any presence in modern society we do so by being communities of care. Pastors become primarily people who care. In attempt in such a context for the church to be a disciplined and disciplining community seems antithetical to being a community of care. As a result the care the church gives, while often quite impressive and compassionate, lacks the rationale to build the church as a community capable of standing against the powers we confront.

– Stanley Hauerwas, After Christendom

Learning to talk about God

One of the things I have noticed while taking Clinical Pastoral Education is how difficult it is for so many people talk about their faith and about God.

I’m not sure if people lack the vocabulary, the experience, or the comfort needed to converse about matters of the spirit, but for so many people the awkwardness of it all is profound.

Ask them about family and the words come easily. As them about work, and no problem. Ask them about their illness and they can give you details about their symptoms, their diagnosis, their treatment, and their hopes.

Ask about God, and most people are reduced to babbling cliches or sitting in silence.

It makes me see the value of those class meetings where people not only were invited each week to talk about their spiritual life but were able to hear others do the same. It must have built up a vocabulary. It meant that people could answer the question, “Do you know Jesus?” without stammering.

Recovering this ability to talk about the life of the spirit without empty cliches or stammering silence would help bring life to the church.

What are some ways we can do that?

Whitefield or Spong?

A pastoral colleague made this observation in passing recently. He noted that more entrepreneurial and risk-taking congregations tended to be ones with more “conservative” theology, by which he meant theology that looked a lot more like John Wesley and George Whitefield than John Shelby Spong.

I’m sure this is not a universal truth. I’m sure there are some Spong-loving congregations that do all kinds of new and risky things to reach new people. But I do wonder how true the the observation might be.

It does seem logical that a group of people who share a mission that places a strong emphasis on evangelism — as most “conservative” churches do — would be more likely to say results matter more than the methods by which those results are achieved. You could expect that to foster a spirit that favors more risk-taking.

What has your experience been? Do congregations that make evangelism a center piece of their mission tend to be more open to risk-taking?

Growth in a barren land

Hoosier pastor Scott Pattison recently shared this reflection on his Facebook page. I repost it here with his permission.

I have been reflecting upon my various experiences spending 10 days in a highly secular culture that is about 20-25 years ahead of the US in secularization – where there is less than 1%-4% church attendance (0% in some areas of the UK and Europe), and most churches on a Sunday (as they say) have “20 or so old people attending Sunday worship in large empty church buildings.”

I had the chance to meet, observe, experience, and interact with church leaders and their people, along with other para-church ministries (The Message Trust, the St. Thomas Churches {Crookes, Philadelphia, Kings Centre, and City Base Church}) that are effectively reaching those under 40 years of age (particularly teens, college students in secular universities, and young families) who are genuinely transforming lives and being and making disciples – and they have been doing so for decades.

I heard from watchers of worldwide Church trends (Kent Hunter, Peter Brierly) and modern day movement leaders (Andy Hawthorne, Mick Woodhead, Mike Breen, and Paul Maconochie), talked and interacted with various church planters and pastors (from the UK, Ireland, Australia, The Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Germany), and other movement leaders, pastors, and staff.

I found that these churches and ministries that have seen a consistent pattern of growth (St. Thomas Crookes alone grew from 150 to over 2000 on the original site since the 1970’s, and a growing network of churches around Sheffield since the early 2000’s with around half under 40 years of age), with various vicars or pastors (not personality driven as we often see in the states), with the same guiding doctrine, spirit, discipline, and principles of renewal and revitalization of the early Methodist that I discovered and identified in my doctoral research.

Upon returning and reflecting upon my experiences, I find that at a time that we are battling growing decline of the church in North America, when a portion of the UMC is wanting to loosen its hold on the “doctrine, spirit, and discipline of which we first set out,” the churches ministering in the secular irreligious setting of Europe that are growing and transforming their communities (and the people in them) are tightening their grip on the historical faith delivered through the fullness Scripture, salvation through the Justifying Grace of Jesus Christ, and the sanctifying transformative power of the Holy Spirit as still real and necessary today.

These churches and ministries in England and Europe, hold the same foundation of our Articles of Religion and principles of early Methodist revival, and they are applying them in the UK and other places in Europe. They embrace the arts and the “priesthood of all believers,” with a strong witness to the salvific faith in Jesus the Christ and the transforming power of the Holy Spirit actively working – and they are growing in numbers and community impact, by doing more than social action and good works, but by offering faith in Jesus as seen in the early church, and a community of faith empowered and guided by the Holy Spirit that reaches and is transforming all stratas of society – with a particular focus on the least and lost.

My fear is that we in the US church are standing at the tree of what we believe to be new knowledge listening and believing the whisper of the garden – “Did God really say ….?” “Did God really mean …?” – then we will have as John Wesley feared, a church “having the form of religion without the power.”

Less Methodist = More Wesleyan?

Talbot Davis argues that a church becomes more Wesleyan by looking less Methodist.

[T]he sad irony is that many of the structures a local United Methodist congregation adopts in its effort to be faithfully United Methodist — structures that by and large arose in the 20th century — actually inhibit that church’s ability to be authentically Wesleyan.

What do you think?