In this wide-ranging discussion, they open up about:

- What surprises people most about a pastor’s week

- The one thing they’re praying when they look out at the congregation on Sunday

- How they’ve evolved in their thinking about ministry, structure, and sanctification

- What’s been harder than expected (relational ministry in a busy, screen-saturated culture)

- What’s been better than expected (younger generations stepping up to serve)

- The honest advice they’d give someone who feels spiritually stuck

- The biggest misconception about how pastors actually relate to each other (hint: they don’t all think alike)

- How they keep the energy fresh after decades of preaching the same texts

Church of the Nazarene Clergy this series has a Lifelong Learning Code: 919014

In an online forum recently, I saw a question asking for feedback on an article (link below). The article is part of a series in which several writers associated with the Global Methodist Church (GMC) are opining on their thoughts of what the future of the Church catholic may look like. I commend anyone looking to the future and trying to determine what the Church may look like, but what I noticed in the article is the idea of re-formation as in reforming (physically and theologically) what the Church looks like. Sadly, I see both a lack of imagination and a vision of a church as institution with rapidly narrowing guardrails.

Your vision of church may be of guardrails, but to project that onto the entirety of the Christian experience is a category error at best. I also believe that trying to fit institution into an organism leads to where we are today in the wider Church. Here are my unvarnished comments on the article.

The Church needs new birth. not revival, re-formation, or any institutional idea. This article and the series have a good premise, but I believe they lack the imagination that ignited the early church. Here is why I think that.

The thinking and questions are assuming institution rather than organism. The mention that God is doing something new does not track with the institutional nudges.

I believe this is a vision the authors have for the Global Methodist Church (GMC) and that is fine, but to project it upon the Church catholic is a category error. The GMC is definitely working toward a re-formation, but it appears to be a re-formation of modernism within an institutional church. The move toward inerrancy is just one example of this move toward modernism as the framework.

I can’t help shaking the feeling that the GMC is going down a similar road to the ANCA. Guardrails constantly narrow as you attempt to form an institution. Much better to have a centering that creates a source upon which we move out only so far as our center holds. That center is Jesus, not our institutions.

Why my rather cynical assessment? Because the GMC is already moving toward institutional rules making as a function of the Church. If you have played Table Top Role-Playing Games like Dungeons and Dragons you will be familiar with the concept of rules heavy and rules light games. The most popular game system is Dungeons and Dragons which is a rules heavy game. It has very dense and sometimes over complex rules which can constrict gameplay and the fun. A rules light game in contrast allows for more fluid storytelling and a faster pace. For a new player, rules light is much easier to understand and a much more inviting invitation into the hobby.

Subscribe now

The GMC is institutionalizing an idea which helps to form institutional control over the hermeneutical (interpretative framework) of scripture. A solid hermeneutic is a good thing, but a rules light hermeneutic is more open to the Holy Spirit and the moves of God in the world than a rules heavy approach. What is my evidence of the GMC leaning toward a rules heavy approach? The fact that they are proposing changing their Methodist doctrine of scripture into a fundamentalist vision of an inerrant text. As a member of clergy in the Church of the Nazarene (COTN), I am watching this closely because we have clergy who not only desire for our doctrine of scripture to change to this same idea, but also teach inerrancy as doctrine.

What’s wrong with inerrancy? Good question, but also a question born in modernism’s insistence upon certitude and proof. Inerrancy is a recent idea within Christianity. In fact, it is a true child of twentieth century modernism. Ironically, the fundamentalists became modernists by fighting historic liberal theology with its own ideas. But back to inerrancy itself. The allure of inerrancy is that it places a burden upon scripture to be perfect in content rather than in purpose.

There is a very large gulf between content and purpose and we do well to remember that. The purpose of scripture is to reveal God, and for Christians, the perfect revelation of God is found in Jesus. These are the claims of the Gospels and other scripture. The Gospel of John and the book of Hebrews address this directly. The clarity of purpose being more important than content is shown very clearly in Hebrews chapter one.

Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. (Heb 1:1-3 NRSVue)

The writer of Hebrews is explicitly rejecting the idea that the scriptures they know are flawed in that they are not the perfect reflection of God’s character. Inerrancy is a poor understanding of scripture and the inspiration of scripture. Many Christian traditions have never held to any form of textual inerrancy. There are those, like the COTN, who teach the idea of soteriological inerrancy. This is simply that scripture is able to inerrantly reveal how we can have relationship with God. In other words, this is an inerrant purpose. You will find this claim throughout my writing.

But what I have come to believe recently is that textual inerrancy is not only a poor understanding of the purpose of scripture, but that it may be like heresy. It is definitely idolatry. Sure, those who believe in inerrancy will say “we don’t worship the bible.” But that’s not the fullness of idolatry. To define idolatry is the placement of authority within the object or thing itself instead of solely in the source of inspiration. In other words we shift from a God-breathed text, to a text that derives authority from itself.

That’s the ultimate problem with inerrancy, it constrains the text to the point of strangling its life. The text is nothing without the breath of God. For Wesleyans, this God-breathed nature extends to human beings, and to the Holy Spirit revealing the truth within the text which points to God. The authority of scripture exists within the invitation to engage with the living God, not the words on a page.

Textual inerrancy is an unnecessary and empty view of scripture. There is no claim to inerrancy within scripture. Many try to show inerrancy within scripture, but those are typically proof texts that ignore the context and even the very words. I imagine that in the new birth the Church is groaning toward, inerrancy will be a quaint artifact of modernism that gets shed in repentance of the idolatry that it is. At least that’s my prayer.

https://firebrandmag.com/articles/the-new-normal

In this episode of the Parson Brown Podcast, Brandon welcomes back fan-favorite guest Nick Polk for the summer series to explore one of J.R.R. Tolkien’s most brilliant and hope-filled ideas: eucatastrophe. Coined by Tolkien from the Greek “eu” (good) and “catastrophe,” the term describes that sudden, unexpected joyful turn when all seems lost - the happy ending that emerges organically from the story itself, not dropped in from outside.

Nick and Brandon unpack the difference between a true eucatastrophe and a cheap deus ex machina, tracing examples through Tolkien’s legendarium (the creation story of the Ainulindale, the romance of Beren and Luthien, the reshaping of the world from flat to round) and into pop culture touchstones like Star Wars, Independence Day, and Toy Story 3. They wrestle with Tolkien’s claim that he didn’t invent eucatastrophe but discovered it - and how the ultimate eucatastrophe, for Tolkien, was the death and resurrection of Christ.

Along the way they tackle perennial fan questions - why couldn’t the eagles just take the Ring to Mordor? - and explore how the shape of story echoes the shape of the gospel. Whether you’re a Tolkien nerd, a theology nerd, or just someone who loves a good happy ending, this conversation will leave you seeing stories -- and your own story - in a new light.

Church of the Nazarene Clergy this series has a Lifelong Learning Code: 919014

In my last essay, I engaged with the idea of an embodied theology. We looked at how bodies relate to ministry, the church, and doctrinal decisions. The practical theology of embodiment is perfect for an ecclesiology of embodied action. In other words, the Church is a body! The Apostle Paul is concerned with the embodiment of the Church as the incarnation of Christ in the present; what if we turned to look at the Church like Paul? Paul talks a lot about bodies and his clearest metaphor for the Church is as the body of Christ. This is deep theological understanding about who the church is to be.

The Body is Laboring

In her book, The Pastor as Midwife Rev. Dr. Shawna Gaines writes about the current state of the Church.

In this moment, the church is in great pain: Congregations are dwindling, denominations are fracturing, church scandals have become a genre, church leaders are at a loss to navigate rapid change, Christians are co-opted by tactics of the empires of this world, and survival is threatened. (Gaines)

Despite attempts to shoehorn bad data into celebrations, the church in the U.S. is facing decline. Or decline in the traditional Western understanding of successful churches. It is true that institutional metrics are largely discouraging. Spend some time on Ryan Burge’s excellent Substack and you can see the trends. Church attendance and membership is down across the board. Some denominations are shedding huge numbers, including the largest Protestant group in the U.S. - The Southern Baptist Church.

But, what if we are experiencing productive pain in the labor of new birth? I don’t mean the next cool idea or system, but actual new birth. What if visionaries like Phylis Tickle and others are right and we are currently in the transition between the Church as it has been and the Church as it will be? Phylis Tickle was an Episcopal layperson who had great insight into the Church catholic and the changes she foresaw. We really miss her voice in these days of labor moving toward birth. There is a pattern as Tickle pointed out through the words of a priest.

The Right Reverend Mark Dyer, an Anglican bishop known for his wit as well as his wisdom, famously observes from time to time that the only way to understand what is currently happening to us as twenty-first-century Christians in North America is first to understand that about every five hundred years the Church feels compelled to hold a giant rummage sale. (Tickle)

Or as Shawna Gaines mentions, “We need change that is less like a website facelift and more like a new birth...”

If the church were pregnant, we would be pushing toward the moment when a doctor would say it is time to induce. The pain we are currently experiencing as a people is not a pain inflicted by God, but it may just be that which shows us the path back to God. Our pains are labor pains moving us toward the next birth of the Church as the embodiment of the Christ, but what is the Church giving birth to?

The Strongman in Shepherd’s Clothing

In The Pastor as Midwife Shawna Gaines interrogates the typical metaphor of pastor as shepherd. She does not reject the metaphor of shepherd overall, but takes issue with the way we typically talk about pastor/shepherd as a visionary leader and protector. Gaines comments upon the way many pastor have been taught what success is. “The big church conferences told me that a pastor was a visionary leader, like Moses the shepherd, who had been to the mountaintop and would fearlessly lead the flock onward.”

Or even worse visions of shepherd are those of men like Mark Driscoll who imagines pastor as strongman directing the flock and protecting the flock from the world. The idea is that the only responsibility of the sheep is to survive. The irony is that even egalitarian churches see pastors in light of a patriarchal lens. The strong CEO leading the church into prosperity is a patriarchal, capitalist vision. It is not the picture of a shepherd in scripture.

We do need new metaphors for pastor that meet the Church being born anew. While not throwing out the metaphor of shepherd, we can see shepherds through the lens of midwife. After all, shepherds often serve as midwife to their sheep. Shepherds are present at new birth. The shepherd of first century Palestine was not a visionary leader, but a loving guide to sheep. Yes, shepherds protected, but only in the sense that wild animals were a threat. The sheep did not need to constantly cower because the shepherd was in their midst. Not controlling, but guiding and caring.

Shifting the metaphor to midwife allows the church to reject the strongman and see the world through eyes that are part of the risen savior. These eyes see the world differently than eyes focused upon the strongman. We can also shift from the end result of pastor as CEO and release that to welcome the pastor as a shepherd who midwifes.

Organization Without Institutionalization

What does it mean for the Church if we shift from the strongman to a midwifing shepherd? It shifts us to a very Pauline metaphor of the Church as the body of Christ - an embodied church. The language changes from institution to organism. From standard operating procedures to living and breathing organic structure. There is a marked difference between the idea of institutionalization which serves the institutional structure versus the organic and healthy structure that serves life and living.

Pastor Shawna explains this within the work of midwives.

“I’ve witnessed pastors and midwives working in the wisdom of the birthing community bring order and peace to a process that can be filled with fear and anxiety. Their work as professionals is orderly and organized, but it is not institutionalized.”

Midwives bring order within chaos, but they do not control the birth. They are there along side and with the mothers and others involved in the birth. They invite form rather than chaos or control. I cannot help but see echoes of Genesis within this idea. God births creation from chaos in the opening of Genesis. Midwives bring order to chaos in new births as an ongoing reflection of God’s work in the world.

Gaines tells us that institutionalization leads us to create things designed to outlive us. This transforms the Church into an institution that serves itself rather than the mission of God. Much like modern birth within a hospital has institutionalized into postures, placement of bodies, and setups that are convenient for the doctor, but often highly inconvenient for the mother giving birth; institutions form themselves around ways to serve the needs of the institution. The mother ends up on a table and on her back allowing the doctor to sit in comfort and command the situation. This leaves little room for the mother to adjust to what her body is saying. The structure is geared toward doctor rather than mother. This is what we have done with the church.

We have placed the institutional concerns onto the doctor’s stool. We have placed the Church on her back and made it hard for her to see the paths God is leading toward. The new birth seems to be ancillary to the whole production. This informs the statistics we gather, the ways we structure hierarchies, and even how doctrines are enforced or not enforced. The importance becomes centered on the survival and ease of the institution - often at the expense of the human beings within the structure. What would a church that saw itself as an organism do differently. What would polity, roles, accountability look like within such an imagination? It would definitely not be one in which polity, roles, accountability, structure, organization, and doctrine become flattened into a single essential doctrine. Instead it would be one in which those things other than essential doctrines were subject to the move of God rather than institutional survival. There would be a cooperative and humble listening and seeing what God is doing, even if it is detrimental to the institution.

It would look much more like the description by a doula in Gaines’ book of birth as a dance. “There is rhythm and swaying, and the rhythm increases and speeds up, bodies move and sway. But the mother is the one who sets the rhythm, even if she doesn’t know it.” I imagine the rhythm, cooperation, and move of the church being in sync with God. More accomplished in sync choreography versus Elaine Benes.* A beautiful swaying in response to the song of the Spirit becomes the unifying move of a church being witness and moving toward new birth.

The Spirit Sets the Rhythm

Rhythm needs to be set by someone so others know to match that rhythm. One of the recurring ideas within Pastor as Midwife is the idea that the mother sets the rhythm of the birth. The entire birthing community of the mother syncs to her rhythm. Trying to set the rhythm for the mother only causes trauma. Why is this so important to midwives? Because the baby is not theirs. If pastors see the church as their baby, they will kill it. For the Church, our rhythm should be set by the Spirit, because the Church belongs to Christ and not us, not our denominations, and not our own comfort.

Pastor Shawna puts it very well.

“Pastor, your first and last priority is attending to the Holy Spirit, who centers the church on Christ. The well-being of the church is a secondary outcome of the church’s attention to the Spirit. If the Spirit is our true Mother who is leading the church in the birth of new creation, a pastor’s role is to listen to her lead and help the church follow in her rhythm.”

Would our anxieties about decline be more about trying to control a birth not our own. We could release that anxiety by seeing ourselves as attendants to the Spirit birthing the new life of the Church. How would our measurements of the Church change in light of centering us in the rhythm of the Holy Spirit?

Success would be measured very differently than it is today. Attendance, giving, and raw numbers don’t really tell the story well. Instead we might highlight evidence of lives changed, communities transformed, and people sharing the stories of how they are moving in the rhythm of the Spirit. It may be difficult to quantify, but imagine recounting the people who attend to those who go to altars. What if our numbers included those who prayed with rather than just those who prayed? I can imagine the picture now of the church swaying in rhythm to the Spirit.

It would be very like my first encounter with an African-American church in my youth. The Hammond B3 started the movement, then the choir burst into the sanctuary swaying to the rhythm. Soon the entire church, even the row of young mostly white Boy Scouts, were swaying to that same rhythm. My entire recollection of that morning is that rhythm woven into every move. The preaching had call and response in the rhythm, the prayers had rhythm. We were all one in that rhythm on that day and there was an obvious seeking of the rhythm with God. That’s what it looks like when the Spirit sets the rhythm - a whole room, even the skeptics and the uncertain, finding the same sway.

The “Dead Twin” and the Future of the Church

I believe we all have anecdotes of positive moves within churches that are slowed or ended because of those clinging to the past, even if that past never existed. Gaines refers to these as the dead twins within the church. Within the joy of birth, there are those intensely sad realities of not quite living in new creation fully. One of those is the reality of a dead twin who slows the progression of the living twin.

What are the dead twins in our midst? A program running years past its usefulness? The aging and expensive building? A cultural identity that the church clings to out of fear? It is not only pastors that feel the anxiety of not being in control, but congregations and denomination as well. What are the responses when you choose to follow the lead of the Spirit to the fear of an unknown path? Pastor Shawna tells the story of a pastor sharing about an exciting new direction of ministry to the community. “We just got the news that we are pregnant, and not everyone is sure they want the baby.” The reality about birth is that “[e]verything in the womb has to be born, whether dead or alive”

So pastors come alongside all and help the church grieve that which must die while midwifing what must be born. This is not running roughshod over objections, but helping the grieving to grieve and rejoice in rhythm with the Spirit. I know of several pastors who made decisions to remove aging pews and replace them with chairs. But, pews represent a safe and stable past. I am amazed at the response to removing pews, but I also recognize the grief of change. Allowing for grief while new birth is happening helps us to move everyone toward the promise of the new birth. This is movement, as is all birth, but we don’t just cut those and move on from the dead twin. We grieve and invite the fearful to witness the promise of new birth.

The Body Christ Is Still Birthing

What would it look like to love the Church as organism. A messy, alive, and unpredictable living organism rather than an institution? We don’t build the church - God births the church. The organism of the Church has outlived institutions over the millennia. The great “rummage sales” mentioned above included upheaval and anxiety much like we feel today. Around 500 C.E. Rome fell and that birthed an emerging Western Church shedding the ancient world order. Then around 1000, the Western and Eastern Churches finally cleaved their unity through the Great Schism. The last we named is around 1500 and the Protestant Reformation. Those all caused grief and the end of institutions, but the organism experienced new birth. In the words of Dr. Ian Malcom, “life finds a way.” The Church is life.

Are we prepared to assist in birth? Gaines invites us:

“If you believe that God is bringing new creation into the midst of the old, prepare to assist in birth. Roll up your sleeves and boil some water. And quickly! Let the Spirit lead, and get yourself out of the center of the frame.”

“The Lord is my midwife, I shall be kept safe.” is a posture of invitation to be participants in the new birth of the Church. We are invited as Paul reminds us, ALL creation is groaning as in the pains of labor. New creation is being birthed by God and we are witnesses and co-laborers in that birth. We do not set the rhythm or the timing, but we move within that rhythm and invite others to experience this with us. We may even need to get out of the way.

Imagine if we quit trying to preserve a dying version of the Church? We don’t stop grieving the loss, but we continue with the birth, trusting that God is with us in these pains. Where are you in the birthing process? Where is your congregation? Your denomination? How do we become a body still being born?

Notes

Books

Shawna Songer Gaines, The Pastor as Midwife (IVP, 2026). The primary source for the midwife metaphor, birth-as-dance imagery, and the “dead twin” concept running throughout this essay.

Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why (Baker Books, 2008). Tickle popularized the “giant rummage sale” framing of the church’s 500-year cycles, attributed to Bishop Mark Dyer.

Ryan Burge’s Substack, Graphs About Religion (graphsaboutreligion.com), is the source for the denominational decline data referenced in Section 1.

Pop Culture References

Elaine Benes — A character from the television show Seinfeld (1989-1998), played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus. In Season 6, Episode 18 (”The Fusilli Jerry”), Elaine performs an awkward, jerky dance at a party that became one of the show’s most iconic moments. The reference in Section 3 contrasts her uncoordinated flailing with the idea of the church moving in genuine sync with the Spirit.

Dr. Ian Malcolm — A character from Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park (and the 1993 film adaptation, played by Jeff Goldblum). A chaos theorist who repeatedly notes that life cannot be contained or controlled, culminating in the line “life finds a way.” The reference in Section 6 draws the parallel: the Church as organism will outlive any institution built to contain it.

The conversation covers the tension between waiting and suffering, why male pastors might need this metaphor most, the difference between generative pain and oppression, informed consent in the church, and why “if ministry is your baby, you’ll probably end up killing it.” Whether you’re a pastor, a lay leader, or just someone trying to figure out what it means to be the church, this episode will change how you think about what God is doing in the dark.

Church of the Nazarene Clergy this series has a Lifelong Learning Code: 919014

Embodied Imagination

“We meet God in our bodies.” (Gaines)

When we neglect the physical, it inevitably suffocates the image of a God who ate, slept, cried, bled, grew, and healed. And whether or not the origin of that neglect is hatred, it will indeed end in hatred. You want to tell me to love God? Ask me when I’ve last eaten. Come now, you want me to tell you a prayer? You’ll find it in the blood beating from heart to head to toe and home again.Don’t ask me of salvation. Listen to the hum of my chest as I now fall asleep. I cannot see the face of God by rejecting my own. -- COLE ARTHUR RILEY, THIS HERE FLESH (Gaines)

We are an embodied people. Christians claim to worship an embodied God. We gather in the ecclesial imagination of a body of that very God.

What if we really believed that? What if those of us who are Wesleyan-Holiness believed and acted as if we are an embodied people? What if we lived into this reality and claimed rather than running from it? But like many of our ongoing credibility gaps (see Wynkoop), we do not actually live out our claims. There is a tremendous gap between what we claim to believe and what many of us teach through our actions, speech, and even teachings. To get specific, the Church of the Nazarene (COTN) has copious words around our concern for the sanctity of life, the care for bodies, the care for embodied people who are oppressed, the concern for recognizing the way some bodies are treated differently than others. The egalitarian belief that the body does not determine fitness for ordination, administration of the sacraments, or leadership and the care for our own bodies by abstaining from harmful activities, substances, and attitudes. Yet, we don’t actually live those words out consistently.

For all the concern over following our doctrines, we have clergy who continue to make claims contrary to our actual doctrines. You see, we have an imperfect doctrine of human sexuality. It is imperfect because we try to hold tension and tension creates imperfection. But if we live out our doctrines with consistency we can at least be honest. But, we don’t seem to be able to live that out. Our doctrine can be summarized into the idea that sexuality is only holy within a monogamous marriage of people of the opposite sex. Of course, we expound by being clear that same-sex attraction or queerness is not inherently sinful, only sexual acts outside of the aforementioned statement are sinful.

This leads to some gaps. But one overwhelming gap is the idea that one cannot see themselves as gay or queer. The way this is expressed is generally something like this: “You cannot call yourself gay and be a Christian. You cannot have any identity that is aligned with a temptation, in fact your only identity must be in Christ.” There are multiple logical, anthropological, and theological problems with such a statement. For Nazarenes, we have our Manual statement and a ruling from our Board of General Superintendents (BGS) that contradict such language. In addition our 2023 General Assembly rejected a resolution that would have insisted we can only have our identity in Christ. It was rejected partly for being illogical. One stated objection: in addition to having an identity in Christ, I am a father, mother, son, etc.

But the language is incongruent with our doctrine as well. The identity section was to be inserted in the section on human sexuality; the very section that makes this idea illogical from a Wesleyan perspective. It also creates credibility gaps against that which we claim. Why, after the rejection of this language, would clergy continue to make the claim that one cannot see themselves as gay? Because there is pressure to be like non-Wesleyans who make inconsistency a mark of their theology. It is also a gap that persists because of a lack of theological depth and understanding of Wesleyan embodied anthropology. That is an expensive gap because filling it requires hard work, open dialogue, and humility. And we have not yet decided we want to do that work.

Subscribe now

Why “Identity in Christ” Fails

The COTN was right to reject language of having our sole identity in Christ. In fact, the resolution that was rejected by the full assembly added language about identifying with temptation or sin. That’s the language mentioned above. This was rejected for primarily logical reasons. But I believe that gaps remain because we have not dealt enough with the theological reasons that dissolving our particular identities into Christ are inconsistent with an embodied Wesleyan theology.

Language such as having our sole identity in Christ may seem a pious or holy way to view identity. Paul after all uses similar language in Galatians 3:28.

1. There is no Jew or Greek, servant or free, male or female: because you are all one in Jesus Christ.

But as with all proof texts, this one fails to prove the identity claim when we look at the broader passage context.

For all those of you who were given baptism into Christ did put on Christ. There is no Jew or Greek, servant or free, male or female: because you are all one in Jesus Christ. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and yours is the heritage by the right of God’s undertaking given to Abraham. (Gal 3:27-29 NRSVue)

Do you see it? We are to be “one in Jesus Christ.” This passage is about how our differences do not keep us from being one in Christ, not about those differences melting into one. If that were the case Paul’s description of the Church as a body in 1 Corinthians would be irrelevant. You can’t be a diverse body with all the parts dissolved into one. You can have a unity of purpose as a body and that purpose is to be clothed with Jesus - to reflect the goodness of God.

If we adopt or live out the idea of our only identity being in Christ, then race, gender, or disability do not matter. But our doctrines claim these do matter in recognition of how the world twists and warps the value of human beings based upon our differences. It is hard to repent of racism if you claim that race is unimportant for example. Waving aside differences with a doctrinal claim of only identity is a dead end, and the COTN saw it as a dead end.

More than a dead end, it is an accommodation of Platonic dualism and one of the roots of Gnosticism. The logical argument is enough to reject the “only identity in Christ” language. But the theological cost is deeper than logic.

Wesleyans reject the idea of sanctification as an escape from the body. No, for Wesleyans, sanctification happens in and through the body. The cross is our example - the body of Jesus the Christ beaten and hung on a tree points to the redemption of the body in resurrection and ascension. Jesus did not escape his embodiment and neither do we.

It is in our bodies that we are sanctified, because Wesleyans believe sanctification is a reality that comes in this life, not something deferred to the next. Our identity is sanctified through the body of Jesus and through our own bodies. Our clergy forget this when trying to impose platonic ideas about identity onto our Wesleyan conviction of embodied holiness. Wesleyans believe in embodied sanctification because we take seriously the origin story of scripture. Rev. Shawna Gaines says it this way:

My work is grounded in a theological anthropology that begins in Genesis 1 and not Genesis 3, a view of creation and bodies created by God in love, made in God’s image, and called very good (Gen 1:31). God created a people who are creative, giving birth to new ideas, inventions, art forms, organizations, and bodies. And it is very good! (p. 67)

Placing our identity outside this reality and theological belief does damage to our doctrines.

The Body as a Site of Grace

For Wesleyans, the body is not a problem to be solved. The body is the site of God’s labor. We can connect the quote of beginnings with a wider understanding of the metaphor of midwifery from Shawna Gaines. We are a people who need new birth, but as Nicodemus recognizes, this is not a return to the womb. No, it is a new birth within the body we have now. Ours is a labor of the body being newly born.

As I mentioned previously, we are embodied and sanctified, not disembodied and sanctified. Our bodies are means of grace because they carry the reality of human experience. The one in whom we are discipled, Jesus, carried embodiment into the heavens. Yet we continue to act as if our bodies are anchors to the world rather than entrances into the Kingdom of God. Like labor, sanctification is the sometimes painful experience of the incredible joy of new life. New creation cannot come disembodied because creation is itself the substantive reflection of goodness.

This helps us understand that desire is never the enemy. Disordered desire is the enemy. But what is disordered desire? It is desire that has turned in on itself - a lust for power, wealth, another human being. Disordered desire can never be quenched because it feeds only upon more desire. Wesleyans have traditionally called this concupiscence: desire curved inward, away from God and neighbor.

We can see disordered desire at work in both poles that attempt to stretch the human being. The sexual revolution insists that sexuality is nothing more than a physical act; desire expressed is desire fulfilled. Purity culture responds by treating human beings as helpless pawns to animal desires that must be contained. Neither has a good answer for an embodied theology of humanity. Desire is not self-actualized lust that must be expressed or quenched, nor is it a thing that must be ignored or suppressed.

But attraction is not the same as desire. This is where careful distinction matters, especially when we talk about same-sex attraction. Our understanding is better expressed this way: attraction is what we experience as human beings in a general sense - we find people, ideas, experiences compelling for reasons we do not always control. Same-sex attraction and opposite-sex attraction are both forms of this general human experience. What matters theologically is not the direction of the attraction but what we do with it - how it is taken up into the life of sanctification.

But desire is also not sin until it becomes a consuming, disordered lust. Desire can be sanctified and shaped by becoming like Jesus. This does not entail our attractions changing, but it shapes our desires to be centered in a Christlike life. Pastorally, we often find ourselves sitting with someone for whom desire has become disordered. This can be in many contexts including sexuality, adrenaline rushes, food, drugs, alcohol, and so many other things. But whatever the desire, we can lead with grace and mercy by being with the person whose life is being transformed into Christlikeness. We also must trust the Spirit in these interactions.

Much like a midwife does not control the birth, pastors do not control the path of sanctification. Nor do we control responses to the Spirit. That is the work of prevenient grace and love. We can let go of the desire to control and become free to minister.

Orientation, Identity, and the Life of Sanctification

If orientation is not sin then what is it? That is a legitimate and important question for anyone who cares about a life of holiness. The simple path is to label orientation with categorical certainty, but life is not easily categorized. Life is complex and we are a complex species. So here is my attempt: orientation is a feature of embodied existence that, like all embodied features, is taken up into the life of sanctification. It is not the whole of a person’s identity, but it is not nothing either.

The pastoral vocation of the church is not to resolve the tension of affirming or rejecting human beings, but to accompany people in the tension while the Holy Spirit does the work. We are a people who claim the grace of prevenience, yet we flee from the very tension that prevenient grace brings. This is a move Andrew Root would call sitting with people on their sorrow. (Root)

Concretely, this looks like a pastor sitting across from a young adult who has trusted them enough to say, “I don’t know what to do with this part of myself.” The pastor’s first instinct may be to reach for a category - to classify, to resolve, to give an answer. But the midwife knows that birth cannot be rushed. The pastoral task is not to have the right answer ready. It is to stay in the room, to trust that the Spirit is already laboring in this person’s life, and to accompany them while the Spirit works. That is harder than having a rule. It is also more faithful to a Wesleyan theology of embodied grace.

In the end neither orientation nor identity are barriers to sanctification. That is because sanctification, like any work of grace, is a move of God. We cooperate, but it is only through God that we are sanctified. It is not only individuals who need sanctification. The Church also needs sanctification in our understanding of orientation. We need better language, categories, and better pastoral practices. We need better willingness to sit in the discomfort of not having it all figured out.

The Pastor as Midwife to Embodied Holiness

The pastor who trusts the Spirit’s labor stops needing to have the right answer. Instead, the pastoral task is accompaniment - we are accompanying people in labor. Every person in our lives is laboring with life’s curveballs and with the transformative work of the Holy Spirit. There are so many things we cannot control, and our calling is to trust the Spirit rather than attempt to control the labor.

Continuing this idea, pastoral work is one of informed consent when done properly. Human beings are active participants in the work of transformative holiness. They are not passive recipients of pastoral pronouncements (at least they should not be). We definitely do not rain shame upon people. “Shame is the enemy of intimacy and the greatest obstacle to true maturity in Christ” (Gaines) Human beings are not going to experience transformation if we keep putting roadblocks in their paths.

What does this look like on a Sunday morning? It looks like a sermon with a different kind of authority - not the authority of someone who has all the answers, but the authority of someone who has learned to trust the Spirit’s work in bodies she does not control. It names the complexity of human desire honestly, without flinching, and then trusts the congregation to sit in that complexity rather than rushing to resolve it. It looks like a small group where someone can say “I don’t have this figured out” and the response is not a corrective but a quiet “neither do I. Let us walk together.” That kind of space is not soft or directionless. It is harder to create than a rule. And it is the only kind of space where real transformation happens.

A pastor who midwifes embodied holiness creates space for people to wrestle with their desires in community without fear of condemnation and without the pressure to have it all figured out. This is hard. It is also worth it. Imagine walking with people being birthed into new life, seeing moments of transformation and growth into the likeness of Jesus. That becomes possible when we stop needing to be certain. Rules are easy. Embodied transformation is hard.

Subscribe now

The Body Christ Is Birthing

In the introduction to The Pastor as Midwife Gaines quotes Barbara Brown Taylor:

New life starts in the dark. Whether it is a seed in the ground, a baby in the womb, or Jesus in the tomb, it starts in the dark. --BARBARA BROWN TAYLOR, LEARNING TO WALK IN THE DARK

The church may be in the dark on how we better explain, minister, or find language, but it is in that early darkness that life springs forth. What if we approached our mission to invite people into discipleship by seeing this as a birthing process rather than a systematic sales pitch? What difference does embodiment make to the church in difficult conversations?

I imagine it looks like the church in which each and every person sees themselves as participants in new birth. Imagine the church in which those who make us uncomfortable reach out in their own discomfort to kneel and pray with someone they see is hurting? I can imagine a line of human beings kneeling at altars, embraced in mutual prayers of anguish and joy, of heartache and new life.

It may even look like the Wesleyan choice to trust the Spirit working in and through bodies over time. Trusting that in time healing and transformation will take place in all of us, but not rushing the Spirit to perform for us. It is the Wesleyan invitation to be bathed in the grace and love of God until that love overflows into those around us. I have no conclusions or pithy bite-sized solutions. What I do have is many questions, the biggest being

Where is the Spirit laboring that we are afraid to attend?

Share

Gaines, Shawna Songer. The Pastor as Midwife: Life-Giving Leadership for the Healing of the Church. IVP Academic, n.d.

Root, Andrew. Evangelism in an Age of Despair: Hope beyond the Failed Promise of Happiness.

There was once a pastor who had a zeal for holiness. They desired that everyone they encountered would experience holiness and transformation of the Holy Spirit. This desire was good, but as with all desire, sometimes the desire itself becomes the goal rather than transformation.

It began with a small speck. That speck felt a bit uncomfortable, but it helped the pastor to focus upon those things they felt were most important. Holiness itself began to be less important than a particular expression of holiness. Focusing upon that expression eased the discomfort of the speck. But the speck grew.

Maybe the speck caused a blindness toward the work of the Spirit outside particularities, but the very idea of holiness began to shrink for the pastor as the speck sprouted outward beginning to form a sapling. Some fellow pastors noticed that sapling and mentioned that it may become a problem. But the sapling was really helping holiness to come into focus.

As the sapling grew outward it began to slowly close off entire paths of holiness from vision. The blindness caused anger in the pastor whenever those paths would come into view. Those paths must be wrong for they only show up in other spaces. The desire for holiness drove the pastor to attack others who shared a passion for holiness but went about it differently. How dare those other pastors engage with those who disagree about holiness. They attempted to have those pastors uprooted from their flocks. They desired that the shepherds be sent packing if they would not conform to the narrow vision seen past the tree.

The tree grew larger and began to close off even more paths of holiness. Others mentioned the tree because it was large enough that it began to strike and harm others who were inviting people to experience the holiness of God. But alas, the tree had become so ingrained that any thought of removing it struck fear in the pastor’s heart. Plus, it appeared that the vision through the tree was true. A few pastors had been excluded from the larger flock. Some even moved their pasture elsewhere because that tree could really hurt.

The pastor railed against those who saw different paths than were available to them through the vision of the tree. There were demands that more pastors be shunned. The tree even allowed the pastor to engage and promote people who disagreed with important doctrines of he larger flock. But those were no longer the most important things. Once accusing a fellow pastor of allow someone who disagreed with holiness ideas, the pastor now invited some who disagreed on some of those same ideas. But it was okay because this was for the greater good of the true path of holiness.

The tree had become a large, twisted, and blinding growth that choked out the light of holiness to such an extent that the blindness became holiness for the pastor. Unable to see what God was doing in the world, the pastor retreated to a time that never existed looking for the perfection of holiness as the revealed through the tree. But that was a search in vain because what the tree revealed was only a small portion of the holiness God was pouring into the world. Anger, spite, and vehemence became the calling card of the tree for that was all anyone could see when looking toward the pastor.

But oh did the tree allow focus to exist when seeing specks in the eyes of others. If one observed an interaction from afar it was a darkly comical vision of a tree smacking into a poor soul attempting to clear out their eyes.

When a dog is lost, there is extreme effort put into finding that dog. Posters, social groups, driving or walking around searching. How much more do you think God pursues us in our own stumbling fog? We think of the lost as wicked people who rebel. But what if we saw “the lost” as God sees all of us? Human beings made in God’s image struggling to understand the world around us. The truth is that we are never truly lost when it comes to God. For God is always near. God is always wooing us to open our eyes and see the goodness that is possible when the kindom comes on earth and it does in the heavens.

When I consider the parable of the Two Brothers (Prodigal Son) I envision the way the father runs to greet his once lost son. The picture we have is of a father running in a comically undignified manner. He runs, grabbing his robes to meet the son who left. Much like a dog running to meet us vibrating with excitement. All pretense is gone when we greet the lost ones who are found. We are lost but we are found.

Subscribe now

Being found is more about recognizing that we are known and loved even when we think ourselves beyond love. The love of dogs especially exposes our own feeble understanding of the wideness of love, the wideness of mercy, the wideness of God’s grace. Forgiveness is given, grace is given, love is, mercy is. Need I go on?

Consider the father running to greet the son he feared lost. He doesn’t care that the servants may laugh at the way he runs. He just runs. The father doesn’t care whether the son feels unworthy or not because the father has no other thought than how worthy the son is of his love. I cannot imagine any other way for the father to be.

God is like that father in the parable. We may not believe this, but God is always near because “God does not lose that which God loves.” We may feel lost and abandoned, but God is there. We may think God is distant, but God is not. How do we know this?

Because God did a comically undignified thing. God came into the world as a baby. Attended by outcasts and foreigners. Annunced by Angels in an undignified town and born to a young woman who was most likely at risk of being outcast. But God came into our world. lived among us, and eventually was killed by our violence.

But then as if to laugh in the face of sin and death, raised, and then ascended into the heavens to bring humanity into the heavens. It sounds more like a farce than reality. It make look funny to us and seem undignified or at least ungodlike. But that’s kinda the point. It is easier to love someone who knows how goofy it can be to be a human being.

Share

The former Twitter has been buzzing this past week like in the “old days.” First is the wonder of a German tourist here for the World Cup. His description of the people, scenery, food, and quirkiness of the United States is a reminder of who we can be outside of polarized pressures upon us. But then there is the Japanese account @japan_nobunaga commenting upon shopping and food in a wondrously creative way. I almost cried at the description of biscuits and gravy.

The most interesting to me was a visit to a Hibachi restaurant in which @japan_nobunaga’s friends thought they woudl experience a taste of home. You may see where this is going. Hibachi restaurants in the Unites States have little in common with Japanese cuisine or food traditions. That’s where this gets fun.

USA. A hibachi restaurant. My American friends brought me here to enjoy the cuisine of my homeland, and I witnessed a ritual I have never seen in eight hundred years of being Japanese.

The chef stacked onion rings into a tower. He filled it with oil. And he set it on fire.

“THE VOLCANO!” my friends cheered.
They knew the ritual.
They had seen it many times.
In Japan, I have eaten ten thousand meals.
No one has ever built me a volcano.
I said nothing.
A guest does not question the ceremony.
“Is this how they do it back home?” my friend asked, glowing with joy.
“...The technique is flawless,” I said.
A samurai may retreat. He may not lie.
He may, however, aim the truth very carefully.

Then the chef flicked a shrimp through the air at my face.
“Catch it!” the table roared.
In my land, food is set before you with two hands and an apology for the wait.
Here, the shrimp attacks.
I caught it.
With my mouth.
The table erupted.
The chef saluted me with his spatula.
I have received medals with less pride.
“You’re a natural,” the chef said.
“My family has trained for this for generations,” I said.
It was not technically a lie.
We trained. Just not for this.
My friends drove me home, full and happy, honored to have shown me my own country.
A man does not question the volcano.
He catches the shrimp.
Whatever this cuisine is,
wherever it was truly born -- the fire is real, the joy is real,
and I caught what was thrown at me.
That is Japanese enough. (https://x.com/japan_nobunaga)

This is a perfect picture of how we can be gracious even when someone is completely getting our traditions, cuisine, liturgies, and culture totally wrong. I would say this is a good example of how we can be loving and compassionate when we interact with people we don’t see much in common with.

As I read the tweet, I thought of John Wesley’s catholic spirit idea. To Wesley, love and being followers of Jesus were much more important than getting everything exactly right or even perfect. Wesley has a lot to say about how we approach people different than we are.

“Every wise man, therefore, will allow others the same liberty of thinking which he desires they should allow him; and will no more insist on their embracing his opinions, than he would have them to insist on his embracing theirs.” (Wesley)

“I dare not, therefore, presume to impose my mode of worship on any other. I believe it is truly primitive and apostolical: but my belief is no rule for another.” (Wesley)

Or to be more clear about our own assumed beliefs.

“Yet can no man be assured that all his own opinions, taken together, are true. Nay, every thinking man is assured they are not, seeing humanum est errare et nescire: ‘To be ignorant of many things, and to mistake in some, is the necessary condition of humanity.’” (Wesley)

So even if we don’t want to give others the liberty to believe as they do, we need to be willing to understand that we may be wrong as well. To Wesley, the catholic spirit is one in which we might actually catch the shrimp tossed at us even if it is not what we expect in that context. How have we lost this grace?

Our Japanese friend shows us a better way of seeing one another and experiencing the different. The volcano and the flying shrimp are “opinions” and “modes of worship.” They are not wrong, just not how you do it at home. Wesley says you’re not required to adopt them, you’re not even required to be neutral about your own preferences, but you are required to catch what’s thrown at you with good humor and recognize the fire as real. The test isn’t “do you eat it my way?” but “is your heart right?”

Is your heart right? Discipleship isn’t about getting things right or perfect, it is about having a Jesus shaped heart. That requires trust of the Spirit within our differences. We seem to be so worried these days about what is right, accurate, or our way. So worried that we miss the beauty of difference and become afraid to embrace the different.

I wonder how the world would be different if we embraced the way of love rather than fear...

John Wesley, Sermon 39 “Catholic Spirit” (full text via Wesley Center Online)

What if we stopped looking at scripture like modernists? Let’s say we could move past the assumptions of both fundamentalists and the modernists of the early twentieth century? What if we stopped and realized that the fundamentalists were and are just as guilty of what they accused the early modernists of; reducing the authority of scripture?

I have put down a lot of words on scripture and the typical Wesleyan and Wesleyan-Holiness understanding of scripture. But we have an opportunity to watch as a very young Wesleyan denomination works out wether to stay true to their Wesleyan and Methodist roots or to embrace modernism, propositional faith, and generic Reform flavored evangelicalism. While this essay is not about what is going on the the Global Methodist Church (GMC), the arguments being put forth are helpful in understanding two very different approaches to the nature and authority of scripture. Plus, for those of us in the Church of the Nazarene this may serve as a foreshadowing of moves by the fundamentalist modernists within our midst. (Links to many of the essays about the GMC are included below.)

Subscribe now

The fact that the proposed Article of Faith on scripture as published embraces inerrancy is a clue to how this will end up. It leans into claiming that the scripture is “without error in all that it affirms.” Here is the text minus the listing of the canonical books according to most modern Protestatnts:

We believe in the divine inspiration and authority of the Old and New Testaments in their entirety. The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, for Christ offers us everlasting life in both. Scripture is without error in all it affirms and the only infallible rule of faith and practice. It contains all things necessary to salvation. Whatever is not revealed in or established by the Holy Scriptures is not to be taught as essential to salvation.

The same Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures continues to work through them, illumining the Church’s interpretation for the edification of the people of God. They are the basis for the Church’s proclamation and a vital means of grace for all who hear them. Through the proclamation of the Word, the Spirit awakens us to sin, calls us to repentance, draws us to faith in Christ, and renews us in the image of God.

The second paragraph is solid Wesleyan thinking although Word might better be lower case. But the first paragraph introduces propositional language of inerrancy of the text. The argument for this begins with the idea of authority. The primary question for supporters appears to be “is scripture true” or “how do I prove scripture to be reliable?” These questions are those of modernism needing propositional certitude for belief or faith. I believe certitude to be the very antithesis of faith because it requires no faith.

Dr. Joel Green points out that John Wesley’s primary concern about scripture was what it does in and for people who read it and who come to understand God through the leading of the Spirit. (Green) For Wesley, you can only understand scripture through the Spirit who inspires it. The authority of scripture is within the invitation and its ability to reveal the God who breathes into it and us. Inerrancy robs scripture of its God breathed nature as it forces propositional assumptions upon a relational text. Green puts it this way:

In other words, Wesley’s doctrine of Scripture is, at its root, pneumatological. The Spirit who animated the composition of these texts is dynamically at work in their faithful reception and interpretation. A Wesleyan account of Scripture’s authority begins and ends here—not with a theory of errorlessness but with the dynamic work of the Spirit in a community being formed toward holiness.

The primary drivers of inerrancy appear to be either a fear that the sufficiency of scripture is only present in certitude, a long grudge against Outler’s Quadrilateral as a hermeneutic, and even keeping up with the generic evangelicals. For the GMC, Matt O’Reilly and the framers of the article are trying to squeeze inerrancy into Wesleyanism by using Wesleyan adjacent arguments. However, Timothy Tennant (past president at Asbury Theological Seminary) makes all of his arguments for this language from either Reformed centered thinking, or even trying to fit in with generic evangelicals as if that is required for global evangelism. Wesleyan traditions cooperate in global evangelism just fine without becoming fundamentalists.

When your arguments are from the fathers of fundamentalism or ridiculously about fitting in with the supposedly cool kids, you’ve lost the plot. A traditional Wesleyan approach to scripture is perfect for our cultural reality of the deconstruction of everything. When you start from the relational rather than the propositional then you have invitation. It is much easier to invite people into relationship that try to prove an unprovable. Apologetics may sound nice, but it is mostly just attempts to logic the illogical.

I just keep wondering why so many Wesleyans are hellbent on becoming fundamentalists. It’s like they watched the train wreck of the Southern Baptist Convention and decided “that looks like fun.” Or, they are being discipled by the internet influencers who don;t seem to understand half the arguments they make but are dead certain that any disagreement with them is heresy.

Scripture never describes itself in terms of inerrancy. in fact, scripture really only describes its purpose in fleeting ways. 1 Timothy tells us it is God breathed, but doesn’t expound much other than to state purpose. And that should be a clue for Wesleyans to pay attention to that which we claim to be important and authoritative for knowing who God is. God breathes life into us and scripture. It is only through the breath of God that we can understand the invitation given to us. Inerrancy wrings the life out of scripture and invalidates core doctrines like prevenient grace.

Green states the following to begin his conclusion and I keep going back to this truth when thinking about scripture.

What Wesleyans need is not a better property claim about the Bible. We need a richer account of how the community of faith reads Scripture under the guidance of the Spirit, toward the end of salvation.

Instead of expending energy on trying to prove something how about we try living like we believe scripture? We spend so much time trying to prove God exists, scripture is without error, and how to have certitude that we forget to live out who God truly is. Instead of a reflection of the image of God, we are dirty glass. What if we quit thinking of scripture like modernists and lived into the Spirit centered idea of a living and breathing text pointing us to the perfect Word of God who is Jesus?

Share

https://firebrandmag.com/articles/the-global-methodist-proposed-article-on-holy-scripture-a-critique

https://firebrandmag.com/articles/global-methodists-and-holy-scripture-a-response-to-scott-kisker

Joel B. Green

What Scripture Does: Wesley and the Limits of Inerrancy Language

Read more

2 months ago · 16 likes · 8 comments · Joel B. Green

https://www.theologyproject.online/post/an-even-more-excellent-way-a-response-to-joel-green-on-the-bible-in-global-methodism

https://timothytennent.com/the-global-methdist-church-and-our-discussion-about-scripture-a-response-to-scott-kisker/

Tom's Substack

What IS Scripture, Pt. 1

It’s no secret that the United Methodist Church has undergone a disheartening and divisive split over the last several years. Indeed, the tensions that eventually produced the present schism existed long before my birth and were sewn, sometimes incoherently, into the original 1968 union…

Read more

2 months ago · 7 likes · 14 comments · Divine Reverberations

https://firebrandmag.com/articles/the-proposed-global-methodist-articles-of-faith-addressing-a-legacy-of-unfinished-business

The Earnest Wesleyan

Methodism's Confessional Inheritance

At the 2024 General Conference, the Global Methodist Church empowered the Discipleship, Doctrine, and Just Ministry Commission to “synthesize the content of the Articles of Religion and the Confession of Faith into a single document.” An exception was added to the Restrictive Rule to allow for this task…

Read more

3 months ago · 9 likes · 4 comments · Sid Johnson

https://firebrandmag.com/articles/scripture-and-the-global-methodist-church

https://peopleneedjesus.net/2024/03/15/scriptural-authority-and-the-global-methodist-church/

https://peopleneedjesus.net/2024/07/06/reconstructing-our-doctrine-of-scripture/

https://goodnewsmag.org/contrasting-views-of-scripture/

Watching Christian social media can be very interesting. Especially that of white evangelicals. It can be amazing how very upset that group can get over things. But the more I watch I have realized a few truths. Some are not surprising, but others are very much surprising.

First, most American evangelicals claim to love the American system of laws of liberty. But, they don’t really believe in the personal liberty of the constitution. Instead they believe in a liberty in which their cultural assumptions are the primary cultural reality. We’ll come back to this, but I fully believe that the liberty as expressed in the U.S. Constitution is very different than the liberty found in Christian scripture.

Subscribe now

Second. this group also believes in the myth of scarcity to a frightening degree. From capitalism to the rights of people within the United States, they believe in scarcity of ideas and freedom. This works out in the attitude that if someone enjoys a freedom that the particular Christian group disagrees with that somehow Christian freedom is reduced. A glaring example of this is the constant need to hammer on cultural celebrations. The reactions to Pride month, Juneteenth, non Christian religious holidays, and general freedoms is harsh.

Just because you don’t understand it or agree with something does not make it illegal or wrong in a societal sense. But these reactions are actually funny to me. In addition to acting as if cultural divergence is to be forcefully squashed, they also harp on and on about the evils of the world and the culture of the world. So why act surprised and outraged when the world acts like you claim it to be (at least in your mind). It is an eye rolling moment to see Christians whine about things they don’t understand or agree with being enjoyed by human beings who enjoy the same freedoms that Christian do. Oh, and criticism is not persecution.

The many fears of “sharia law” are ironic. First, no one is trying to implement Sharia in the United States. Second, does anyone remember “blue laws?” Those were essentially Christian versions of Sharia. Stores were not allowed to open on Sundays during traditional Christian worship times, but no other religion was granted that privilege. Part of the decline in church attendance in the United States can be attributed to the church having to compete in the realm of time.

The ultimate irony is what Christian liberty represents. The scriptures are awash with the word liberty. But what is liberty for the Christian? In the letter to the Galatians, liberty is the freedom from legalism, the freedom to love, and the freedom of being a child of God. In Corinthians it is freedom from participating in oppressive systems and freedom from fear of those systems. For Jesus it is the freedom to live an everlasting quality of life without the fear of the systems that harm. It is the freedom to see the marginal as children of God.

Liberty in Christ is the liberty/freedom from fear. Freedom from fear of sin and fear of death. Freedom from the fear of different ideas. It is true liberty as it is freedom from doing everything on our own. Liberty is freedom to not be consumed by that which is not Christ. Liberty (like love, mercy, and grace) is not a scarce resource. Liberty is everlasting in God’s steadfast faithfulness.

Subscribe now

Yes, the liberty promised in the United States Constitution is often at odds with the liberty of Christ. BUT, it is not something to be torn down by Christians. We have liberty to live into the liberty of Christ. Therefore, others have the same liberty to live, worship, or not worship as they please. Our liberty is not threatened by the liberty of the one who does not believe, look, vote, or behave as we do.

Why is this important? Because the church often acts as if the liberty of those outside the church harms the liberty of Christians. Liberty does not shield you from discomfort or from seeing things with which you disagree. When we act that way, we look ridiculous.

How does this potentially harm the church? Well, when we throw fits because people live in their own liberty. Or, we make claims that our liberty is diminished by someone else enjoying liberty. We look like fools, and not in the way Paul would use that word for believers.

A good example is the attitude of white Christians toward celebrations like Juneteenth. The criticism is often something, something - division. Sure, if you believe that celebrating the end of slavery in the United States is divisive. What if we instead took a moment as Christians and reminded people that Christians stood for abolition against Christians who defended slavery? We can celebrate as one.

But let’s look at something way more controversial. In the U.S., June is Pride Month for our LGBTQ+ citizens. Whatever you think about Pride in this context, our country’s freedom allows people to celebrate. There are some very good pastoral responses by those who minister in spaces where Pride is celebrated. But there is also a very good pastoral response in general; if you do not want to celebrate something you do not agree with, then don’t celebrate. When Christians try to disallow others freedom, we appear to be hypocritical. Freedom for me but not for you in other words.

My state has claimed June as “Nuclear Family Month” with the claim that the nuclear family is the bedrock of American society. The problem with that claim is that the nuclear family is actually one of the phenomenons of the industrial revolution which began the erosion of many things nostalgic to those looking back. The extended family was the picture of stability prior to the ripping apart of generational togetherness into small units.

Politicians are also now taking extreme positions based upon their Christian assumptions. A candidate for governor in my state is arguing that he can outlaw Islam in the state because of a phrase in the state constitution speaking of the freedom to worship “Almighty God” as one wishes. I love the dismissal of the First Amendment of the United States which would take precedence anyway, but just think of the arrogance and hatred that causes one to refuse people to worship as they wish.

The worst part of all of this is the fact that we cannot even engage with anyone who disagrees with us without yelling at one another. Do we really love the tenets of the liberty accorded in the United States, or do we want a theocratic version of America. Christian Nationalists argue for the latter. The former is a much more generous reality. In the end, the point should be that your freedom never endangers my freedom in a context where freedom is not scarce or afforded only a privileged few.

Share

I have not seen the movie Project Hail Mary yet. But I have read the book and I have a few thoughts about the theology of humanity within the story. Yes, this is not an explicit purpose of Project Hail Mary but preveniently, we might take the deeper truth with grace.

If you have not seen or read the story here’s a quick and very light summary. The earth’s sun is dying because of a parasitic, biological “swarm” named Astrophage. Scientists and others are gathered to solve this problem ultimately leading to plan to send a crewed space craft to the star system of Tau Ceti to determine why that system is not dying even with the Astrophage present. This is understood to be a one way trip with probes sent back to earth with any solutions. Our protagonist is Ryland Grace, a disgraced scientist who has been teaching biology in high school. Ryland eventually is forced to go on the space craft Hail Mary with two other crew members.

Like any good space movie, Ryalnd awakens from a suspended state and finds the rest of the crew dead. He is determined to continue the mission. In investigation, he realizes he is not alone in the system and eventually another craft comes to him. This we learn in a craft from the star system 40 Eridani. Eventually, Ryland meets “Rocky” from the other ship. Rocky is very different from humanity, but whose own system faces the same threat as earth. He appears to be composed of stone and is arachnoid in appearance. Rocky is very different from Ryland.

Rocky whom we learn has the name best translated as Evaltas and has also lost the rest of his crew experiences the environment differently. communicates differently, breathes different atmosphere, and has a very different world than earth. But he is an incredibly good engineer. Ryland and Rocky work together to find ways to combine their tasks and skills. They find the solution to their shared problem and also determine that they can both return to their worlds. Ryland’s one way mission suddenly becomes a return trip. Ryalnd goes ahead and launches his probes after he and Rocky say goodbye.

But this isn’t the end. Ryland realizes he has a problem with his Astrophage fuel dying. he resolves that and is about to head home when he realizes that Rocky may not be able to resolve his issue. Ryland has a choice to make and he chooses to turn back and head to Rocky’s ship. When he arrives, Rocky’s ship is dead. Rocky is both surprised and elated when Ryland comes for him. But they are friends and of course Ryland would come for his friend.

When Ryland turns around, he has no chance for returning to earth. He must get Rocky onboard and go to Rocky’s planet Erid to save that world. Ryland trusts that earth will be saved by his probes, but Rocky has no other way to save his world. They make it to Erid, btu I won’t spoil the very end.

Now that you have been caught up, we can get to the theology. Humanity, when we are being truly human has a tremendous capacity for compassion and grace. When we see past differences like Ryalnd does with Rocky, we can see a shared “humanity” in each and every person we meet. When we are willing to see someone so very different from us as human, we can treat them as we would want to ne treated.

I believe that human beings can be good even though we often choose to follow evil. This is a deeply theological belief for me. But Brandon, aren’t we depraved? In most of protestant theology, yes. BUT, Wesleyans have a caveat. We have the doctrine of prevenient grace in whcih we have the capacity to do good through the work of the Holy Spirit. Even if we do not believe in God. That grace goes before us and enables us to avoid chaos.

Ironically (if we believe fundamentalists), while I do not see the opening chapters as factual (they have a specific genre), I believe that the truths within Genesis are very true. So, when I consider humanity, I remember that God calls humans very good. True there is the Fall in Genesis chapter three. But, once again I have a question. As my friend Terry likes to ask, “Was Adam’s sin more efficacious than Christ’s acts?” I believe that Christ’s action is far superior to Adam’s sin. I also believe that God is working to make all things new. This began when Jesus ascended and has been an ongoing work of grace in the world.

We once could interact with those who are very different from us. But along the way fear, those who wish to wield power, and our own selfishness has made us think that differences are evil. NT Wright when speaking on Love being greater than certainty states that love is our primary mode of knowing God. “Love means affirming the reality of something outside yourself, delighting in it, and engaging with it relationally, rather than reducing it to a data point.” (Wright) As my friend Daron says “it is better to be rightly related than beingright.” When did we lose that truth? When did trying to vanquish those we have differences with become the default for human beings?

We dehumanize, we cheer dehumanization, we pray for destruction, and we foment hatred wrapped in a wet blanket of holiness. I wish we could drop our selfish ways of looking at others, but we just can’t seem to help ourselves. But I know we are capable of goodness. When a story like Project Hail Mary feels like better news than some of our holiness claims, maybe we need to examine our claims. Can we love our “enemies” as we have been commanded? Or are we too worldly to see enemy as a friend we have not won over yet?

I was recently reading an article about the Supreme Court of the United States and the place of dissent within our legal system. The comments on dissent came within a section about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s background and path into the judiciary. Here is the part about Justice Jackson’s comments on dissent:

Asked finally about her many dissents, Jackson said that she agreed with her colleague Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who ‘said that dissents are really written for a future age, that they lay down a marker for the future.’ ‘Dissents, I think, are one of the most extraordinary aspects of the American legal tradition, because they actually embody one of our core values, the idea of freedom of expression and tolerance of minority views,’ Jackson added. ‘This is something that is integral to who we are as Americans, and we have a practice that allows for that.’ (Scotusblog)

Now I don’t want there to be confusion over where I am going. While I do not believe that the ideas of liberty and law within the United States constitute the same ideas we find of those concepts in scripture, I do believe that the way we interact as human beings can be informed by the way ideas like dissent and tolerance work in places like the legal system. These ideas once existed within denominations and Christian traditions in the U.S. As a friend once mentioned; we have lost the ability to disagree with one another while still loving one another. In other words, we once could disagree in love.

Subscribe now

A few years ago in the Church of the Nazarene (COTN) our Board of General Superintendents (BGS) issues a ruling on what constitutes essential doctrines in terms of ordination vows. The ruling is broad and made almost everything in the Nazarene Manual essential doctrine. Many of the reactions to this ruling were ones that pointed out that the use of Robert’s Rules in meetings is considered essential doctrine based upon this ruling. A very clever essay appeared that discussed a theology of Robert’s Rules. These rulings by the BGS become permanent commentary and direction on the subject they rule on. It is a messy and often contradictory reality but it is what we have.

The suspected purpose of this ruling was to aid in the removal of clergy who dissented on some sections of our Covenant of Christian Character. This covenant is able to be changed easier than our Articles of Faith and it is also culturally informed by what the characteristics of holiness entail. This ruling was used to remove clergy in regional “trials.” One member of clergy was removed for disagreement with a paragraph in another BGS ruling that forbid any blessings (not officiating) of same-sex marriages. The two words “I disagree” were the ones that led to dismissal. The little reporting from the proceedings highlight the words I disagree as the primary problem with the essay. It was also determined that by writing an essay that was published constituted teaching in the context of teaching against doctrines of the COTN. There was no proof publicly provided that showed that this former member of clergy taught against our doctrines. In fact, testimony showed that he taught our doctrines even in disagreement.

I do not want to rehash much of what happened in the past. But it helps to add valuable context to my understanding of how dissent is handled within the COTN and other evangelical denominations. You may dissent and even teach that dissent when it comes from a fundamentalist direction, but anything coming from what is called “progressive” may land you outside the denomination. This is a credibility gap we just accept. But why? Why do we allow dissent over our article of faith on scripture, but not dissent over Christian character?

Here’s where things get interesting. Within the BGS Ruling on human sexuality that led to the removal of the member of clergy mentioned above there is a section on ordination which was designed for clarity within our official statement on human sexuality. Here is the wording:

Further, in the case of an individual with same-sex attraction, the
primary focus of the individual’s life should be on their new creation
in Christ, and not on their sexual identity. The driving force for the
response to the call to ministry should not be a social or political
statement. The individual must commit to a life of celibacy and sexual
purity, affirming the Church of the Nazarene’s doctrine on human
sexuality. (BGS 22-May-2019)

What this paragraph ultimately sets as doctrine is that human beings who are attracted to the same sex are able to experience entire sanctification and still be same-sex attracted. This makes the COTN what is called side-B in discussions of human sexuality and matters of the Christian life. In other words you may identify as gay or queer as long as your primary identity (like all Christians) is seen in Christ. But you must remain celibate within side-B.

There are many members of clergy in the COTN who not only dissent from that paragraph but teach variations of dissent. The most popular is that one “cannot call yourself gay and Christian.” Or they argue against side-b theology taking positions closer to the idea that human attraction is sinful if that attraction is not toward the opposite sex. There are all sort of weird contradictions that arise out of that argument. The group the Holiness Partnership makes opposition to side-B theology a part of their arguments. They teach that you cannot identify as gay and feature speakers who claim that side-B churches teach false doctrine. That is in clear disagreement with the BGS ruling.

Subscribe now

Another idea within the covenants that often meet with dissent which is stated publicly and taught is the idea of social justice. We call our people to work for more equitable societies, to resist systems that harm, and reject religious bigotry. I have been hot with vitriolic comments when I speak about working for equitable societies. In fact, many clergy will say that we don’t believe in equity, we believe in equality. But the word in our covenant is equity.

We also have clergy who dissent from the ordination of women. I mentioned that in a recent essay. Experience shows that these men are usually able to go on teaching their dissent without any action toward education or reconciliation with our doctrines. The COTN has never wavered form its commitment to the ordination of women and men so it is hard to understand how men go through our process of ordination and come out believing women cannot lead.

But the clue to how those men arrive at certain positions comes from a dissent that you bump into a lot. That is with Article IV of the COTN articles of faith. That os our article of scripture which rejects textual inerrancy (without error) by embracing soteriological inerrancy. This is about the ability of inspired scripture to fulfill its purpose of revealing God and how humanity can have relationship with God.

But many of the clergy in the COTN reject our view of scripture. They teach and claim that textual inerrancy is required for the Bible to be authoritative. Some even claim that our position is based in sinful thought. We have multiple sources explaining our doctrine, yet many reject it and dissent. The book ARTWork of God I have mentioned in the past is a public example. It would not have been a big deal until the COTN magazine Holiness Today featured the author of that book in a podcast which was then shared by the USA/Canada COTN social media accounts. There are churches that have contrary language to Article IV on their websites. One in my district has the statement:

We believe that the scriptures were written under the direction and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We believe that both the Old and New Testaments reveal to us the will of God and are without error in all that they affirm.

That’s textual inerrancy, not soteriological inerrancy.

Another Article of Faith in which we have dissent is baptism. The COTN stands in the Methodist and Anglican tradition of baptizing infants. Our doctrine is that this is baptism and has been a part of our denomination for its entire history. But dissent on this is so popular that our committee was asked to consider new language to remove infant baptism. The committee rejected that request under deeply doctrinal and scriptural reasons. The point is that we either believe baptism to be a sacrament of God’s doing or we make it an ordinance of our doing.

It is Pentecost this Sunday. The birthday of the Church. When we read the story of the Church from Pentecost in, we see a community growing and also struggling to understand what it is to be the Church. There is dissent that permeates but does not divide. Peter keeps going back and forth, but the unity remained and the Church grew and no one threw Peter or Paul out when they disagreed.

Dissent can be a healthy and natural part of the Christian experience within denominations. But this requires trust and love for one another. Most dissent in our past was healthy and clergy did not teach their dissent as doctrine or even speak of their dissent outside of clergy spaces. Now, dissent is crushed if it leans one way, but ignored or even encouraged if it leans another. Many clergy feel afraid to even acknowledge doctrinal positions that other Christians have when discussing our beliefs, yet some are literally teaching ideas contrary to our essential doctrines.

Dissent for me but not for thee in other words.

Share

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/05/shadow-docket-reform/?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_18242538

Trials is in quotes because a friend of mine receive a charge of conduct unbecoming for misunderstanding that a district action was not a trial.

Phyllis Tickle was a layperson, but she understood the trajectory of Christianity better than many clergy when she wrote The Great Emergence. It is too bad we do not have her voice today as we see the very thing she prophesied coming to pass. The Church is in the throes of a type of new birth much like the Reformation and the changes which happen about every five hundred years. As we experience these growth pangs many in the church feel fear. Rather than seek to understand what God is up to in the world, the instinct is to hide, retreat to a past that never was, or simply give up.

The Emergence of Narrowing

I call this phenomenon the Great Narrowing. Rather than see the experience of God’s mercy as ever widening, there is a move to forget the lessons of scripture about God and try to narrow the mercy of God and the very definition of the Church. Fundamentalism is a well known example of this move by Christians. But the Great Narrowing is even more insidious. I don’t blame those whose experience is lacking in believing that the narrowing is a thing to be desired. But, for those who know better, I feel an immense sadness.

In the Lord of the Rings the wizard Gandalf goes to the leader of his order Saruman seeking to discuss and determine how to address the coming evil. Gandalf rightly assumes that Saruman would be ready to meet the challenge which Gandalf recognized. Instead, Gandalf realizes too late that Saruman has already given himself over to Sauron’s desire to make the world in his image. Saruman believes this is inevitable and the only way to survive is to work within the narrowing control of Middle Earth. Saruman should know better, but the lure of power seduces him well.

Of course this analogy is not perfect, but I often feel Gandalf’s grief at Saruman’s choice when engaging with those who engage in narrowing. Especially those who should know better. But I also cannot completely blame them for the choices they make. Change can be frightening. Growth can be scary. But growth is the move of disciples. A disciple has never arrived. Even a mature disciple can still learn and grow. If we learn anything from sacred scripture, it is the fact that growth is the way of discipleship and God is constantly working with creation for growth. Cultures, nations, and people all change. It is the inevitable roll of history that change comes for us all. Not in a fated way, but in surprisingly subtle or spectacular ways both.

We waste so much time fighting the wrong battles. Or worse, creating false battles to keep from growing. Manufactured outrage, parroted talking points, and sheer arrogance in the face of ignorance is writ large in the Church today. We somehow think we need some great crisis looming rather than a reach toward the move of God. It is just so predictably sad the way things are going. I’ll warn you that I am going to be both general and specific here and I may even trod across your toes. But, know that this comes from a desire for Christians to be a people of faithful hope rather than a people of fear. You may even accuse me of being a pot stirrer. But better a pot stirrer than the frog getting boiled alive because I cannot face the truth.

Subscribe now

The Narrowing Groups

I find two approaches to our current state from those who wish to narrow the Christian faith into neat little boxes. The first is those who know better, but want to retain a sense of control. They are the most frustrating. But they also remind me of the disciples throughout the Gospel of Mark who repeat the same missing the point over and over. Take some time to read the Gospel of Mark and watch for the repeated pattern. Jesus teaches, the disciples don’t get it, Jesus performs a miracle often involving an “outsider” and there’s an aha moment. But in the next scene, the disciples become clueless again and the cycle repeats. The writer of Mark had a point and it was wake up believers and see what God is doing. “Quit being clueless.”

The second group is frustrating in a very different way. They are so very confidently wrong about things. This group is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect*. As sad as the first group is, this group hurts more. Rather than showing a willingness to learn, this group confidently makes bold claims about subjects they usually have a definite ignorance of. I’ll be clear, this group is not stupid, but their lack of knowledge is dangerous. They are easy to spot because they repeat claims made by those they think are informed (often just as ignorant, but they sound good). Those claims are usually easy to expose as lacking, but the confidence is so strong that any evidence to the contrary is dismissed as obviously wrong.

The way both merge is in their desire to narrow things like faith to make it easier to hold. Of course the thing about faith is that it is not an easy thing to narrow. Faith is not about belief, precepts, or easily reproduced knowledge. No faith, is so much more and it is expansive like all things related to the divine. This expansive nature is why I really like my friend Aaron’s definition of faith as “risk with direction.”(Simmons) Possibility and embrace rather than dry and static facts.

Recently I was in two different online conversations in which the narrowing phenomenon was present. One was a private group of Nazarene clergy, the other a public post that was an example of missing the point and trying to narrow Christianity itself. I acknowledge that my closeness to these examples may make me an unreliable narrator, but I hope to explain this as a way to show there are better ways. After all, growth is what we should be about.

The Rejection of Held Doctrine

I’ll start with the clergy discussion. I shared a Substack article by Jill Waltz about how the Church of the Nazarene (COTN) is an egalitarian denomination (we always have been). I’ll link that article below. But amongst the responses to the article a male ordained Elder entered the thread and chastised us.

Throughout this entire article and comment section, I noticed that not once did anyone truly seek to examine what Scripture says in its proper context. There was little effort to search the Word of God for truth. Instead, the focus seemed to be primarily on defending “our theology” as a denomination. That should concern us.

As expected, fellow clergy responded with surprise and concern. The COTN has a well documented doctrine of ordination and our belief that women and men are called to lead is a part of that. We support that with scripture and it has always been the case in our over 100 year existence. In fact, this was one doctrine that inited me in to the COTN. This is who we are, yet here’s an ordained elder who was examined by a local District, went through our process of ordination and education and yet believes we are wrong.

To be clear, this member of clergy who leads a church was given the scriptures he demanded yet he still believes us to be wrong. How does someone with that strong of disagreement receive ordination? Beats me. I wish I had an answer, but I suspect we really don’t care about many of our essentials as long as you have sexuality down. It is sad and infuriating that clergy are allowed to disagree with this and, as he demonstrated, our view of scripture without consequences or teachable moments. But he also showed that incredibly arrogance of being unable to be taught. This is why messages from our leaders on being who we are feel empty. We don’t appear to care to actually make sure we are who we claim to be. Credibility gaps become our definition.

There are ways to officially deal with these disagreements, but they are soul-sucking and start at the district level where the problem may have originated. I obviously have no answer for how to handle this, but the idea that we are in defiance of scripture on women’s ordination is a creeping disease infecting many of our male clergy as they teach this contrary doctrine. This was not the first interaction like this in the current month for example.

Subscribe now

The Tyranny of the Ignorant

The second example is more public, but has a mix of both those who should know better and those whose ignorance is on display. Look, I don’t think I have all knowledge or even a competent knowledge about many things, but I understand how to engage ideas in context and in a spirit of honesty and respect. Unfortunately, those who wish to narrow Christianity appear to be unwilling or unable to do the same.

I’ll summarize the post in question. Father Richard Rohr who is a Roman Catholic mystic is described in the post as a false teacher and his teaching is ascribed all sort of claims that are false if you engage Rohr’s work directly rather than through the lens of those who miss his points. Words like heresy get thrown around. But, the Roman Catholic Church has not labelled Rohr as false. He is a priest and orthodox. The real issue here is that so many American Evangelicals define Christianity by their narrow and often recent beliefs historically.

Rather than engage Rohr honestly, they repeat claims by people like Mike Winger, Alisa Childers, Allie Beth Stuckey, etc. All influencers who often present arguments so easy to refute it is shocking that people believe what they say. But they are influencers for a reason. they sound good, cite sources, and appear to be honestly engaging. The problem is that citing sources means nothing if those citations are misrepresented. Dunning-Kruger helps explain this. I’ll trust the source’s definition over an online influencer any day.

But here are the archetypes within that conversation.

The pastor who shared it originally who knows better based on his background, education, and experience. But I suspect he has made the calculation that sharing this to spark outrage will increase his standing amongst the others who want to narrow things. I also cant get over the fact that people still fear the emergent church which hasn’t been a thing for over a decade. Fighting yesterday’s perceived problems tomorrow.

Then you have the fellow clergy who trust the original to tell them the truth. They are followers and their fear has been stoked by the original material. If told the truth about Rohr they won’t believe it. Evidence presented is rejected and in some cases they just don’t understand the evidence. They are why I bother to comment at all. Maybe some will take the time to learn the truth. They may still not like Rohr, but hopefully they can understand that Christianity is not defined by a particular denomination, movement, or pastor.

The most frustrating is the minister in training who appears unable to learn. This is usually the one who is most frustrating. The COTN, like many Methodist children has a path for ministers to learn about ministry, doctrines, polity, and other things through a non degree course of study. This is helpful for those who have degrees in something other than religion, cannot afford traditional schools, or came from another tradition. I went through the course of study to satisfy requirements not met by my Bible degree at a Church of Christ liberal arts university for example.

The course of study can be a tremendous opportunity to learn and grow. But like any study, it is only as good as the participants willingness to learn. In our discussion above a minister in training entered and very confidently spoke of how poor the materials in the course of study are because he disagrees with the doctrines as presented. The arrogant ignorance of thinking when the study conflicts with your thinking then the study must be wrong is astounding. This should be a red flag for licensing in the COTN, but I suspect it isn’t even a consideration if we consider the ordained elder in the first example who rejects our doctrine of humanity.

Even more frustrating is the pastor who should know better cheering on the idea that we should purge the study of any books whose content contains writing by those who have left our denomination willingly or unwillingly. Yes, let’s repeat the stupidity of the Southern Baptist Church purge of solid doctrine because of who wrote it. You see it is not enough that people leave, we must erase all remembrances of them from the record like Pharaoh of old. Sound doctrine does not cease being sound doctrine simply because of who wrote or of their subsequent actions.

Is There Hope???

I am afraid that the efforts of those who want to narrow us are working in the COTN. Just look at the conversations above. But I see evidence in ideas shared from our denominational USA/Canada Region and in our flagship magazine like the promotion of a self-published book (ArtWork) that not only disagrees with our doctrine of scripture but also utilizes pseudo science deemed junk by groups like Answers in Genesis and Creation.com (groups that would be sympathetic to the argument given). When you start seeing blatant refutation of our doctrines, you know the issue runs deep. It may be too late for us (I pray and hope not). But it is not too late for Christianity itself. As much as those who wish to narrow exert effort, the Church is much larger and wider than they imagine. I believe that if the gates of Hell cannot prevail, then the wideness of God’s mercy can also withstand the attempts by human beings to narrow the Church.

God’s grace, love, and mercy are always moving and widening. We either embrace them or get run over by the tide. The Church is in the birth pangs of our next rebirth, maybe we just need to hang on and see what God is up to.

Share

Dunning-Kruger effect, in psychology, a cognitive bias whereby people with limited knowledge or competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence in that domain relative to objective criteria or to the performance of their peers or of people in general.

Simmons, Aaron, PhD. Camping with Kierkegaard

The two seasons of Daredevil: Born Again reach deeply into the psyche of those we call heroes and villains. Season One brought us baptisms of violence that created the rebirth of Daredevil and of Kingpin. Season Two digs into the inevitable descent of Mayor Fisk into running New York City as the crime boss, Kingpin. But, as with much of the Marvel Defenders story lines, there is no true good/bad divide in Daredevil: Born Again. The boundary between hero and villain is quite permeable and our heroes often acknowledge their own evil acts.

Amid the fan service of characters such as The Punisher and Jessica Jones making appearances, the story this season has been relevant. So relevant that many complained that Disney was going overboard. Much like Andor, people saw real life reflected in fiction. Mayor Fisk’s Anti Vigilante Task Force (AVTF) feels familiar. Their tactics, secrecy, and mandate from on high reflect the experience many Americans have of ICE and Customs and Border Patrol. But rather than think on the reality of why these fictional stories seem familiar, the complaints came. Conviction often does that to people.

Disney is not leaning into a narrative. No, the fact is that authoritarianism looks much the same regardless of location, universe, or timeline. Those who wield authoritarian power use any means necessary to hold that power. The law is not a barrier to holding power for those who have no regard for law. So Mayor Fisk looks like any authoritarian holder of power and believes he is not only above the law, but the sole authority on what constitutes law.

The tragic twist is that Fisk truly loves New York City and his tactics, while misguided, are ultimately his way of showing love. Matt Murdoch/Daredevil also loves the city. But he believes in a different way of living. One that embraces freedom, but punishes those who harm others. The two are entwined in an epic struggle over what constitutes safety for the city.

Subscribe now

The season builds toward a confrontation. First in the courtroom where Murdoch sacrifices his secret by revealing he is Daredevil so that he can use the legal system to defeat Fisk. It is a selfless act of love for it is also the only way to save the woman he loves. His revelation disarms Fisk’s threats and leads to the fall of Fisk as the city turns against the once popular mayor.

But no Daredevil story ends this easily. No, Kingpin rises to his fullness and chooses to meet the people of the city coming for him full on. While Daredevil and Jessica Jones meet Fisk’s AVTF. We get the ultimate long hall fight shot that Daredevil is known for. Only this time it is two shots. Daredevil and his allies fighting through the gauntlet of AVTF agents while Fisk rampages through regular people seeking his downfall.

Blood, violence, death, and destruction ensue with Fisk ultimately meeting an overwhelming force. But Daredevil stops the crowd from killing Fisk. There is no need to use the tool of violence. It is the climactic scene in which Daredevil and Kingpin come face to face with the reality that the struggle is over for them both. Kingpin’s grief has been carrying his rage and it is all he thinks he has left.

Daredevil implores Kingpin to take a deal offered to leave the city freely. But that is too much for Kingpin.

This is your so-called retribution? It means nothing to me.
What about grace?
No, no, no, no. You are not allowed to offer that to me!
...
We have the opportunity to give [the city] peace. That’s grace.

It is this moment when the fullness of Daredevil’s faith is on display. Grace. That’s the only answer to counter the violence. He knows that grace is the only answer because anything else will only continue the death and lack of peace. It is a second sacrifice. The giving over of retribution for peace.

When that scene hit and Daredevil asked “what about grace?” I was hit hard. This was the true climax. Retribution is no way to bring peace. Hatred cannot be defeated with violence or retributive action. Only grace and the peace that comes through grace can end hatred. It is a kenotic act for a city the two antagonists love dearly. It is the only way to save the city and themselves.

I kept wondering how different our world would be if we started giving one another a little grace. It takes a hefty dose of humility and a willingness to truly love in order to extend grace. It takes just as mush to reach out and graso that grace and allow it to envelop us in merciful peace. Is it easy? Not at all, but it is oh so worth it.

What about grace?

Share

Video games have always had a story to tell. Even if that story is as simple as avoid the obstacles or “eat” the little dots. But even some early games told more complex stories. One of the earliest examples is the game Zork which was completely text based, but complex, funny, and told a story. Zork even had a “morality” program that would strike you dead for taking certain immoral actions. One of my personal favorites is Grand Theft Auto IV because your actions have consequences in the game world.

The stories in video games can be complex and contain social or cultural
commentary. Such is the case with the game The Last of Us. Matthew Distefano delves into this commentary in his new book Saints, Sinners, and Clickers. My only experience with The Last of Us is the HBO television series because the game system I had when The Last of Us came out was an Xbox while The Last of Us is a Sony Playstation exclusive. But after reading Distefano’s book I wish I had played the games.

Early on Distefano comments on the reality of the game as apocalyptic fiction with no firm answers.

This reality forces me to ask: Why do we choose to play a game like this? Simple. Because, even though video games tend to transport us to a whole new world, some of the best represent real life. They represent the human experience.

He’s right about the fact that great games tend to represent the reaility of the human experience in all its messy and complicated reality. Apocalyptic literature is best when it is understood as “storytelling to use the end of the world, not to predict the future, but to hold a mirror to the present.” Because it is that mirror which can illuminate the truths we often do not wish to see. Especially when that mirror exposes our biases and the horrors we visit upon the world.

While The Last of Us does not have any mention of God or of rescue from the horror of mycelial “zombies” it does hold a mirror up to love. It is in love that Distefano connects the game world to our own. He faces the reality of human love and does not turn away. Love can be both healing and cataclismic. Distefano captures the full spectrum in his book. Even when considering choice, he is aware of the contradictions we all experience.

Nothing in life comes tabula rasa, and deep down, we know human beings are quite complicated. Every “choice” we make seems tied to a thousand invisible strings—trauma, love, fear, mimesis, survival, and so on. Freedom, then, if it exists at all, cannot simply be the ability to choose randomly (the way a cow “chooses” which patch of grass to chew6), but the ability to choose the good. The problem, most notably, is that the good is itself almost always muddy, hidden, or veiled in grief, trauma, and other baggage.

I can’t help but see hope even in hopelessness throughout the story of The Last of Us. Maybe it is the rumblimg optimism of Distefano in the face of fear and contradiction that gives me hope. But I agree with is assessment.

But whatever labels one puts on it, the idea is that true divinity is found in the God who doesn’t abandon the world—though it sometimes appears that way—but binds it together, cell by cell, root by root. In this sense, love itself is ecological. It spreads, roots, clings, regenerates, and in a world as dark as The Last of Us, constantly adapts.

The “God who doesn’t abandon the world—though it sometimes appears that way—but binds it together, cell by cell, root by root.” Distefano may not be Wesleyan, but this Wesleyan recognizes the God we claim to follow. It is in that I believe we find truth and hope. Distefano gets to a powerful realization from the game story.

The Last of Us shows us that love and loss cannot be disentangled, that to live is to lose, and that to lose is sometimes the only way we rediscover love again.

Love and loss can never truly be disentangled becuase when we love, we will inevitably experience loss. Rather than something to be avoided in fear, that reality makes our love burn brighter.

Get a copy of the book and experience a world of hope amidst pain and struggle. Even in the tragedies we will find love. I promise you’ll find truth in this book even if you know nothing about video games. mainly because human stories are universal stories for our species.

Writing theology is a ambitious task in and of itself. But embarking on a systematic theology is daunting, but that is just what Dr. Thomas Jay Oord is doing. His A Systematic Theology of Love is a planned multi-volume work. Volume One is currently available and its subtitle hints at the contents: God and Creation. Most systematic theologies currently available are within the Reformed or Calvinist tradition. In fact, one of the best selling systematic theologies is Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology is the top seller in systematic theologies. This may be partly because it is the default for Southern Baptists who are currently the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. Worldwide, things are different, but you get the picture. Of course, popularity does not indicate the value of a work. This is especially true in theological works. Something can be very popular, but also very bad. Thinking in terms of Wesleyan-Holiness theologies, systematic works are few and far between. I believe this is partly due to the nature of Wesleyan theology being seen as practical and Holiness theology as primarily revivalist in nature. But these are stereotypes and stereotypes have a way of falling apart upon close examination.

Oord’s Systematic THeology of Love builds upon Wesleyan-Holiness, Open and Relational, and Process theological work. I can see the foundation of Dr. Mildred Bangs Wynkoop’s book A Theology of Love, H. Ray Dunning’s Grace, Faith, and Holiness: A Weslyean Systematic Theology, and other works within Oord’s own theological heritage. Of course, this work expands and goes beyond those earlier works, but you may be able to take the person out of a particular Wesleyan-Holiness denomination, but you cannot take the Wesleyan-Holiness theology out of the person.

It is important that Oord begins with God and Creation, because those are the building blocks of a solid and faithful systematic theology. But volume one also deals with the definition of love which Oord honed in Pluriform Love. Oord also takes a tact very different from many theologians by using the humility we all so desperately need by saying that “I could be wrong about all of this, of course.” (Oord) In a world in which being right is often seen as the attitude we should hold, Oord’s admission is key to understanding the spirit in which his systematic theology is born.

From and Open and Relational view, starting with God is key to understanding both the open and relational aspects of who we claim God to be. Oord’s previous works on love, amipotence,* and the nature of God as uncontrolling love features throughout. But Oord builds upon those ideas to form them into a systematic investigation into God. From the who, to the place of mystery, Oord weaves a cogent argument for who he claims God to be. I firmly believe that Oord is expressing the logical progression of Wesleyan and Holiness theologies of God within his discussion of God. Contrary to critics, the God revealed in Oord’s work sounds very much like the image we are given in the Christian scriptures.

The second building block of volume one is Creation. Oord’s discussions center upon God as always creating which I find compelling. But Oord also shows the flaws with ideas like creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing). Scripture does not support the idea of creatio ex nihilo if wee read closely. Oord points out that creatio ex nihilo was originally a gnostic creation. God could not start with a corrupted thing like matter after all. Oord’s direction also embraces recent advances in science and our understanding of the universe. While I am partial to the idea of multiverse, Oord describes what I term a sequential-verse. God is always creating and that even means creating out of the death of universe upon universe.

Additionally, Oord explains that God invites us to participate in creation. This is where an Open and Relational theology truly comes into its own. We are invited to participate and work in creation. I see this as the ultimate and over arching tending of the garden. The very thing humans are first invited to do with God was tend a garden in the Genesis accounts of creation. Oord sums up concerns with creation in this way:

Science can’t, on its own, answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing. But theology also can’t answer this question alone.105 The most plausible doctrines of creation, therefore, integrate insights from science, theology, and metaphysics. Or as Alfred North Whitehead put it, “You can’t shelter theology from science, or science from theology; nor can you shelter either of them from metaphysics, or metaphysics from either of them. There is no short cut to truth.” (Oord)

Rather than try and create conflict with science, or worse twist science to prove a theological assumption, Oord embraces science while understanding its limits. He also understands the limits of theology within his humble take on possibly being wrong. For me, any time a theologian writes or says out loud the truth that we could be getting this wrong, I tend to listen more carefully. Those theologians who know they could be wrong are ones worth listening to because they approach theology with that truth.

Oord’s A Systematic Theology of Love belongs in any serious theologian’s library. Especially if you disagree with the conclusions. Because what if you are wrong?

Disclosure

I am a supporter of Tom’s work on his systematic theology and have been able to read early work and give feedback as he wrote. While I received a complementary copy of teh book, I also purchased a copy.

After each trope, there is a wondering. After seduction we get a wondering of how the other half die:

Words are weapons
Sharper than knives
Makes you wonder
How the other half die
Other half die

After pride we have the wonder of living:

Look at them go
Look at them kick
Makes you wonder
How the other half live

Do you see the two sides of the same thing present in the lyrics? We are seeing each from the other view. How does the other half live through the evil without consequence? How do the others die? Words are weapons. A friend with an M.D. and I have a chat one time in which I was asking if words actually caused pain to younger generations. I was trying to understand the reaction to words that seemed much more visceral than my Gen-X context. He mentioned that yes, he believed that words could cause actual physical pain. He went on to say that our generation was desensitized to the pain and that was sad. In other words, the capacity to cause pain with words was lost on us unless we paid attention. That hit hard as someone who loves a good snarky comment or biting satire. Those are valid, but I began to unsderstand that they are only good when used to punch up so to speak.

The chorus is catchy as it just repeats the theme of the song. But the sexy dance rock drives the lyrics so well.

Devil inside
The devil inside
Every single one of us
The devil inside
Devil inside
Devil inside

I believe it is vitally important for us to remember that we all have the capacity to do evil - even the entirely sanctified. Our free agency of choice is still present. But I believe we must also believe that those we look up to or follow are capable of evil. I wish more white American Christians could believe themselves, their leaders, and their political heroes capable of evil. The world might be in a better spot if we could see past the logs in our eyes. This brings me to the systemic lyrics.

Here come the world
With the look in its eye
Future uncertain
But certainly slight

Look at the faces
Listen to the bells
It’s hard to believe
We need a place called hell
A place called hell

That last line has stuck with me since I first heard it. “It’s hard to believe we need a place called hell.” That was in the late eighties when we still had the looming threat of nuclear war. What a quaint time. Now we face existential threats on an ongoing and ridiculously absurd rate just from our own governments making stupid choices. Of course, the systems are only as good as the people we choose to lead them. I think white evangelical Christians have been horrendous at choosing because we allowed politicians to tell us what we believe. Just look at how many Roman Catholics don’t understand that the Popes are always speaking from straight up doctrinal and theological clarity within their tradition. If only we had as much courage. Instead we keep bringing hell on earth for people.

Subscribe now

It is not just in grand existential terms. But also in small and seemingly insignificant choices that we bring hell. In my own denomination, the fundamentalists have lost patience with hounding fellow clergy who reject fundamentalism and embrace our actual doctrines that they have chosen a new method of attack. When those you oppose refuse to cooperate and teach contradictory doctrine, attack the places they teach sound doctrine. Guilt by association may be a logical fallacy, but who doesn’t love a good logical fallacy. Of course the irony is that often the fundamentalists are literally teaching against our essential doctrines as they claim the venues of teaching somehow rub off on the teachers.

In other words, they think it is that which comes from the outside which defiles. Dr. Richard Beck refers to this as the disgust response in his book Unclean. But is also a response we see in scripture. In the Gospel of Mark chapter seven Jesus is asked by the Pharisees and teachers of the law why his disciples don’t perform a ceremonial washing of hands before meals. This was scandalous to the religious leaders. Jesus replies in his usual way, but says something incredibly important. He explains to the crowds that it is not what comes from outside that defiles because it is taken in through the mouth rather than the heart. He also says those things that come from the outside end up in the sewer - you probably get the point. Jesus then says it is that which comes from inside that can defile. INXS hits that point with Devil Inside.

I’m gonna get in some theological weeds for a moment. Whatever you may think of the idea of evil, it is problematic to try and personify evil. Scripture uses the terminology of The Accuser (The Satan) and other phrases, but never personifies that the same way that Trinitarian personhood is used. Brian Zahnd likes to say The Satan in a sub person as a theological understanding. I agree because when we setup a dualistic understanding of God versus evil, we place too much power in the idea of evil. That’s how we get to ideas like “the Devil made me do it.” Our own guilt is shifted in the blame of evil on outside forces. What’s always funny to me is how selective that concern can be. When we choose evil, we are responsible. Yes, there are places we find ourselves in that we sometimes feel compelled to make certain decisions, but they are still our decisions. Trauma response may also push us toward unhealthy choices, but their is no Devil pushing us independent of our own minds and hearts.

A takeaway here is that if we are teaching “sound doctrine” in an open venue that may not stand for that doctrine, the unsoundness is not going to rub off on the speaker. That is an external concern. It is also a silly concern. The principle of “the appearance of things” rules too many accusations and fallacies. Here’s how Jesus describes it:

He said to them, “So, are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters not the heart but the stomach and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (Mark 7: 18-23 NRSVue)

I always find it interesting that deceit, slander, pride, and folly get listed with sins like murder. I mean technically using certain logical fallacies can slander and deceive. Here’s a subtextual comment. It is much easier to slander with fallacious claims than to do the hard work of understanding. It is also sin to use deceit to cause people to believe falsehoods. IYKYK

We all may have a devil inside, but the implication is that we also have goodness in us. Genesis is pretty clear on that count and New Creation is a fulfillment of the promises of relational holiness. The fact that we Wesleyan-Holiness folk keep reaching for the lies rather than shouting about our hope of prevenient grace is sad. We can sing INXS’ Shine Like it Does rather than Devil Inside.

This is the story
Since time began
There will come a day
When we will know

Shine like it does
Into every heart
Shine like it does
And if you’re looking
You will find it

Sounds a bit like prevenient grace and that is Good News.

Share

(In the spirit of different points of view, here is one from my friend Bob)

Forget what you’ve heard. Set your biases aside and just listen. I recently tuned into a podcast featuring Joel Osteen, pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas. He reaches millions online and leads one of the largest churches in the country. The podcast is found here:

There’s no denying that Joel draws plenty of criticism—most of it aimed at his theology, which, to be fair, I also find somewhat shallow. But that’s not the angle I want to take here. It’s an easy critique, and frankly, not the most interesting one.

Instead, I want to approach this from a different perspective. Maybe it’s time we cut Joel a little slack, and here’s why.

Whether you admire Joel Osteen or question his theology, one fact stands on its own — the man chose to stop collecting a salary and fund his life through the marketplace instead. According to the interview, he’s a best-selling author, and his books regularly appear on the New York Times best-seller list. He doesn’t need a church salary. Joel has been very open about his income. In a world where trust in religious leaders continues to decline, a pastor who doesn’t need the church’s resources is refreshing. Whatever you think about Joel, at least know that he’s not taking money from the offering plate; he’s working to create content that millions of people pay a fair amount to access. I have no problem with that, only respect.

Does Joel Osteen live a lavish lifestyle? You be the judge. By many accounts, he keeps things relatively modest in the day-to-day. He drives himself to Lakewood Church in a twelve-year-old Audi sedan—hardly the image of excess. There are no yachts, sprawling car collections, or private jets attached to his name, and the Osteens have been known to fly commercial. And flying commercial has not been without its challenges!

His wife, Victoria Osteen, did have a widely publicized dispute with a flight attendant years ago that led to a lawsuit. The claim was that she became verbally aggressive, but the jury ultimately ruled in Victoria’s favor. Situations like that can arise in the close quarters of commercial travel.

Joel and Victoria do live in a large Houston home on a couple of acres within a private, gated community. Given their income from book sales and investments, that level of living isn’t especially surprising. In fact, many people in a similar position would likely make the same choice—for privacy, security, and the well-being of their family. I get it, this comes with the territory. There are a lot of crazy people who would be knocking on your door at 2 AM. So, no judgment there.

Joel’s temperament is another reason we should give him a break. Joel is as cool as a cucumber, both in and out of the pulpit. How do I know? Secondhand, but credible knowledge. A former boss of mine met Joel Osteen in 2014 when I was working for a black car service in Phoenix. Joel and his family were in town for Super Bowl XLIX, and while I was hoping to get the assignment, my boss took that one.

He ended up spending a couple of hours with the Osteens, navigating the chaos of Super Bowl traffic while shuttling them around the city. Despite the delays and congestion, there were no outbursts, no frustration, not even a stray complaint. They were calm, composed, and genuinely pleasant—model passengers. Cooperative, respectful, and generous tippers. What more could you ask for?

Joel has a reputation for maintaining that kind of composure. He doesn’t crack under pressure—no meltdowns, no tantrums, and no drama. Some might say he’s too laid back, though it’s hard to see that as a flaw. Better yet, it is a fruit of the spirit (Gal. 5: 22-23).

Joel Osteen is deeply committed to fidelity in marriage. He and Victoria Osteen have been married for nearly four decades, which places them in rare company. Many of Joel’s peers in the mega-church leadership community have been remarried or have withstood affair accusations. Over the years, there hasn’t been any credible evidence of infidelity or scandal attached to their relationship.

Joel has also consistently empowered his wife, elevating her as co-pastor of Lakewood Church and frequently ministering alongside her. The enduring visibility of their public ministry together speaks volumes. Sometimes the most compelling theology is lived rather than argued. In that sense, Joel’s long-standing marriage to Victoria bears witness to the God they love and serve.

Speaking of Joel’s theology, let’s take a closer look. While many people evaluate him as if he were a pastor or trained theologian, I do not. He has no formal theological education or pastoral training, nor does he present himself as a serious voice in doctrinal matters. There’s little evidence of careful exegesis, sacramental depth, or engagement with historic Christian tradition. For those reasons, I don’t place him in the category of a pastoral leader. He often gets tagged with other prosperity preachers, but he’s nothing like a Kenneth Copeland or Benny Hinn when it comes to the theological fallacies they spew.

So what is he? More accurately, he functions as a motivational speaker, life coach, and Christian counselor. I’ve often described him as the best big brother I never had. He’s consistently encouraging, positive, and non-judgmental. Qualities I’d love to have in a big brother. Suffice it to say, these qualities resonate with millions, and understandably so; the world could use more people like Joel, not less.

Expecting him to meet the standards of a pastor feels misplaced. While he prays and delivers sermons, he does so without the grounding typically associated with pastoral ministry. Are his sermons really sermons in the traditional sense? I don’t think so. That said, his influence doesn’t strike me as particularly harmful. His theological positions are relatively easy to challenge, and he doesn’t seem interested in defending them. In fact, he has no history of being defensive of his content. He delivers it and lets people digest it for themselves. If he represents a theological concern, it’s not a major one.

Several years ago, I reached out to a pastor who was battling deep discouragement and depression. Call it heresy if you want, but I prescribed a steady diet of Joel Osteen—not to refine his theology, but to restore his hope in ministry. Sometimes what we need most isn’t a sharper doctrine, but someone who believes in us and, with a genuine smile, reminds us that things are going to be okay. That’s where Joel excels. He’s the smiley face preacher for a reason.

If I’m worn down and struggling, I’d rather hear from someone who can lift my spirits than from an ivory tower theologian. The most effective encouragers are often those with a simple, grounded faith, and Joel embodies that. He doesn’t complicate things or demand intellectual heavy lifting. He’s straightforward and approachable, and he’s built an audience around lifting people up rather than weighing them down. Many of our churches could benefit from this approach. People need to feel it is possible to have the weight lifted. Does your ministry give people a lift or a letdown?

One more thing—I genuinely admire Joel Osteen’s commitment to a healthy lifestyle. He’s known for eating well and staying consistent with his workouts, and it shows. For a man in his 60s, his physique and appearance are impressive. Some people claim he’s been treated with Botox, but I’m not sure about that. Joel has never admitted it. Not a big deal anyway. I’m more curious how he maintains that perfect helmet of hair. One heck of a hair spray brand that’s for sure.

Let’s be honest, religious people don’t always model great habits when it comes to physical health. The track record among many ministers is, frankly, pretty poor, and the example can be discouraging. But Joel breaks that mold. He’s built a home gym, stays active, and plays tennis regularly with his son. A few years back, a photojournalist captured a shirtless beach photo of Joel on vacation in Hawaii, and the dude was ripped!

That kind of discipline is rare, especially in ministry contexts. At 56, I know how much work it takes to stay healthy, and in that regard, Joel is genuinely motivating. I work out, eat healthy, and it takes a lot of effort!

You can criticize Joel Osteen for his theology, his lifestyle, or his role at a megachurch—and some of those critiques may be fair. Joel himself likely wouldn’t push back; he’d probably just shrug it off with a smile and keep moving forward. But before going too far down that road, it’s worth pausing for a moment of self-reflection. Are you doing even a fraction of what he does to encourage, uplift, and help others? And when you think about it, is theological perfection a prerequisite for entering the Kingdom of Heaven? If it is, we might all be in trouble!

I recently read the new book Apple: The First 50 Years by David Pogue. Stick with me if you are here for faith or theology. The book is a fascinating and glorious trip through the history of one of the most influential and profitable companies in the wold. Pogue got access to history. people, and artifacts encompassing the entirety of Apple’s history to the present. I remember the wonder of seeing and using an Apple II and of the moment when computers became more than a curiosity when I sat down in front of a Macintosh for the first time. Our first family computer was a Commodore SX64 (an ostensibly portable C64), but my first personally purchased computer was a Macintosh and I have owned Macs since 1990. I even had Macs during the dark days of head scratching models and the constant obituaries of the company.

Apple has always been a company that focused upon making technology usable for everyone. Their innovation was not always in being first to do something, but in making that something “insanely great.” Many times Apple leapfrogged competitors by choosing to remove features that relied on old technology to introduce a better way of using that technology. One of the very first instances of this was the original iMac that excluded a floppy drive. Apple was right, floppies had their day and by the late 1990’s it was time to move on. I wonder what the critics from them would think of modern MacBooks that rely solely on solid state memory.

While the quantum leaps of the first decade of the twenty first century are no longer the norm, Apple still finds ways to innovate and do things differently. And that brings me to a personal story involving Apple, vision casting, and the frustration of thinking in the past. I will use a personal story to explain this and show how easily we can get trapped into thinking that strategies and behavior will not change. Apple has also done things that people claimed would fail. The Apple Store idea was panned by most, but it is incredibly successful to this day.

Subscribe now

In 2010 when the iPad was first announced, I was I.T. Director for a regional non-profit. One of my responsibilities was peering into the unknown and seeing where we might be in the future. What tools, applications, and technologies would support and enhance our mission was something always on my mind. I spent time with the various departments and types of work in our organization so I would understand pain points, how systems worked, and how people used the tools we had. That was also a way to understand what tools we may need in the near and even distant future.

One innovation was standardizing on the iPhone for employees because we could take advantage of the breadth of applications and communication tools present in iOS. We also had PDAs and rugged devices for specialized work, but the promise of the iPhone was less friction and more connectivity. That could be a good and bad thing of course, but communication was enhanced with that decision. The early data plans Apple convinced AT&T to go with also saved us money by allowing for unlimited access to the network at a mice price.

Back to the iPad. When I watched the unveiling, I immediately saw the potential of the iPad for business and creation. My technology committee was made up of volunteers who led technology and consulting in many areas. The chair of the committee brought a new iPad to a meeting and I began talking about the potential. But like a wet smelly blanket over my enthusiasm, they said that the iPad was only a consumption device. They went on the say that the iPad was basically a toy and reading and web browsing were neat, but it would not be a tool. I was discouraged, but I did get some encouragement from others on the committee who could see the potential rather than assumed limitations. In fact, I work for a company owned by one who encouraged me back then.

I did not let that interaction stop me from thinking. It drove me instead. I was certain the iPad could improve on the current laptops used by our teammates who visited other agencies for inspections and presentations. So I bought an iPad with a cellular plan and put it in the hands of one of the team. I asked him to use it as much as possible and make notes about his experience. It was my small little “skunkworks” and it immediately showed promise. I won’t bore you with all the details, but all day battery life, the ability to get to information quickly, and even using the screen as a flashlight in a pinch were instant hits. Now I had to tell my boss that we had done this. He did not believe it was a great idea before I showed the experience data.

I then started work on a system to enable the iPad to capture the data we needed and get that data into our system. At the time, we had to collect the data and then re-key it into our system. My solution wasn’t perfect but we managed to find a tool that would allow us to create forms that would dump data into an ingestible format for our main operations system. Now I just needed to get funding. I worked with our grants team and sent a proposal for a technology grant to purchase several iPads and pay for the first year of data service and the third party form tool. The minute we deployed the iPads, the team reported higher satisfaction with their work and mentioned how it freed them up to do the relational part of their jobs. The iPad became a tool that improved work and the impression of how the work supported the mission of the organization.

I had taken a position at another non-profit when the annual technology meeting for my then former non-profit’s national organization happened. But the manager of the team used my presentation plan to show others like our organization what we were doing and it was one of the most popular sessions. Several others adopted a similar set of tools. All centered on a product I was told was simply a toy.

Sometimes, I feel like churches fall into the same mindset as that technology committee chair. We get so blinded by the way things have been done or successful strategies from the past that we keep trying to use them and we don’t see the potential for different ways of doing things. I’m not arguing for doctrinal innovation, but I am saying that the ways we present and engage our faith can be innovative and creative. What worked in the past may no longer be relevant. When we keep looking back we risk becoming frozen in time. When we reject actions because “we’ve never done it that way” we may just miss seeing the way others are drawn to faith. True, faith is not like technology, but the principles of vision and creativity work regardless. These are the things I think on when reading books like Andrew Root’s Evangelism in an Age of Despair or Ryan Burge’s The Vanishing Church. We are doomed to repeat failure if we keep going back to what may have worked ten or twenty years ago.

Maybe we need more dreamers. Or maybe we just need people o do as Apple dared us in the late 1990’s to “Think Different.”

Share