IFWE: The One Choice Left Off the Table

Kristin Hansen, the Vice President of Communications at the Institute for Faith, Work & Economics  ”Institute for Faith, Work & Economics™ (IFWE) recently posted the second in a two part series on Caring for the Poor. You can read the whole post here.

Hansen begin with a comment one often hears about Christ’s mandate for His followers to care for the poor. In a nutshell many Christians believe that “Caring for the poor is too big for the church.” The author then points out that typically Christians “wrestling with how to best address poverty alleviation seem stuck between two choices” These are:

Choice A:  The Bible calls the Church to care for the poor, and not to abdicate this responsibility to the government. Government social welfare programs should be opposed on ideological grounds even though some people may slip through the cracks.

Choice B: The Bible calls Christians to care for the poor. Because the job is so big, the Church should partner with the government to get it done. Even though this means less effective programs and some wasteful spending (which is hard in a time of debt), at least more people will receive help.

While not discounting either out of hand, she reminds us that because humanity is fallen and that we “live in a fallen world, .. neither choice will be perfect.” She then points out that “not all the choices are on the table” there is a third choice.  Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

6 Reasons Why Mormons Are Beating Evangelicals in Church Growth

Though written by an Evangelical Christian for his co-religious, David French’s essay about why Mormonism is growing and Evangelicalism isn’t, is equally applicable to Orthodox Christianity. Take a look and tell me what you think.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(The Gospel Coalition) Our churches face a demographic crisis.

Young people are leavingeven the Southern Baptist Convention is losing members, and when you drill down deeper—comparing church attendance with population growth—the picture looks even more bleak. Simply put, when America’s fastest-growing religious segment is “nonreligious,” we have a problem. The Barna Group recently compiled the results of a number of national studies and published a list of six reasons why young evangelicals leave the church:

  1. The church is overprotective.
  2. Their experience of Christianity is shallow.
  3. Churches seem antagonistic to science.
  4. The church’s approach to sexuality is judgmental and simplistic.
  5. They wrestle with the exclusivity of Christianity.
  6. The church feels unfriendly to those who doubt.

These answers are just what you’d expect, because they correspond to many leading churches in modern evangelicalism that combine nominally traditional doctrine with shallow commitment and have been plagued by rampant divorce and extramarital sex—all against a backdrop of extreme cultural hostility. In other words, we’re about 95 percent like the surrounding culture and hated for the 5 percent deviation.

But one religious group shows consistent growth year by year and decade by decade. Mormons, living in the same country and culture as evangelicals, keep growing their church. Why? I propose six reasons.

1. Mormons have bigger families.

This is the easiest and simplest explanation. But it’s far from the entire story. In fact, if family size were determinative, then many churches in America would be growing at a rate that exceeded general population growth. After all, the birth rate of religious families generally exceeds that of nonreligious families. Instead, church after church shrinks or remains basically steady in spite of the higher birth rate. Mormons start with abigger baseline family, but then they tend to hold on to their kids while evangelicals often do not.

2. Mormons have lower divorce rates.

While regular church-going evangelicals divorce less often than secular couples, Mormon-marrying Mormons have the lowest divorce rate of any major religious group. Families that stay together are more likely to pray together. Few experiences are more demoralizing to a young Christian than seeing his parents destroy their own marriage and destroy their own kids’ childhoods in a blaze of selfishness, lust, and pride.

3. Mormons share their faith.

Who hasn’t met a Mormon missionary? My wife used to debate them at the doorstep, but we made many new Mormon friends and now welcome them into our home, offer them rides in the rain, and generally get to know young people who experience a very different young adult rite of passage than your typical evangelical. A Mormon mission is a sacrifice—a deep sacrifice. Evangelism not only wins converts, it also strengthens the faith of the evangelist.

4. Mormons are “orthodox.”

No evangelical can call Mormons “orthodox” in terms of the Apostles’ Creed and biblical canon. But they are orthodox within their own, distinct faith tradition. In other words, members of a Mormon church tend to know and believe their faith. Go to a typical evangelical church—like my own Presbyterian congregation—and you’ll find very wide theological divergence. Nationally, 84 million people self-report as evangelicals, but of that number only 19 million according to Barna actually have orthodox evangelical beliefs. In other words, the evangelical church must improve in transmitting even the most basic elements of the Christian faith from generation to generation.

5. Mormon leaders ask a lot of their members.

I’m always amazed at the level of church involvement of Mormons compared to evangelicals. From giving, to service, to teaching, to raw number of hours in the church building, Mormons are simply doing more. To some evangelical critics, you’d think we lose members because we’re so demanding. But compared to the Mormon experience, evangelical churches are a carnival ride of short services, low accountability, and rare church discipline. If you’re a faithful Mormon, you’re not living a 95 percent secular life like so many evangelicals. At least in this regard, Mormons are truly countercultural.

6. Mormons are less selfish.

Add up points one through five, and you get to the sum. Too many of us evangelicals have forgotten the fundamental paradox of Scripture—you won’t gain your life until you lose your life. We ask our kids to lose just a little life to gain . . . what, exactly? If Christianity isn’t worth losing everything, is it worth only losing some things? And if it’s not worth losing everything, why is it worth losing anything?

Big families, intact families, years-long missions, faithfulness to church teaching, and a lifetime of service add up to a sustainable, Christ-honoring counterculture. By contrast many of our churches will prove to be ashes and dust—unable to resist a culture that relentlessly demonizes even the small remaining differences between evangelicals and atheists.

As a Calvinist member of the Presbyterian Church in America, I’ve got my theological differences with the LDS church. But if we evangelicals don’t believe we have anything to learn from our Mormon friends, then we’re foolish. Our churches will not grow by conforming, by shedding the last remaining distinctions between Christians and the secular world. That route is well-traveled by the imploding mainline denominations. Instead of asking less of our families and youth, let’s ask more by the grace of God and the power of the Spirit. Instead of giving less, let’s give more. Instead of believing we’re unique theological snowflakes capable of discerning truth on our own, let’s teach church doctrine early and well. And let’s not be afraid of church discipline.

What are the core lessons for the church? Conform and die. Resist and live.

David French is an attorney, author, contributor to National Review Online, and blogger at Patheos.

Enhanced by Zemanta
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Tell Pharoh to Keep His Money

Ismael Hernandez has a piece for Crisis Magazine where he argues that the Catholic Church should have never taken federal dollars to support its charitable works. Addressing his own bishops he writes:

With candor and humble submission, I suggest that it is also time for the Church to stop accepting Federal funds to sustain its charitable activities. If it is true that we are in the midst of a momentous historical crossroads for the fate of religious freedom, it is as well the case that for too long the Church in America not only ignored government intrusion but cooperated with it by allowing the role of the state to expand without protest. The assumption seemed to have been that Catholic social teaching places a great burden of responsibility for the common good on government, which justifies an abundance of Federal programs to attend social needs.  But was it not obvious that governmental meddling would also be accompanied by the imposition of moral injunctions contrary to faith at some point?

You can read the rest here.

As the Orthodox Church here in America continues to grow and as we become more more involved philanthropic ministries, the Catholic Church’s experience can serve as a lesson here for us.

As Orthodox Christians need to support our own charitable ministries and to do this without relying on federal money. Christ commanded us it is to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and visit this sick and those in prison. Morally and prudentially we must do this from our own resources and not as independent contractors on behalf of the Federal government.

Remember, he who drinks the king’s wine, sings the king’s song.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

h/t: Fr Peter-Michael Preble

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 7.0/10 (4 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

Priestly Formation: A Suite in Four Parts

Being a pastor is more like being a jazz musician than it is being say an engineer. All three of these occupations require a great deal of technical skill to be sure. But the pastor, like the jazz musician, is often called upon to improvise on a theme more than, like the engineer, apply a theory to a problem. This is all to say that pastoral ministry is more art than science.

Over the last 10 years or so I’ve worked with communities in transition. What I’ve notice is that typically problems arise in the parish when someone—it needn’t be the pastor—takes what we might call an engineering approach to the life of the congregation. They have a theory and they are going to fit the community into its framework.

This is also something I see frequently as a spiritual director and confessor. When I talk with people about the different ways they go off track in their prayer lives, at work or with their family and friends the source of their suffering is that life just isn’t working out according to [their] plan. Problems in living arise when life becomes a project to be completed or a problem to be solved and not the other way around. When I lose a living sense of awe in the face of reality, or when I don’t see my life as a mystery to be lived, this is when life becomes a problem. Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Affective Intuition & Human Formation

Mostly what priests encounter in our flocks is what existential or humanistic psychologists call problems in living. Life just becomes flat. Relationships that once were easy and life giving just aren’t anymore. Saddest of all, what was once a source of joy in life is now merely “blah” if not something much worse.

The first step in responding to those moments when life becomes a problem is the accurate apprehension that this is the case. This is the step of affective intuition—I need to have at least a sense of the contours and content of what is wrong. In the human sciences we use a technical term—verstehen—or the “interpretive or participatory examination” of the situation. Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Islam, Orthodox Christianity and Post-Modernism

Russian Orthodox Church, Petropavlovsk

Russian Orthodox Church, Petropavlovsk (Photo credit: GlobalCitizen01)

Off this morning to teach at Acton University.  I’m presenting a lecture on asceticism and consumerism. My thesis is that consumerism is not the fruit of a particular economic system but of human sinfulness. Yes, a given system might very well be more (or less) fertile ground for consumerism, but from my own perspective as an Orthodox Christian and social scientists, consumerism as such requires first and foremost an ascetical response.  Anyway, for those who are interested, I’ll post at least my notes later this week.

What I wanted to offer today are a few brief thoughts about the recent scholarly debate about whether or not Muhammad actually existed (you can read an excellent summary of the discussion here). Let me say up front, the scholarship that underlines the historical debate is well beyond my area of familiarity much less competency. My own scholarly frailties aside however, the discussion does raise an interesting question for the pastoral life of the Orthodox Church. Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 8.5/10 (2 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

Young Adult Spiritual Formation and the Family

My earlier post on campus ministry (here) brought some very good responses and questions both on this blog and on Facebook.

One of the questions I was asked is a question I frequently hear. How do we keep our children in the Church? Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 8.5/10 (2 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

OCF launches “The First Forty Days”

Sorry, but I’ve worked with college students pretty consistently for the last 25 or so years.  The approach outlined below (after the break) for reaching Orthodox college students simply doesn’t work. Either the parish priest doesn’t have the information or (if he does) he doesn’t respond. And even if the information is accurate and gets to the chaplain, the fact that it comes from the student’s parish priest isn’t really a positive thing for most students.

If you want a viable campus ministry you don’t need spreadsheets but priest-chaplains on campus. The university is a mission field and campus ministry is an evangelical work not an extension of the high school youth group.

We must evangelize college students.

Finally, if the majority of Orthodox college students aren’t interested in the Church, then we can also be pretty sure that our high school youth ministry programs aren’t particularly successful.  But that’s a topic for another day.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

h/t Byzantine Texas

Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

The Parish in Transition

For most of the last 10 years, I’ve served Orthodox parishes in transition. Having done this 7 or 8 times, I thought it might be helpful to offer for consideration some of what I’ve learned.

The most important thing I learned is that, somewhat counter to what had been my initial expectations, the particular reason while a given community is in transition is always secondary. What matters most is the fact that they find themselves betwixt and between what they were and what they are becoming. In fact, and again this is counter intuitive, focusing on the particulars will more often than not result in the community failing to make the transition successfully.

Cultural anthropology has a technical term (liminality) that has helped me understand the needs of the parish in transitions and while tempting to do so, focusing on the reasons for the transition is not the best way to help the community in transition. Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Tradition and Human Flourishing

Here some of Robert George’s major theoretical points underlying his argument in a recent court case about the federal Defense of Marriage Act (you can read the whole thing here):

Laws characteristically embody and reflect moral judgments. This is true of the law of contract and the law of murder, and it is no less true of the law of marriage. Laws should be made carefully so that they embody sound understandings of good and bad, right and wrong, justice and injustice; but as careful thinkers about law from Aristotle in ancient Greece to Dr. Martin Luther King in our own time have made clear, laws cannot be morally neutral, nor should we try to make them so. Efforts to mask the moral judgments embodied and expressed in our laws have no effect other than to wrap those judgments in a cloak of obscurity—creating a mere illusion of neutrality.

In the case currently before your honor, the Court is being invited to replace the moral understanding at the heart of the historic conjugal conception of marriage with a competing moral understanding according to which marriage would be redefined as sexual-romantic domestic partnership—thus rendering sexual-reproductive complementary unnecessary and irrelevant. Marriage, on the new moral understanding, would be an emotional union—a union of hearts and minds—but not a bodily union of the type made possible by the biological complementarity of husband and wife.

However, this Court should not choose between the competing moral understandings on offer from supporters of the conjugal conception of marriage and the revisionist conception. This is because nothing in the Constitution settles the issue between them. It is left, rather, to the people acting on their own in referenda and initiatives in states that provide for those decision-making procedures, and through their elected representatives in the state legislatures and the Congress. It is up to the democratic process, not the courts purporting to act in the name of the Constitution, to make the moral judgment that marriage should be retained as a conjugal partnership, or to make the competing moral judgments that would redefine marriage, whether to accommodate polygamous, polyamorous, or same sex partnerships.

Shifting our focus from civil society to the life of the Church, George’s argument reminds us that whether we are concerned with canon law, administrative procedures, or pastoral care (more on this last point later) these are all expressions of both a moral vision and a particular understanding of what it means to be human (anthropology). In other, in church law, administration, and pastoral ministry we are pursuing one or more goods that both reflects and reinforces our vision of human flourishing. This is done as far as it goes but it carries with it a certain level of risk. The risk is not simply that of a practical failure. We all of us fail. While our failures can be useful to the degree that we are willing to change there’s a real danger.

Typically I am only intuitively aware of the moral and anthropological models that those my practical decisions. Put another way, my life is structured around assumptions which, even if objectively true, may not be applicable to the situation. Consequently I am often undone because I give the right answer to the wrong question. Learning to ask the right questions is hard work. It is the work of not just my lifetime but of several life times. This is why tradition is essential as a guide to human living.

It is important to keep in mind that fidelity to tradition is no guarantee to a life of human flourishing. This is not because tradition is untrustworthy–though it may be–but because there may not be a correspondence between tradition and situation. This lack of fit between tradition and situation can be especially wide in practical matters. For this reason tradition generally serves us better as a guide for what NOT to do then what to do. Thus isn’t to criticize tradition or the traditional life. Rather it is, I hope, a sober acknowledgement of the occasional complexity of human life. While tradition is essential for human flourishing it is as the foundation not the goal of such a life. What is required along with tradition is creativity. But more on this in a later post.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

Enhanced by Zemanta
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)