Undercapitalized Ministry

As I write this, Citigroup just announced a fourth quarter loss of $7.6 billion. You would think that is bad news, wouldn’t you? But the markets have reacted to the loss with tepid relief; you see, they expected much worse. Citigroup was the institution most severely hit by the recent financial mess, and clawing its way out of the hole into which it had dug itself has been painful for all involved (and, of course, given the fact that virtually everyone who has a credit card or a mortgage or a retirement account has a “stake” in large financial institutions such as Citigroup, that means all of us were “involved” to some degree).

The “mess” into which we had gotten ourselves was the result of what economists refer to as “undercapitalization.” Simply put, that means that an institution doesn’t have the resources it needs to carry on its work. In the current fiscal crisis, banks and other financial institutions were carrying on their balance sheets “assets” by means of which they had supported lending practices that proved, on reflection, to have been ill-advised and recklessly speculative. Then, when the value of these artificially inflated assets collapsed, so also did the balance sheets of many of these financial institutions as well. Undercapitalization – more activity is generated than there are resources to support them. They needed a “bail out” to survive.

The same thing can happen to a church when it is “undercapitalized;” and here, I’m not referring to its financial resources, but rather to the spiritual and, more specifically, theological resources necessary to engage in Christian ministry. Churches too can find themselves engaged in far more activity than they have resources to support them. In the never-ending quest to be “successful” (too often defined in secular and – dare I say it? – pagan terms), too many churches and their pastors are enamored with finding “the next big thing” out there while at the same time neglecting the theological foundations for ministry that alone make ministry “Christian” and a church the “church.” That’s why you get so many sermon series these days on such wonderful “biblical” themes as “Home Improvement” and “Extreme Makeover” and “Pants on the Ground” (if you don’t know what that last one is, there still may be hope for you!).

But that’s not what sustains a church or a ministry for the long haul. If, finally, the church and its ministry have no “capital” in God and His purpose in the world, then it will collapse under its own weight. If it is not God leading us to worship and to preach and to teach and to care, then we are well-intentioned “social servants” at best, pious frauds at worst. What I’m saying is that finally the church’s “capital” is theological.

But how do we restore theology to its rightful place in the life and work of the church? Well, it’s a double dilemma. Part of the problem lies not with the church but with the seminary. Seminaries, over the past fifty or so years, have learned that if you want to keep the customer happy, you’ve got to give the customer what he wants, and what he wants is not theology. And so, there’s been a move in the seminaries to “update” the seminary curriculum by replacing the old “body of divinity” (Bible, theology, church history) with more “relevant” and marketable skills. And so, the seminary curriculum has replaced courses in Bible and theology and church history with courses in counseling and psychology and “leadership development” and marketing and administration and on and on. And so, what the seminaries have produced is a generation of pastors who know lots about sales and marketing and management and social theory and psychology, but not so much about the Bible or its God. And, of course, most congregations learn their theology chiefly from their pastors. Unfortunately, the theological education system now is so invested in a non-theological approach to theological education that it will be difficult to correct it. I know; I tried once.

The other part of the problem lies with the congregations. After a generation of not thinking theologically about what we do, a secular culture has emerged in the church that makes it increasingly difficult even for a theologically-minded pastor to provide a theological rationale for the church’s ministry. I saw this played out once in a church where I was worshiping. I noticed that the Pulpit Bible had been unceremoniously placed on a shelf under the communion table at the front of the church, and on top of the communion table was an arrangement of flowers. I’m sure no one noticed, or if they did, that they thought much about it. But I did. The symbolism was striking. “Put the Bible under the table,” was the message being communicated. “We don’t need that here; besides it’s not really relevant to what we’re doing here today.” Is there any wonder today why so many churches engage in activities for which they lack the necessary theological “capital?”

But churches need not be theologically undercapitalized. As with the financial industry, it will take not only a change of heart, but a change in the culture to bring about a course correction; but it is certainly doable. How? By placing God back in the center of the church’s life. Put the Bible back on top of the table where it belongs, and make it the center of the church’s worship. Reclaim the role of the pastor as “worship planner,” a role pastors too often abdicate to others. Redeem the symbols the church already has (baptism, the Lord’s Supper, stained glass windows that tell the Story of the Gospel in glass). Teach the congregation to reflect theologically – not just pragmatically – on the church’s life and work. Provide opportunities for the congregation to engage in serious, thoughtful, and extended "conversations" with the Scripture. Use the church year to frame the church’s agenda and to keep the church’s Story before the congregation. And most importantly, call a pastor who understands that the chief role of the pastor is to be the congregation’s pastoral theologian, not the circus’ “ring master,” or the company’s marketing guru, or the parish psychologist.

And if you do, when the winds blow and the waves crash and you’re taking on water and the storms that come to every life (both individual and corporate) come to yours, you’ll not find your life or your ministry undercapitalized and in need of a “bail out.”

Putting God in His Place

A dear friend of mine who values my judgment on such things (silly man) asked me to read a book and tell him what I thought of it, the book's title having intrigued him. Gracious and generous person that he is, he purchased a copy and gave it to me to read. The book is titled Shopping Malls and Other Sacred Spaces: Putting God in Place by Jon Pahl. Pahl teaches at Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, and the book grew out of his teaching experience as a professor of theology and American religious history. I told my friend that I’d be happy to read the book, especially if I could get a blog out of it…sort of kill two birds with one stone. What follows, then, is a review, both for my friend and for my readers.

First, the good news. Pahl writes well, and the book (for an academic work) is a good read. His writing style is approachable and lively. Moreover, his passion for his subject comes through. The book is chiefly a theology (a statement of the author’s understanding of God) and is divided into two parts – critique and construct. In part one, he provides an overview of what he regards as the fundamental error of the orthodox view of God, how we arrived at it (he lays it at the feet of Augustine chiefly), and what its implications are. Then, in part two, he presents his constructive theology around a rather fanciful and imaginative use of several biblical metaphors: living water, light of the world, rock of salvation, the true vine, one body.

I wasn’t very far into the book before I knew where he was going, how he would get there, and what he would say. It was all quite predictable. The book represents the same old tired demythologizing program liberal “group think” has been peddling since the middle of the last century, only this time “clothed” in the garb of a PC “grid theology.” In brief, Pahl (heavily influenced by the work of Sally McFague, Marcus Borg and others) regards biblical revelation, language, and imagery as merely a “fashion” for clothing God…a fashion that not only does not possess any intrinsic authority but is also arcane, myopic, and destructive to the achievement of the one value Pahl regards as sacrosanct and axiomatic; namely, human self-realization (predictably and typically expressed in terms of “liberation” from “bondage” understood chiefly in social, political, and economic terms).

Pahl’s fundamental assumption is that orthodox theology is predicated on what he calls a “theology of time” rather than a “theology of place.” This is “academic speak” for his rejection of the whole idea of eschatology as the central matrix and context of the biblical revelation (see my blogs Kingdom Theology and Theology as Anthropology). The idea, everywhere present in the Bible, that God is the “Author” of the “story” we call history seems to writers such as Pahl too imperialistic, too monarchical, too paternalistic to be very helpful to modern persons. This idea of God, referred to as “transcendence” in theological parlance, just isn’t very “relevant” for modern persons who believe themselves to have some transcendence of their own. With McFague, he argues that the biblical models and images for God are no longer appropriate for our time because “the power balance has shifted from nature [and God] to us.” He continues: “Perhaps, then, God’s transcendence is not clothed most accurately in acts of moral agency or historical causality. Maybe history is really up to us, and God is a rather (as Luther sometimes intuited) sheer, loving presence available through places clothed in promises of grace.”

Of course, the problem with this kind of wholesale jettisoning of the notion of a transcendent God is that while this may not be the “god” we want, this is the only “God” the Bible has to offer! The Bible presents us with a transcendent God (see my blog on the book The Shack), a God who isn’t just an “actor” in the story we call history but is its “Author.” For this God, both time and space are merely metaphors for the matrix of God’s existence, God needing neither in which to “live.” Time and space are the stuff of our existence, not God’s. He is beyond both, and neither holds power over him or limits him in any way. He enters them (as, for example, in the history of the people of Israel recorded in the Old Testament, and in the Incarnation of the New Testament) only because he chooses to…because the Creator wishes to make himself known to his creatures. But God doesn’t live in time and space any more than Shakespeare “lived” in the story of Hamlet he created when he wrote the eponymous play.

What really troubles me about scholars like Pahl is that if he has such complete contempt for the biblical revelation, why bother to adduce it at all? He clearly rejects the idea that the Bible’s theological language and imagery are the stuff of divine self-revelation; rather regarding them as merely the product of human “clothing” of the divine, a “clothing” that is today in the judgment of the modern world looking all too shabby and threadbare. But instead of saying: “I repudiate the Bible’s God; I want to talk to you about a “god” more congenial to my values, principles, and commitments,” he employs a “free association” style of biblical interpretation in which he pilfers the biblical text for metaphors and images that suit his purposes without the slightest regard for the intention, meaning, or purpose of those metaphors and images in the context of the writings of the inspired biblical author. Why bother? If you think these people not only to be without any intrinsic authority but, even worse, part of a culture and worldview that was primitive, superstitious, chauvinistic, and destructive (with their metaphors such as “the kingdom of God” and God as “Father”), then why bother to attempt to “redeem” their images and metaphors at all? But it is my observation that theologians of this ilk like to “sound biblical” even when they’re not.

Nonetheless, I’m grateful to my friend for sharing the book with me. I learned long ago that I don’t have to agree with a writer to enjoy their writing, or to learn from them. However, at the end of the day, I have to say that I recognize Pahl’s agenda, but not his “God.” He subtitles his book, “Putting God in Place,” but I rather think it would have been more accurately subtitled, “Putting God in His Place.”

The Pastor's Calling and Calling a Pastor

I’m currently serving a congregation as an “intentional interim pastor.” An intentional interim pastor moves into the community and works as the church's full-time pastor for about 2 years. The first year is spent chiefly in a diagnostic process in which the congregation is guided through a period of self-reflection around five fundamental areas that define and determine the life and health of the congregation: heritage (read “the church’s congregational history and story”), mission (read "purpose"), connections (read "denominational relationships”), leadership (read “church administration and how the congregation makes decisions and gets things done”), and future (read “who and what the congregation intends to be going forward”). The second year is spent mainly in a search for a new permanent pastor. It’s a good process in that it helps to move the church past the inertia present in some (not all!) congregations that locks the church into dysfunctional patterns and rhythms of congregational life.

I’m a Baptist, and that means that I have lived my life among Christians who make decisions for their congregational life in “democratic” ways (read: “they vote on what to do”), and that includes securing a pastor for the congregation. Because most congregations are too big to function as a “committee of the whole,” most churches commission a group of congregants to do the background work for the congregation and then the congregation ratifies the decision of the smaller group. That group is typically called a “committee,” though of late that term has fallen out of favor in some churches who prefer the term “team” to “committee.” In my experience, however, the change is more cosmetic than substantive.

The committee that searches for and secures the new pastor for the congregation is called the “Pastor Search Committee;” and in Baptist life there is no more daunting assignment than to serve on such a committee. The reason it is such a challenge, chiefly, is because most congregations approach this work exactly the same way a secular organization approaches a search; that is, by looking for what we “want” rather than what we need, and in most congregations, the “wants” are both multiple and competitive. Some want a pastor who is seasoned and mature; some want a pastor who is young and energetic and, consequently, they will compromise on experience and maturity. For some, preaching is the most important skill the new pastor must possess; for others it’s pastoral care and hospital visitation. For some, having a pastor who is a strong leader, organizer, and administrator is paramount; for others, they think the pastor should just stick to “spiritual stuff” and leave the running of the church to the laity. Finding someone who pleases everybody, who “meets everyone’s needs,” has about as much chance of success as coaching for Al Davis!

That’s why I think it’s important, both for congregations and pastors, to understand that a pastor lives under not one, but two, claims on his life: the claim of the congregation and the claim of his calling as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While these two claims need not be competitive, they are prioritized in every minister’s life. Sadly (both for the church and its pastor) most pastors tend to put the priority on the former rather than the latter, and as a result they spend their time running around trying to satisfy a bunch of competitive, unworthy, and totally secular congregational “needs.” Pastors figure out pretty quickly (in a church where every week is something of a “referendum” on the pastor) that if they want to keep their jobs, they have to “keep everybody happy.” But, of course, that is NOT the mission and mandate of ministry. Pastors, who are worthy of the title, also know (and know full well) that they are even more accountable to Christ and the Church (and I mean church in the LARGER sense of the Body of Christ, not the local congregation one happens to be serving at the moment) to live out their calling – whether their congregations want them to or not, whether their congregations value that calling or not, whether their congregations “need” them to or not. And that calling has little to do with what most congregations typically list on their “pastor profile.” Beyond the “wants” and “needs” of any particular congregation, the pastor is first and foremost called by God to preach and profess the Church’s faith; to represent the Church’s account of what’s going on in the world to a secular and hostile culture; to keep the Church’s larger history and story before the particular congregation he happens to be serving at the moment; to teach (and to demand) modern disciples of Jesus Christ to think critically, thoughtfully, and deeply about their own faith; and to test the congregation’s current witness against the canon and criteria of the Holy Scriptures.

Alas, these things rarely make it onto the “congregational survey” for a prospective pastor, which is why, I am convinced, congregations go through this process far more frequently than they need to…or should!