Month: August 2010

Incarnational Ministry

Steven Woolley6 Comments
There are two refrains that I constantly hear in conversation with individual church leaders and in workshops on stewardship.  One is, How do we attract/keep young people in the church?  The other is, How do we grow the church to support our budget?  Both of them are legitimate expressions of the pervasive anxiety that seems to haunt every congregation in our mostly rural area regardless of denomination.  
However legitimate they may be, they also miss the point because they focus inward on the congregation as an end to be preserved rather than as a means to do the work God has given them to do.  Perhaps that is due in part to the Protestant obsession with faith not works combined with the popular notion that to be Christian is to have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior.  That personalized and inward looking perspective has only one external outlet, and that is to “evangelize” others to join the inner sanctum of believers. 
Christians are called to be formed as followers of Jesus to continue his ministry in every place they might find themselves, and the Church exists to be the vehicle for making that happen.  Whatever else the Church might be, it is first and ultimately the body of Christ continuing Jesus’ ministry of healing, reconciliation and bringing the kingdom of God near.  Consider the words of Paul to the Corinthians when he wrote, “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it” (1Cor. 12.27).  Again, in his letter to the Ephesians he wrote that the work of the Church is “…to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ…” (Eph. 4.12).
In other words we are to, individually and collectively, incarnate the body of Christ in our daily lives, and that takes disciplined intentionality.  Admittedly even the best of us is not very good at that kind of incarnational disciplined intentionality, but it cannot be very hard to be better than the low standards that have satisfied us for too long.  After all, we are fond of espousing the virtues of disciplined intentionality about everything from athletics, music and cooking to education, work habits and great sex.  
Refocussing on what it means to incarnate the body of Christ can move us from a preoccupation with the preservation of congregations filled with members to a commitment to the ministry of healing, reconciliation and bringing the kingdom of God near.  Following the way of Jesus, that becomes a ministry mostly of presence, listening and  blessing.  It has very little to do with obnoxious attempts at conversion.  Nor does it have anything to do with sentimental fawning in imitation of a mythical Jesus meek and mild.  It has everything to do with bringing the earthy realism of God’s love into the lives of those about us.  That is what we are called to do as individual Christians with congregations as our gathering places for worship, learning and restoration.  Focus on that.  Make that the priority, and don’t worry so much about growth.

Limited Government That Is Out Of The Way

Steven WoolleyLeave a comment
It’s election time (isn’t it always?), and the political mantra in our district is “limited government.”  I’ve been wondering about that.  What is limited government?  A corollary to that is “get government out of the way,” which is not quite as bad as “government is the problem” but it is from the same song book.  In other news, Target Stores got a little publicity for helping finance a Minnesota television ad favoring the Republican candidate for governor with the tag line “get government out of the way.”   One would presume that after eight years of a conservative governor it would have been moved out of the way of corporate Target, but apparently not far enough.  How far is far enough?
Limited government that is out of the way, that’s what we want?  When I look across the political landscape there is only one candidate who appears to be honest and articulate about what he means by limited government that is out of the way.  Libertarian Rand Paul is very up front about that.  I agree with almost nothing he has to offer, but I deeply respect his honesty about it and his ability to clearly articulate what he means by it.
What I observe is that most others who favor a limited government that is out of the way really support an activist government that will do everything it can to pave the way for corporations to engage in economic activity with as much regard for corporate gain and as little regard for the public welfare as possible.  That agenda is sold as a boon to individuals and small businesses.  It’s just another marketing ploy but it works well and is widely believed.  A valued side bet has to do with privatization, which is sold as returning to the private sector work that has been taken over by the public sector.  What privatization is actually about is to siphon off tax dollars to the private sector to do work for and on behalf of the government.  That is not always a bad thing, but we have seen how easily it is abused by corporate interests that do less work (or unneeded work) at higher costs and lower quality.  Only the Rand Paul’s of the world really want limited government and are clear about what they mean by that.
The point is that individual greed can always be counted on to undermine the public interest if given the chance.  Therefore, the question should not be about limited government, but about effective government, regardless of size, that is capable of striking  the right balance for current and anticipated conditions that both optimizes individual and corporate freedom to act while protecting the public interest.  That, of course, brings us to the next question: What is the public interest?  We will take that up anon, but a quick review of previous posts will point in the right direction.

Dr. Woolley’s Economic Prognostications and Miracle Elixir. Get Yours Now While Supplies Last!

Steven WoolleyLeave a comment
Economic recovery is slow and consumer confidence wavers.  What’s going on?  I believe it has to do with our collective expectation that economic recovery means returning to the way it was a few years ago, and, hopefully, that will not happen.
Let us recall that the illusion of economic prosperity was fueled by consumers willing to take on enormous debt loads for things they could not afford and did not need.  It was not only the availability of unethically packaged mortgages, it was also the marketing driven belief that if it was new, improved, trendy and available, you deserved to have it.  That goes for everything from granite counter tops to toothpaste and everything in between, especially if it was electronic.
Too many corporate, media and political leaders cannot imagine an economically healthy nation that would be any different from that, and are confused about why those consumers and that kind of consumption are so late in returning.  What happened to the efficacy of our marketing skills? 
Something is changing in American society.  With any luck it will be a change toward a society that does not feel compelled to be the richest or most powerful nation on earth, is cognizant of it’s obligation to be stewards of the natural and economic environment respecting the past but committed to endowing future generations with good things, and focussed on education and health as primary resources to be nurtured.
I would like to think that the American public has gained a new respect for the idea of the commonweal and a commitment to work together for it.  I would like to think that, but I don’t because it would require a recognition that what is good for the collective welfare of the nation is not the same thing as the sum of what appears to be good for each person acting in his or her own self interest, or even in the interests of those closest to them.  Moreover, it would require a recognition that it is not an either/or proposition.  Self interest and the interests of the community live in creative tension, but popular political rhetoric tries to make them separate, unequal and irreconcilable. 
We cannot return to the illusory prosperity of the recent past.  What lies ahead remains unknown.  We will not glide into that future on blades of wisdom and good sense.  We will lurch into it with all the grace of the gangling, petulant, adolescent people that we are.  God help us.

PS  I say this as one whose own retirement well being depends, in large part, on the performance of the stock market.

The Uncertainty Principle

Steven Woolley2 Comments
I posted something a few days ago about corporate America using the specter of uncertainty to frighten the public about financial reform.  On NPR this morning I heard the very same word, uncertainty, used to frighten consumers about the potential dangers of BPA (Bisphenol A) in various products.  
Perhaps there are dangers in it’s use, that’s not the point. The point is the use of the idea of uncertainty to incite anxious fear.  It’s so easy to do.  It can be done in a reassuringly calm voice.  It requires no particular evidence, just vague allegations.  That’s enough, and it works.  
I am uncertain how it is that the principle of uncertainty has become such a strong motivator of anxious fear.  Maybe it always has been, but I’ve become more aware of it in the last few years.  The implication is that someone, usually the government, has an obligation to remove uncertainty from public and private life.  There should be no uncertainty about the economy, no uncertainty about what rules and regulations might apply, no uncertainty about public safety, no uncertainty about consumer products and services.  Where did we get the idea, individually or as society, that we not only deserve certainty in all things but that it must be someone’s fault if uncertainty raises its ugly head?
More than a few acquaintances boldly proclaim that they are black and white thinkers.  Things are either good or bad, right or wrong.  The ambiguity of gray is repugnant to them, in part because it is frightening to take on the responsibility of living in a world of probability and potential, whether for weal or woe.  Even those who claim to be comfortable with ambiguity find their levels of anxiety rising.  I think it has to do with a combination of the rapidity of technological change, the ubiquity of scary news items that stream into our consciousness, and the popularity of media hosts who incite fear of things alleged to be uncertain as a mainstay of their schtick.
I suggest that the moment one hears the word uncertainty, or any of its cognates, used in a way that implies that we should be very cautious, even afraid, it is time to be suspicious that we are being had in some way.  It just too manipulative to be trusted without solid verification.