Off to the Beach …

theRubicon takes a short break …

Starting November 11, theRubicon is taking a short break… we’re off to the beach on our annual break.

While we are away, please take some time to look through theRubicon’s archives, where you’ll find over 1070 articles and almost 3,800 comments. While you are at the beach, if you write something that you think would fit theRubicon’s editorial mandate, please feel free to send it along: rubiconeditor@gmail.com

And stayed tuned because we won’t be at the beach for long and we will return in the new year. Thanks for all of your support in 2010.

Unsafe God

by James Pedlar

I was preaching on Isaiah 6 a while back and a passage from The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe came to mind.  It’s the part where the children find out that Aslan is a Lion, not a man. 

 “Ooh!” said Susan, “I’d thought he was a man.  Is he - quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”  “That you will, dearie, and no mistake,” siad Mrs. Beaver, “if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.” “Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy. “Safe?” said Mr. Beaver.  “Don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe.  But he’s good.  He’s the King, I tell you.”  

It got me thinking about the images of God that are popular in our culture, and if we are honest, in the Church as well. Sometimes people imagine God as an angry punisher, ready to annihilate anyone who doesn’t measure up by hurling lightning bolts down from the sky.  But I don’t think there’s much of a danger of that image of God prevailing in our culture today.  Maybe in the middle ages, when people were fascinated with hell and purgatory, but I don’t think there are many people today who imagine God in an overly wrathful way.  I think the opposite is more likely the case.  We tend to think of God as completely tame, endlessly tolerant, and entirely safe. 

I think sometimes we imagine a domesticated God.  Of course domestication is a term we use in relation to animals.  We domesticate our pets.  In other words, they are house trained, so they can fit into our lives and our routines and our homes, without causing too much of an interference.  Our pet dog stays on his leash.  He stays behind the fence.  He is safe.  He brings us comfort when we need it but at the end of the day, we are the master, we are the ones in control.   We imagine a domesticated God when we think that God can be kept, safe and contained behind the fences that we have built for him. 

Another imagined God that we encounter today is a Santa Claus God.  You know Santa Claus only exists for the purpose of bringing us gifts.  That’s the sole reason for his life.  All year long everything he does is oriented to that one special night when he jumps in his sleigh and flies around the world, eating cookies and milk and making little boys and girls happy by bringing them the things they asked for.  Yes, it is true, he’s making a list and checking it twice, but it seems to me he is pretty indulgent, and brings nice gifts even to kids that you would think would be on the naughty list.  We imagine a Santa Claus God when we think that God is only there to give us what we want.   When we think that the fact that we’ve been good little boys and girls means that we should get everything we ask for. 

We could probably think of many other “imaginary Gods.”   One more that I’ve seen is the personal assistant God. A personal assistant’s role is to help their boss get through their day.  They might go for coffee, they might pay parking meters, do dry cleaning, do secretarial work - and if you are a very busy person then I can see why a personal assistant would be of great value.  Their job is to make your life easier.  Sometimes we put God into that box.  We think he is there to “help get us through our day,” whatever that means.   I heard someone once saying that they were praying to God for help because they were having a “bad hair day.”  I think they wanted a personal assistant God. 

These are all safe gods; they are tame, they are domesticated, they are always pleasant, friendly, and unobtrusive.  These tame gods are not the God of the Bible. They are not the God of Isaiah chapter six.   

1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another: 

       “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty, 

        the whole earth is full of his glory.” 

 4 At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke. 

 5 “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.” 

 6 Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.” 

 8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?” And I said, “Here am I. Send me!” 

 Who said anything about safe?  ‘Course he isn’t safe.  But he’s good.

James Pedlar is a doctoral student at Wycliffe College, in the Toronto School of Theology.  He specializes in the study of the Church - especially questions involving reform movements, Christian unity, authority structures, and ecumenical dialogue.  He is also interested in Wesleyan theology, Salvation Army theology, and the theology and practice of worship. James works part-time as Assistant Coordinator of Faith & Witness at the Canadian Council of Churches.   He recently completed a two year research project on young adult attrition for The Salvation Army in Canada and Bermuda, which you can read about here.   Before that he was Community Ministries Director for The Salvation Army in the Quinte Region of Ontario, Canada.  James is married to Samantha and they live in East York.  You can read his blog here

ONE DAY! (Part 2)

by Joe Noland  (See Part 1 for reference) 

What To Do?

This is today, over a Century later, an Army firmly established with systems galore - some of them necessary, many not. What to do? - “…less restrictive, more imaginative and accommodating.” A tall order indeed! 

1. Examine the systems now in place. Eliminate those that are outdated, ineffectual and dysfunctional - “We would say the church of Christ is never an experiment, but where that church is true to its mission it will be experimenting, pioneering, blazing new paths, seeking how to speak the reconciling words of God to its own age. It cannot do this if it is held captive by the structures of another day” (Elizabeth O’Connor, Call to Commitment).
2. Establish a “Creative Space” (Call it what you may) to compliment and balance out the “systems” that necessarily remain - “Our God is a God of beginnings. There is in him no redundancy or circularity. Thus, if his church wants to be faithful to his revelation, it will be completely mobile, fluid, renascent, bubbling, creative, inventive, adventurous, and imaginative. It will never be perennial, and can never be organized or institutionalized” (Jacques Ellul, The Subversion of Christianity).
3. Appoint a “Chief Creative Officer” (CCO), one who is set apart from institutional boundaries and systems, yet “remains connected to the Spirit of the corporate mission” (”Responsible creativity”) - “Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now! (Van Goethe).

 Behold!

I never use the term, “out-of-the-box thinking” because with God, boxes (boundaries) don’t exist, nary a one to “think out of.”

Out-of-the-box thinking is nonsensical,

It’s absurd, boring, silly and whimsical

Would God be accused of thinking such?

Alas! He wouldn’t have created much.

Boxes non-existent with the all-seeing,

Boundary free when ‘bringing into being.’

No old boxes when creating you:

“Behold! I’m making everything new.”

God Boxes: Oxymoron.

There is nothing more exciting, stimulating and emboldening than creating something new - “genius, power and magic in it.”

 LET THERE BE!

Brainstorming Questions:

1. Make a list of “systems” impacting your ministry, preferably those under your control. Place them, accordingly, under two categories: Relevant and Irrelevant (”structures of another day”). Discuss ways in which the “irrelevant” can be eliminated and/or modified without negatively influencing the spirit of your mission.

2. Explore the idea of a “Creative Space,” one set apart from systems and institutional trappings, yet remaining connected to the corporate mission. Reread the Book of Acts and reexamine this concept in light of Paul’s journey beyond the boundaries, all the while firmly connected to The Great Commission. Through discussion and interaction, interweave contemporary success stories in this regard, both secular and ecclesiastical.

3. Discuss those persons within your circle of influence who might fit the description of a Chief Creative Officer, commissioned or local. In a small corps setting, it might very well be the Corps Officer, so appointed (released and empowered) by the Divisional Commander. This challenge and exercise must be undertaken at every level. Begin it now!

(For a copy of the book, contact: New.Frontier@usw.salvationarmy.org)

Writer: Commissioner Joe Noland’s ministry can be summed up in three words: chaos, creativity and controversy - three elements implicit in any successful innovative endeavor. Cecil B. DeMille, renowned producer of Biblical epics, once wrote, “Creativity is a drug I cannot live without.” Joe’s mantra reads, “Creativity is my drug of choice.”  Access Joe Noland’s complete bio, among other things, by clicking into his website.

Moralistic Therapeutic Deists

 by James Pedlar

C hristian Smith, Notre Dame sociologist and author of some significant books on youth in North America’s churches, uses the term “moralistic therapeutic deists” to describe the default religion of our time.  Christianity Today had an interview with Smith in their October 2009 issue, in which they discussed his new book on “emerging adulthood,” Souls in Transition.  He’s got some really interesting things to say about young adults and the Church.

I think “moralistic therapeutic deism” is a brilliant description of the default religion of our day. While Smith’s research indicates that some young adults are beginning to question the moralistic therapeutic deist framework, it still remains the dominant form of religious practice:

With Soul Searching, you found that most U.S. teens are Moralistic Therapeutic Deists (MTD). They believe in a benevolent God unattached to a particular tradition who is there mostly to help with personal problems. Are emerging adults still MTDs?

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is still the de facto practiced religious faith, but it becomes a little more complicated for emerging adults. They have more life experience, so some of them are starting to ask, “Does MTD really work? Isn’t life more complicated than this?” MTD is easier to believe and practice when you are in high school.

It’s good that today’s young adults are questioning popular religion, but the majority still practice their faith within a moralistic therapeutic framework.  By “the de facto practiced religious faith” Smith means the “cultural Christianity” of North America - the pop Christianity of both Church and culture - not found in all churches but certainly preached and practiced in many.  Moralistic therapeutic deism is the default framework through which Christians interpret their lives and their faith.

So what is “moralistic therapeutic deism”?  (These are my thoughts, not Smith’s; I’m trying explain his terminology in terms of what I see in the culture.)

Moralistic: religion is basically about being a good person.  This could be taken in a number of directions. For example, a moralist religion might envision God as rewarding “good Christians” for their good actions.  Moralism might support the popular notion that people who are basically good are going to go to heaven.   This doesn’t mean that young adults believe in absolute moral standards.  They are more likely to think of morality in relative terms, as this recent Knights of Columbus poll of Catholic millenials shows (82% say morals are relative).  Yet somehow “being a good person” remains the foundation of religious practice, even while a plurality of competing moral visions are accepted.

The problem with moralism is not that it supports a moral vision, but that it makes morality the foundation of religion, rather than the saving action of God in Christ.  Salvation includes transformation, and of course it includes moral transformation.  But our moral behaviour is the result of God’s action. God’s action does not come in response to our moral behaviour. 

Therapeutic: religion takes on the form of pop psychology.  In other words, God is there to “help me get through my day.”  Or, God is there to help me “reach my potential,” and “become a better me.”   Religion as therapy is about personal fulfillment, and having “my needs” met.   God is domesticated and placed “at our service” as we journey on the road to personal “success” - whether that be in business, family life, or becoming a good religious person.  This kind of therapeutic Christianity often takes the form of psychological strategies or practical “life skills” by which we can attempt to manage our personal lives.

As an aside, I should say that I do think salvation has a “therapeutic” dimension, but not in the contemporary psychological sense of therapy.  John Wesley’s soteriology is often described as “therapeutic” as opposed to merely “forensic.”  This means that he saw salvation as entailing a process of healing as well as a declaration of justification.  Salvation is not simply about being declared righteous in Christ, but about being conformed to his likeness and renewed in the image of God.  This includes the re-directing of our desires toward their intended godly ends.   The key difference here is that the “therapy” in this case is christologically determined, and not based on a program of “self-fulfillment.”  In fact, “self-fulfillment” would be the opposite of the divine therapy that the Spirit works in conforming us to Christ’s likeness.  My daily “needs” are not necessarily right and good.  The things I think I “need” may in fact be deadly poison.  So the gospel doesn’t meet my pre-conceived needs; the “medicine” it provides also tells me what my true sickness is.  God’s mercy never comes independently of his judgment.

Deism: Moralistic therapeutic deism involves a “generic” concept of God, unattached to a particular religious tradition (this is not the same as the deism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries).  MTDs believe there is a God, and he is benevolent and involved in creation, indeed he’s involved in the everyday ins and outs of our lives.  But he’s a bit fuzzy around the edges.  He’s the nice old guy in the sky. In other words, this deism is a far reach from the historic Christian proclamation of the particular God revealed in Biblical history.

I think we need to be constantly challenging this framework. Precisely because moralistic therapeutic deism is “the de facto practiced religious faith,” we need to hear again and again that it is not the historic Christian gospel.   People come to their faith with this basic framework already in place, and if it isn’t challenged it will remain in place.  If we know that moralistic therapeutic deism is the default religion of North Americans, and we know that it is contrary to basic aspects of the gospel, how can we not respond by challenging these default assumptions? Worse, if we tailor our preaching to moralistic therapeutic deism (which I think we often do, unwittingly), we perpetuate a vision of Christianity which is, in my view, foreign to the biblical message.

James Pedlar is a doctoral student at Wycliffe College, in the Toronto School of Theology.  He specializes in the study of the Church - especially questions involving reform movements, Christian unity, authority structures, and ecumenical dialogue.  He is also interested in Wesleyan theology, Salvation Army theology, and the theology and practice of worship. James works part-time as Assistant Coordinator of Faith & Witness at the Canadian Council of Churches.   He recently completed a two year research project on young adult attrition for The Salvation Army in Canada and Bermuda, which you can read about here.   Before that he was Community Ministries Director for The Salvation Army in the Quinte Region of Ontario, Canada.  James is married to Samantha and they live in East York.  You can read his blog here