Affiliates, Babes, Disciples and The More Excellent Way...

Companions,


Scot Bontrager commented on "More? Why do we ask for More" with a reference to John Wesley's "not-uptight" sermon, "The More Excellent Way."


Here, a mature Wesley reflecting on years of experience leaves aside some of his "anxious rhetoric" that seemed to imply (at least to some) that unless you were a Methodist constantly "going on to perfection" you would fry in hell. No, he says. Not so. If you have received justifying grace, and live a harmless life, generally comply with the better customs of the world, and do good to others, you may find "mercy at the close of life."


But there's SO much more than this.


Here's how Wesley put it.

5. But at present I would take a different view of the text, and point out "a more excellent way" in another sense. It is the observation of an ancient writer, that there have been from the beginning two orders of Christians. The one lived an innocent life, conforming in all things, not sinful, to the customs and fashions of the world; doing many good works, abstaining from gross evils, and attending the ordinances of God. They endeavoured, in general, to have a conscience void of offence in their outward behaviour, but did not aim at any particular strictness, being in most things like their neighbours. The other sort of Christians not only abstained from all appearance of evil, were zealous of good works in every kind, and attended all the ordinances of God, but likewise used all diligence to attain the whole mind that was in Christ, and laboured to walk, in every point, as their beloved Master. In order to this they walked in a constant course of universal self-denial, trampling on every pleasure which they were not divinely conscious prepared them for taking pleasure in God. They took up their cross daily. They strove, they agonized without intermission, to enter in at the strait gate. This one thing they did, they spared no pains to arrive at the summit of Christian holiness; "leaving the first principles of the doctrine of Christ, to go on to perfection;" to "know all that love of God which passeth knowledge, and to be filled with all the fulness of God."

6. From long experience and observation I am inclined to think, that whoever finds redemption in the blood of Jesus, whoever is justified, has then the choice of walking in the higher or the lower path. I believe the Holy Spirit at that time sets before him "the more excellent way," and incites him to walk therein, to choose the narrowest path in the narrow way, to aspire after the heights and depths of holiness, -- after the entire image of God. But if he does not accept this offer, he insensibly declines into the lower order of Christians. He still goes on in what may be called a good way, serving God in his degree, and finds mercy in the close of life, through the blood of the covenant.

7. I would be far from quenching the smoking flax, -- from discouraging those that serve God in a low degree. But I could not wish them to stop here: I would encourage them to come up higher, without thundering hell and damnation in their ears, without condemning the way wherein they were, telling them it is the way that leads to destruction, I will endeavour to point out to them what is in every respect "a more excellent way." (emphasis added)

As I continue to reflect on the implications of the Pew Report on Religion among Millennials in the US, our mission as United Methodists to "make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world," and what it means to be missional as opposed to attractional, incarnational as opposed to extractional, here are some further observations.

1. The Pew Report identifies the rate of affiliates. These are people who say they identify themselves with a particular religious group and participate in it in some way.

2. My response to Scot's comment on the previous post was to describe the "first order" or "ordinary Christians" as "babes in Christ" (to use Paul's language). Affiliates in the Pew Report might generally equate to "babes in Christ."

3. Maybe-- but we have no way of testing this-- the 37% of Millennials and GenX AFFILIATES (31% of Boomers) who say they are "strong members of their faith" would correlate more closely to those at least attempting the "more excellent way." I actually tend to doubt quite seriously the figures are anywhere nearly that high. My guess is these folks are active in their congregations and have some sort of personal spiritual life. That doesn't necessarily mean they are actually doing all that Wesley describes. It's hard to say whether these people are in fact continuing to grow, or have simply developed some competency beyond the infant stage. The Pew Report doesn't offer the level of granularity to discern much more than that sort of guess.

4. As I read Wesley, what we now call "disciples" in our mission statement SHOULD equate to those who are diligently pursuing "the more excellent way." They are boldly and intentionally living out the baptismal covenant-- renouncing spiritual forces of wickeness, repenting of sin, resisting evil, filled with the power and freedom Christ gives, working with people of all ages, nations and races, serving Christ as Lord (and no other!), and being Christ's representatives in the world. Actually getting proficient at all of those things and always getting better after some proficiency is achieved-- THAT is the standard and measure of discipleship. THAT is the "more excellent way."

So, Pew says what it does. But it barely scratches the surface of the mission this denomination and the whole history of the church and its baptismal covenant say we're on. Pew identifies that our gestation/nursing rate has declined. It also identifies that the use of typical spiritual practices-- such as reading the scripture and prayer-- have significantly declined.

But what does that have to do with us?

Those of us who are deeply committed to real discipleship that actually involves equipping people to get better and better at living out the baptismal covenant-- rather than just say the words from time to time-- we must get on with doing that. AND we should do so without telling everyone else they're headed to eternal destruction if they don't!

We know a more excellent way-- and it is a way of diligent practice, practice, practice of the means of grace, a disciplined, accountable way of life that actively engages and joins in God's mission in the world. It is not an easy way. But if we desire to be more than babes in arms, and if we wish to see our churches (congregations and missional groups, both!) be more than "babies having babies having babies....," it is the way the Spirit sets before us.

We are called to more than a new birth, as good as new birth is.

We are called to a whole new life-- "to grow up in every way into Him who is the Head."

And to do that is "the more excellent way."

So go-- and be "more excellent" to each other!

Peace in Christ,

Taylor Burton-Edwards

More? Why do we ask for more?

Companions,

We've all heard the news. The United Methodist Church in the US is in decline. Indeed, participation in religion in North America is in decline, with the fastest growing contingent being the non-affiliated.

The recent Pew Report on Millennials and Religion in the US supports that view. Younger people (ages 18-29) do engage some spiritual practices on their own or with affinity groups, though at significantly lower rates than religiously affiliated persons do, and a lower percentage of this age cohort does this with "organized religion" than any previous age cohort in living history (back 70+ years or so, based on Pew's report). Fully 23% profess no affiliation.

Perhaps under-reported in this report is that of those Millennials who are affiliated, about the same percentage (37%) describe themselves as "strong members of their faith" as the two cohorts that preceded them. So the news isn't ALL bad, right?

But that's the point. These are just facts. It takes some sort of interpretation to translate these findings into meanings, and those meanings into judgments, and those judgments into some sort of response.

So the question before those of us who are religiously affiliated, and particularly for those of us whose affiliation is through the United Methodist Church, is what do these facts mean for us?

In other words, what do we make of this? And then how do we respond?

What I think I'm hearing as the almost predictable responses are:

1) The sky is falling! We need to go back to doing revivals, or charismatic prayer, or more seeker-sensitive worship, or better marketing, or planting churches again, and fast, else we'll lose them all!

2) The sky is falling! Our numbers in the UMC are only going to continue to decline if we don't get these younger, non-affiliated people connected with us right now!

3) The sky is falling! Unless we can claim we're continually getting MORE, we're utterly failing!

Well, as I noted in yesterday's entry, Response 1 would represent an inaccurate reading of history. There was no golden age when we were converting non-affiliated people to affiliation in the past century at any rate higher than 4%-- much less to discipleship to Jesus Christ. Revivals have their place. Praying in the Spirit can be a good thing. Planting new churches has merits in many places. But none of those has changed the 4% "real conversion rate."

Response 2 is pretty much what the proposal to try to make the average age of members of the UMC younger by a decade in 10 years amounts to. There are four unethical ways I can think of to do that. We could a) remove, b) refuse to receive or c) "terminate" older members. Good thing, I suppose, that we have a procedural process that makes a) difficult, principles of inclusion that should prevent us from doing b), and both law and morality making c) punishable by prison or worse. We could also just fudge the data-- either by "adding" lots of younger "members" (by whatever means we want to count them) or by just flat out pretending (i.e., lying about the actual ages and numbers of our constituents). I think we all know of cases where congregations were doing that. Some might still be-- either to avoid paying more apportionment dollars (so in this case actually reducing their rolls or refusing to add new members, including refusing to work at confirmation with youth!), or adding or not removing members from the professing role to look better to the DS/Bishop even if that means paying more apportionment dollars. It's unethical, but it does happen. And it probably will again.

Trouble is, I can think of few reasonable mathematical ways, given what appears to be a pretty fixed 4% "conversion" from non-affiliated to affiliated rate across ALL religions (not just Christians!) in the US over the past century combined with an escalating trend of non-affiliation among the "rising age-cohorts" (ages 18-29 in a given decade) over time. Over the past three cohorts it's gone up at an increasing rate... from 12% in the 1980s to 16% in the 1990s (an increase of 33%) to 23% in the 2000s (a decade on decade increase of ~50% and a 2-decade increase of close to 100%!). If the "conversion rate" is a steady 4% but non-affiliation rate is rising geometrically, then we'll catch up in...

Oh.

Maybe we need fuzzier math?

As for Response 3, I wonder if that's the assumption that needs the most substantial rethinking. That rethinking requires us first to admit how pervasive and deep that perspective is for us. We may have to admit our "gut level reflexes" are "tuned" or "primed" or even "addicted" by the idea that "more" must always be our first concern.

Dan Dick addressed this issue of our denomination's fixation on "More" in his blog, United Methodeviations a while back. It's well worth the read.

We seem to be really stuck on this idea that "more is better" and maybe even "more is the highest good."

But is more always better?

No. More is more. Better is better.

And not all more is better.

More cancer cells are not better, that is unless "you" are cancer, and then it's better only until you've managed to kill your host. Then you die, too.

More weight is not generally better, except for things like Sumo Wrestling and perhaps weightlifting, but then only if you're also committed to a) a short lifespan and b) a lot of hard, hard training. Blessings on those who are. I'm not.

More worship space isn't always better, especially if that space gets heated and cooled nearly every day while it's actually used for its intended purpose only one or two days per week for a few hours at a time.

So more isn't always better. Or even desirable!

Yet somehow when we look at the Pew Report on Millennials and UM membership/worship stats and other similar reports showing declines in participation in organized religion in the US, the immediate leap is...

We need, really need, and now absolutely desperately need more, and especially more younger people to sign on with us. And to some of them we seem to say, "If we were like X, would you come?"

I wouldn't.

I'm not a Millennial. I'm GenX. But if I weren't connected with the UMC already (and don't get me wrong, I'm very glad I am!), I'd likely never join a congregation or religious group that seemed to "need me" so much that they'd pander to "my interests" just to get me to come. This would sound to me like more like an group that's desperate to get "more people like me" than one that knows what it's doing and is serious about wanting to connect me with God and be part of transforming me so I can join God's mission in the world with them.

If all I'm there to do is make your group "more," then I'm not going to be there.

But if your group shows me you can make me better, not just part of your more... If you can show me you will put me through my paces and keep me primed so I'm like those athletes the apostle Paul describes and a lot of us are watching on the Olympics right now-- different story. Count me in.

It's the practice that makes perfect. Last time I read it, Matthew does record that Jesus calls us to perfection. None of us gets there without practice. We don't practice if our focus is on more-- we just grab people to fill up our never sated appetite for more and more and more. But if our focus is always, always on better, we DO practice.

Sometimes that leads to more.

ALWAYS it leads to better!

So I look at the Pew numbers, and I hope against hope that at least some of us don't pick any of three response above, and maybe especially not the third.

And I say: Forget "more." Think "better!"


Peace in Christ,

Taylor Burton-Edwards

The Survey Says... Pew Report on Millennials: Implications between the Lines

The Pew Report on Millennials and Religion is now available for viewing and analysis online. There's lots of interesting data on the surface. You can see the full report here:

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=510

But there's even more interesting stuff if you go a bit beneath the surface.

White Protestants are more likely to be unaffiliated (whether de-affiliated or non-affiliated) than other religious or ethnic groups measured in the US. Millennials overall are substantially more likely than GenX to be de-affiliated or non-affiliated (an escalating curve). Meanwhile, rates of re-affiliation after de-affiliation or non-affiliation have stayed steady at around 4% for nearly 70 years.

Put all of that together and you might get this: No efforts by white Protestants in the US to address de-affiliation or non-affiliation (i.e. to "win converts") have actually been game changers for 70 years. Not "revivals" (post-WW II). Not "the charismatic movement" (1960s-early 1980s). Not "church growth" (1970s-2000). Not "conservative resurgence" (1980s-2000). Not "contemporary" or "seeker" worship (1980s-present). Not "new church starts" (all decades, especially 1990s-present). Pretty much all these have done is to "reshuffle" the existing cards into other decks-- not actually do all that much toward including "cards" that never were in play.

It's frankly too early to say whether the "emergent" or "missional" approaches among white Protestants in the US will have fared any better at moving people from unaffiliated to affiliated when scaled up. And I'd tend to think they might not have on a 20 year scale. I say that because given the escalating rate of de-affiliation among white Protestants in the US, it's going to take decades, not years, just to "decrease the increase" in non-affiliation.

There are no silver bullets here, no quick fixes.

But we might learn something from those whose rate of decline in affiliation appears statistically low or nil. I'm talking about historically Black Churches, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Jews, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims-- i.e. pretty much everybody else except white Protestants. There's no way to know from these data exactly what makes the difference, but there are some real differences. None of these less-declining groups has fundamentally embraced Cartesian dualism or Enlightenment epistemology in the ways that white Protestants have. All of them have encoded faith primarily as practices-- not primarily theological specifics or beliefs (Evangelicals) or "mere toleration/belonging" (Mainline)-- though all of them certainly have strong beliefs and have a strong sense of belonging as well. And they've passed on those specific practices with beliefs embedded in them-- whether in liturgy, or community process, or family life-- fairly consistently over time.

And it gets a bit more fun-- because all we're talking about in the Pew Report is how people identify their affiliation-- not whether they are living as disciples of Jesus and actively participating in God's mission in the world.

Read the report-- and share what you think!

Peace in Christ,

Taylor Burton-Edwards

A Midrash on Luke's account of the Call of Peter

I'm going to find some way to use this in the sermon tomorrow. I've enjoyed getting inside the story of Jesus from another perspective before with the Transfiguration account. I haven't decided whose this perspective is yet, but I kind of like the idea of it being the boy who later gives the five loaves and two fish to Jesus to bless and feed the multitude. (Although, I'd need to retool the ending for that.)

A fishing story.
You want to hear a fish story?
I remember that day Simon, the bully of Bethsaida, took that wandering prophet out in his boat to let him preach from it.

He had come once before, and had been welcomed by Simon. Simon usually gathered the largest men and went out to meet any newcomers in town, in case they were zealots or soldiers. But this man had come alone, and Simon had heard of him. He was a healer and a prophet—so he invited him to stay at his own home, where his mother in law was suffering from a fever. That night, the man rebuked the fever, and it immediately went away.

As soon as word had gotten around about Simon’s mother-in-law, everyone brought their sick and ailing to see the man named Jesus. I remember how everyone crowded around Simon’s house, and his daughters tried to organize everyone into groups small enough not to overwhelm the saint. This went on through the night, and he healed all of them, and then slipped away at dawn to be alone in the wilderness. When a group of us found him, he told us that he was going on to preach in more places.

So when he returned one morning, just as the fishermen were cleaning their nets from an unsuccessful night on the lake, everyone gathered around and wanted to hear what he had to say. Sound echoes well over the water. Every fisherman knows you don’t speak with your partners about things you don’t want to get out while you are fishing. Voices just seem to carry over the water, don’t they?. This day, I didn’t have to listen closely for the words of that man. They danced out over the water, and the lake itself seemed to stop lapping at the shore and listen attentively.

The man spoke for awhile about how the Lord was not some far off and aloof God, but was right there with us. He said that God wanted to be known to all of us a child knows his father, and that God wanted to be trusted. Then he told Simon to row out to the deeper water. Seeing him tell Simon what to do made me chuckle to myself. I’d never seen anyone do that before! Usually, Simon stormed around town telling everyone else what to do! He was larger than all the other men in town, and he was persuasive in ways that go beyond words. But, Simon obeyed the strange man.

Then, even though he had already folded his nets and finished for the day, I saw him throwing out the nets again. I couldn’t believe my eyes when they hauled up a catch so big it seemed as though the nets were about to snap! James and John, who were known as the “sons of thunder” because they were also large and commanding young men whom Simon had chosen as partners and everyone thought as future sons-in-law, since Simon only had daughters, were standing on the shore, dumbstruck by the prophet’s words. When they saw the full net, they leaped into their boat and rowed out to help with the haul.

Two boatfuls of beautiful fish shining in a new day’s sunlight weighed down the two boats so low that water actually started seeping over the tops of them. Waterlogged, it took the boats three times as long to bring the boats to shore as usual. When they got the boats to shore, Simon was weeping. I had never seen him shed a tear! There wasn’t a single stray catfish in the haul. (We would have had to throw the catfish back, as we are prohibited by the Law from eating them.) All of them were beautiful tilapia, which after that day we started calling by the name “Simon’s Fish,” and then when Jesus gave him a new name, “Peter’s Fish.”

Simon stumbled out of the boat, and made a plea to everyone there, “forgive me for how I’ve wronged you. Forgive my impatience and my temper and my haughtiness. At these words, James and John fell to their knees as well and joined in the prayer. Jesus stood in the boat, with the fish flopping around at his feet. He said, “Today these men bring in plentiful fish, but I am going to make them fish for people. Care for their families while they are gone. They will return, and you will have the chance to follow too.” Then, he turned to Simon and his brother Andrew and James and John and said, “Come, follow me.”

And they did! They left the fish and the boats and their homes and followed him. I looked at Simon’s wife Ruth, expecting her to be frantic, but she was peaceful. Ever since he had healed her mother, Ruth had spoken of Jesus with reverence. She looked as serene and joyful that day on the beach as she’d been that night, laughing and darting around the room serving the guests with her newly rejuvenated mother.

I wondered what would become of Simon and our town. I wondered if I would go if Jesus had called me. I wondered all of these things, because later that man who seemed so glorious and powerful in that boat would be nailed up on a cross and left to hang and die. Simon Peter would tell everyone who listened that he had seen him in the flesh after his death, but I never saw him again. And so I wonder, because his voice still echoes in my ears, and he seemed to be speaking to me when he said, “Come, Follow me.”

An excellent post about a great event...

Companions,

Kimberly Knight was one of the participants at last week's Emergence Now conference at Columbia Theological Seminary, featuring some of the bigger "names" out there-- Phyllis Tickle, Tony Jones, Phillip Clayton, Doug Pagitt, Barbara Brown Taylor and Bruce Reyes-Chow. No United Methodists among the keynoters... oh well. Maybe the others are tired of hearing Methodists continuing to say we were doing all this stuff 250 years ago and, if we could get over our current "glommed" thinking and organizing, are primed to do so again.

I was following the conference on Twitter as it was happening-- couldn't be there myself. And you can at least follow what was tweeted by searching the hashtag #enow.

Anyway, Kimberly Knight today posted her summary/reflection on the event-- and I highly commend her post. From what I could see via the tweets, she's described it very well. You can find her post here: http://ow.ly/138OV

Feel free to comment on her blog post or here about anything there...

Peace in Christ,

Taylor Burton-Edwards