xphiles

What We Profess, and What We Believe

Why is it so hard for USA Christians, particularly mainline Protestants, to do ministry around stewardship and evangelism?  These two essential dimensions to deepening Christian life and thriving Christian community are often the two aspects of a congregation's ministry that struggle the most.

The "evangelism committee" (or team, or group, or task force) always needs more members.  Stewardship always has an uncomfortable feel to it.  Congregations are always asking for help in these two aspects of mission.  And they are also frequently the flashpoints around which congregational anxiety and conflict erupt.

Stewardship and evangelism.  Why?

Well, I'm sure that part of it is they're both so "personal."  They imply vulnerability.  (I have to confess - talking stewardship doesn't feel invasive to me the way I perceive it does for so many.  I think a big part of that is having my full compensation package publicly voted on every year.  But I think I'm in the minority on this one.)  For some reason, we are so awkward when it comes to talking about how we give, save, and spend our money.  And for some reason, we get so scared when it's time to share with others the news we are convinced is the best there ever will be.

I have a guess at one of the deeper, more powerful, reasons why this is all so.

Sometimes, It Just Doesn't Work

Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies:

"It is said that Thales of Miletus, one of the seven wise men, first attempted to frame a system of natural philosophy...  And he, looking toward heaven, alleging that he was carefully examining supernal objects, fell into a well; and a certain maid, by name Thratta, remarked of him derisively, that while intent on beholding things in heaven, he did not know what was at his feet."

So why does Hippolytus, in his (oh so modest) endeavor to refute all heresies, start here?  The obvious answer is chronology: start with the earliest Greek philosopher.  But maybe there's something else going on in this account of an egghead scholar being mocked by a common maid.

Thales was brilliant; enough so that he is remembered, in reputation and by repetition at least, to this day.  That's wonderful, Hippolytus would grant.  But his deep learning didn't accord with the mundane, messy (dare I say incarnate?) realities of lived existence.  He fell into holes in the ground.  Maybe Hippolytus starts his defense of the Christian faith not on the basis of scholarly accomplishment (how many thinkers will be remembered thousands of years after their death?), but on the basis of where a person's feet end up.

There's Something in Your Faith That Needs An Enemy...

"Fundamentalist."  It's a word that gets thrown around a lot.  We know it has historical roots in those Christians who, resisting what they saw as the modernist-liberal distortion of Christianity, subcribed to certain non-negotiable "fundamentals" such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus.  Rejection of "higher criticism," belief in miracles, etc.  (See here for the books.)  Well, the word has escaped that meaning and has taken on a life of its own.  Now, "fundamentalist" is an adjective that can be added to almost anything: fundamentalist Islam, fundamentalist Christianity, fundamentalist Judaism, even fundamentalist secularism! 

Wiser heads than I have seen that the "fundy" label often gets used by secular/ progressive folks for anyone who takes religious faith seriously enough that it influences their behavior.  In other words, if your faith isn't entirely private, you must be a fundamentalist.  That's not exactly useful.

There is a certain mindset, though, that the term evokes.  Is there a way to use it in a helpful, descriptive manner?  I'd like to take a stab at it.