Pastors

A Holy Experiment

Aaron Niequist and Steve Carter discuss launching a new initiative at Willow Creek.

Leadership Journal September 23, 2014

When Willow Creek Community Church was founded in 1975, it emerged as one of the most innovative congregations in the country. Seeking to reach a culture full of "Unchurched Harrys and Marys," Willow re-imagined how the church did worship, preaching, outreach, and discipleship. Other church leaders have been eager to learn from Willow's innovative model ever since.

Forty years later, many of the ideas Willow Creek pioneered are now commonplace, but the church has not lost its innovative impulse. A new generation of pastors is building on Willow's heritage of leadership by experimenting with forms of worship and discipleship never before tried at the church. Aaron Niequist, a worship pastor, and Steve Carter, a teaching pastor, are beginning an 18-month experiment at Willow Creek called The Practice. Leadership Journal editors Drew Dyck and Skye Jethani sat down with Niequist and Carter to discuss their holy experiment.

Most ministries tend to think about innovation or change when they notice their existing plan is no longer effective. Was that the case for Willow Creek?

Steve Carter: Not at all. The conversation emerged from a place of opportunity, not fear or decline. We've been humbled and surprised by how God has been working at Willow, and we wanted to be open to what he wants to do next.

Aaron Niequist: And that is what is exciting for me about the culture at Willow. We don't settle. There's a sense that there is still ground to be taken. There are still ways to grow. There are still things we don't know and ways we can learn. I think Bill [Hybels] and the executive team have modeled that attitude.

Carter: That culture of innovation is even reflected in the church's operating budget. We have a fund called Winds of the Spirit. A small percentage of every dollar that's given goes into that fund which is reserved for unplanned opportunities. When God moves and we want to be able to inject resources into that opportunity, the funding comes from the Winds of the Spirit.

Knowing that fund was available, last year the executive team began having conversations based on our Reveal research. We were asking, "How do we do more for people who want to dive deeper and become more committed disciples?"

Aaron, were you aware of those conversations happening among leaders?

Niequist: Not at first. I was having my own conversations with ministry friends about wanting to experiment with new models, but then when I spoke with leaders at Willow I starting hearing overlapping themes. These weren't official meetings, just casual conversations with friends in leadership reflecting on what was working well at Willow and what wasn't.

Willow does a million things well, but I've really respected the ability of leaders to be honest and say, "You know what? We need to work on this." Or, "We're not doing this as much as we wish we could." And, "What would it look like to try that?" That openness and honesty is where the whole idea for a new experiment emerged.

It also emerged from a presentation at last year's Global Leadership Summit by Vijay Govindarajan about innovation. What influence did that have?

Niequist: Honestly without Vijay's talk at the Summit, the Practice experiment could not have happened, because it gave us the language to navigate and frame what we needed to do. He spoke about his book, Beyond the Idea, and his three-box strategy. Basically, every organization, he said, has three boxes. Box One is about managing the present. It's everything the organization is doing to maintain itself. Box Two is about making minor improvements to make Box One even better. But Box Three is about creating the future. It's all about innovation.

Vijay said that without a Box Three, without a space to experiment with new ideas, even the best organizations will not last. He also kept talking about how important it was to create space between Box One and Box Three. Otherwise, he warned, you'll just be creating little copies of Box One. Box Threes have to have different goals, a different culture, different people, and different metrics in order to create real innovation.

Carter: What I love about what Vijay's model is how it allows Box One to not be about innovation. It doesn't have to change, which is a pressure we always feel. Instead Box One can focus on what it does well, and improving that incrementally. He provided a model for innovation that didn't require deconstructing what was still working.

But if Box One is doing well, as it appears to be at Willow, why bother with the cost and headache of creating a Box Three?

Niequist: Because there's no guarantee Box One will keep working forever. Sustainability for the future will require discovering new models. That's what Box Three is for. That's where you experiment and try new things without knowing for sure what's going to work.

Can you give an example of how this has worked outside the church?

Carter: Gore-Tex is a company where employees are allowed to use 10 percent of their time to dream and experiment with Box Three ideas. One Gore-Tex employee was a fisherman and he started a Box Three experiment to create the strongest fishing line possible. But as the project developed, they discovered what they created wasn't very good fishing line but awesome guitar strings. That's how Elixir guitar strings were created.

That's the benefit of experimentation, but what are the risks?

Carter: If there isn't profound relational warmth, and a desire for connection between leaders in Box One and Box Three, then it quickly becomes deconstructionist. That's when you create splits and divisions. That's the big risk from Day One for a church trying a Box Three experiment.

Niequist: There are a lot of stories about "church-within-a-church" experiments that started with a desire to be new and innovative, but they ended up creating tension, and then disunity, and it eventually splits off. That's not always a bad outcome, but it is one of the real risks.

Carter: I think at the core there must be trust. Box One has got to trust that Box Three is not trying to destroy or replace it. At the same time, Box Three has got to be gracious and thankful to Box One for providing the opportunity to do its experimentation. All of that requires leaders in both boxes to be warm, gracious, and in a humble posture of learning from one another.

Tell us more about what your Box Three, which you call The Practice, is hoping to achieve?

Niequist: We talk a lot about a gymnasium metaphor. Teaching is important for growth, but sitting in a classroom can only take you so far. When we look at what we do in most church gatherings it's centered on a lecturer. It's a classroom. But if I want to learn how to run a marathon, I wouldn't want to go hear a lecture about a marathon. I'd want to train with a coach. And so we asked, "What if a church was more like a gymnasium than a classroom? What if the church gathering was a time when we came together to practice rather than just listen?" It's a different kind of learning. That's why we're calling our experiment "The Practice." The focus is on the disciplines of the Christian life and the different practices that train us to go out and practice what Jesus said Monday through Saturday.

You have limited The Practice to an 18-month experiment. Why have an end date? Why not just launch this project and see how it goes? Who knows, maybe it will go for 20 years and be fantastic. Why stop it at 18 months?

Niequist: Because the goal is not to launch a new ministry. The goal is learning. We know from the Reveal research that getting people involved in more church programs doesn't necessarily lead to more mature disciples. So we weren't interested in just creating new services or activities for people. What we wanted was a space to experiment and learn. People keep asking me, "What's going to happen after 18 months?" And I always answer the same way. "I'm trying to think about that as little as possible." I feel that if we put together a five-year plan or a set of clear goals for The Practice then we'll lose the experimental nature of it. Once you focus on sustainability you stop taking risks and trying new ideas.

You might set the goal to develop fishing line, but God intends to give you guitar strings.

Niequist: Exactly. And we need to be open to that possibility.

When you say The Practice is only an 18-month experiment, does that cause anxiety for anybody who's interested in being involved or is it freeing?

Niequist: I think it's been freeing because then they're not being expected to switch services or completely abandon the Willow they know. They're being invited to explore something new with us on Sunday nights. It makes participating easier.

For some Christians "innovation and experimentation" is code language for heresy. What boundaries are in place to ensure The Practice doesn't wander off into unsafe territory?

Niequist: In the proposal we drafted for the executive leadership team, I said we will joyfully submit to the authority of Willow's elders, to the church's statement of faith, and to our governing documents and bylaws. We're not interested messing around with any of that stuff. We want to experiment with how those beliefs get expressed and fleshed out in the lives of our people; how do we get formed into them?

So far is seems that The Practice is adapting old models, including liturgical and sacramental practices. How does that fit with being innovative?

Carter: Liturgy and sacrament may not be new, but they are for many people at Willow.

Niequist: We're not really creating anything; we're rediscovering. My hope is to draw from many traditions of the church to rediscover what forms and practices can help us grow as disciples. I'm squarely evangelical, and there is a lot to affirm in my tradition. Being a worship leader for the last 10 year, first at Mars Hill and then at Willow, I've realized that four Tomlin songs and a hymn every weekend for 52 weeks is helpful up to a certain point. There is a lot to learn from other models that can be very helpful.

Can you share an example of how the experimentation at The Practice is already influencing Willow's Box One?

Carter: During Holy Week, on Wednesday, we invited leaders from The Practice to lead the all-staff meeting. We gathered everyone in the chapel, which is where The Practice meets on Sunday nights, and they led us through the same liturgy and practices they did the previous week. We used Matthew 11, "Come to me all you who are weary," for a time of Lectio Divina. What church staff member on the Wednesday of Holy Week isn't weary? After that we did five minutes of silence. Imagine 350 Type-A megachurch staff member during Holy Week sitting for five minutes in silence listening to Jesus say, "Come to me." That led into communion. It was really beautiful.

Niequist: I hope that time was a gift to each staff member during Holy Week, but the other huge benefit was that The Practice was no longer just a theory. That staff was no longer saying, "What are you crazy guys doing on Sunday nights?" After the all-staff meeting more of them understood what we were doing and how it can help. It offered Box One and glimpse into Box Three.

What advice do you give to church leaders who are not in a place to create an entirely new Box Three to experiment with? How can they still make space for innovation?

Niequist: I used to be responsible for 52 Sundays a year. It was totally overwhelming, as all pastors know. During that season I realized I wasn't creating anything. I was never dreaming. I was just planning on a six-day cycle. So I started using every Wednesday afternoon just to create. Everyone knew no meetings could be scheduled for me during that time. It was just for creation and exploration. I used Wednesday afternoon to read a new book or write a song—but nothing that had to do with planning the weekend services. Nothing related to Box One. I did that for seven years.

Carter: A lot of us cannot control the church systems we are a part of. We cannot create a Box Three for the church or get the funding they need. But we usually have more control over our schedules then we think. We can create our own Box Three.

Editorial Note: We are staying connected with Aaron Niequist and Steve Carter as they continue The Practice. We will have another interview about half way through the 18-month experiment to see what Willow is learning from the experiment. Stay tuned!

Copyright © 2014 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Ideas

Oy With the Poodles Already

Columnist; Contributor

With its Netflix debut imminent, it’s time to talk about “Gilmore Girls.”

Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel

Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel

Christianity Today September 22, 2014

Today over at the New York Times’ “Op-Talk” page, Hanna Kozlowska takes a look at what made Gilmore Girls so popular—and what’s behind its continued appeal.

Lorelai, Rory, and the elder Gilmores (Kelly Bishop and Edward Herrmann)
Lorelai, Rory, and the elder Gilmores (Kelly Bishop and Edward Herrmann)

This is, of course, prompted by the recent announcement that the show will be streaming in its entirety, beginning October 1. That announcement exploded the Internet in a good way (something we don’t see all that often these days, what with the NFL and the Middle East and the outrage-of-the-day), as Kozlowska points out.

In case you lived under a rock in a prior decade, Gilmore Girls was a WB (and CW) dramedy that aired from 2000 to 2007. In it, Lorelai Gilmore (Lauren Graham) was a single mother who raised her brainy daughter Rory (Alexis Bledel) in the small Connecticut town of Stars Hollow, populated by quirky, lovable characters, especially Luke (Scott Patterson), the gruff guy who owned the diner and Lorelai’s on-and-off love interest, and Lorelai’s best friend Sookie (Melissa McCarthy!), a chef. The show was funny, noticeably fast-talking, and mostly friendly enough for parents and teens to watch together; it grappled with some very big themes in both Lorelai’s and Rory’s coming-of-age stories, and it did it without seeming like a Story About Growing Up.

In today’s piece, Kozlowska (by the way, apologies to her for reusing her last line for this title; I couldn’t think of a greater one-liner) talks to a number of people who offer reasons for why the show was so popular: its mix of relentless pop culture and literary references, smart writing, and great characters; its central character of Rory, who was an instant best friend of all bookish, slightly nerdy girls (like, let’s be honest, myself) who nonetheless found herself struggling into adulthood; its focus on a family that didn’t look like the typical American TV family, but did look a lot like many actual American families; and, of course, its cast of weirdo characters and litany of quotable lines.

Paris Geller (Liza Weil), Rory's type-A nemesis and eventual friend
Paris Geller (Liza Weil), Rory’s type-A nemesis and eventual friend

I started watching the show about a year before it ended and binged through it on DVDs. Turned out the impetus was my husband. He’d watched it with family, and loved it, and knew I’d love it too. I won’t lie: I was a hard sell (at the time any show with “girls” in the title seemed dubious to me; things have changed), but they hooked me right off the bat with the writing, and continued as I was drawn into the struggles that Lorelai and Rory and everyone else encountered. I was in the middle of a crisis of career and a new marriage, and trying to figure out who I was now.

The show gave me a safe place to see other people think about that, make mistakes (some very big) and learn from them, without all the sap and sentimentality. And I could laugh, too, and care about these people. And though its sole depiction of religion is somewhat caricatured (see below), I felt like a lot of what it dealt with were universal matters, no matter your religious background.

Last week on Twitter, I asked a very similar question, inquiring of my follower list why they thought the show was so important. And I got a bunch of interesting answers. Here’s a few of the things I’m still thinking about, days later, and some of my own thoughts. (Maybe some mild plot spoilers below, but the show’s been over for seven years, so, tough.)

Sam Phillips did all of the music, except the theme song. Sam used to be a CCM artist, once upon a time, and was married to the extremely well-known music producer T. Bone Burnett (of Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? fame) for years as well, and he produced some of her albums. Our friend Jeffrey Overstreet (author of that piece on Dead Poets Society last week) interviewed her for the faith-based arts journal IMAGE a few years ago. Go read it.

Luke (Scott Patterson) and Jess (Milo Ventimiglia), his nephewGILMORE GIRLS "Say Goodnight Gracie" (Episode #320) Image # GG320-0309 Pictured (left to right): Scott Patterson as Luke Danes, Milo Ventimiglia as Jess Photo Credit: © The WB / Justin Lubin
Luke (Scott Patterson) and Jess (Milo Ventimiglia), his nephew

— One of my friends—the YA novelist Sara Zarr, author of Story of a Girl and others—tweeted to me that part of its appeal was “Rory as a recognizable human girl. Smart, insecure, cared about family & the world. Not just an object for romantic storylines or teen drama object lessons.” She also pointed out that Lorelai, “as selfish as she can sometimes seem . . . is always TRYING to love Rory sacrificially.”

— So here is something interesting: I did run across some violently negative reactions to the show. All were from men (thoughtful friends of mine!), who generally viewed the show as either presenting unrealistic or shallow characters. I argued (and I still think they’re wrong): I viewed Rory’s struggles, particularly in later episodes, as the most realistic thing about her, and their plethora of bad choices along with the good ones as being part and parcel of what I’ve experienced as I’ve grown up. I’ll be honest: this particular response astounded me (and, for her part, Sara Zarr, who characterized it as “unintentional/unaware devaluing of female perspective & experience.” What do you think?

Lane's (somewhat awkward) wedding
Lane’s (somewhat awkward) wedding

— Lane Kim, Rory’s childhood best friend, doesn’t come up much in discussions of the show. But I found her fascinating. Lane was from a strict Korean Seventh-Day Adventist home, with a mother who seemed especially caricatured as strict and foreboding. But as the show wore on, it became clear that we’d seen Mrs. Kim through the teenager’s eyes. Lane wound up being in a successful band, with her mother acting as her agent and basically forcing her not to quit when things got tough, even after Lane dropped out of the Seventh Day Adventist college and was living with bandmates. She also—possibly uniquely, on TV comedies—tells her boyfriend that she wants to be a virgin until she gets married, and then holds to that unashamedly. But then! There’s a uniquely realistic and humorous take on the ins and outs of that choice, something I suspect that a lot of people like me can relate to. It was remarkable to see, and refreshing.

— Several people pointed out that the witty writing was part of it for them—but, even more interesting, the show is populated by a lot of female characters and frequently passes the Bechdel test. One person pointed out that in Gilmore Girls, the normal parent/child roles are richer than we often see on TV, especially in comedy: “having the adult be more than just an annoying buzz kill and the child being more than just a prop was huge.”

Rory with Jess, the best of her boyfriends (don't argue)
Rory with Jess, the best of her boyfriends (don’t argue)

— And this bears repeating: part of the appeal of Gilmore Girls was that it was a show that expected its viewers to be smart and savvy, and not just up on pop cultural references. Rory was forever reading a book; there were references to journalists and celebrities and politicians and thinkers left and right, which not only lent the show a certain amount of gravitas, but also implied, strongly, to viewers that it was completely cool to be smart. I don’t know about you, but I have been in several life situations in betraying that you Knew Things was seen as a foible or a quirk, but Gilmore Girls said, no: it’s totally normal, and probably good.

— Totally taking authorial privilege here: Jess is my favorite of the boyfriends. I defy you to prove me wrong. (Though obviously she should have ended up with Marty.)

Enough about me. What about you? Did you watch the show? Did you like it? And what made it important?

News

1 in 4 Pastors Have Struggled with Mental Illness, Finds LifeWay and Focus on the Family

Family ministry has LifeWay Research examine how well (or not well) churches address mental health.

Christianity Today September 22, 2014
LifeWay Research

[Updated with Ed Stetzer quotes]

Your pastor is just as likely to experience mental illness as any other American, according to a LifeWay Research survey commissioned by Focus on the Family.

Nearly 1 in 4 pastors (23 percent) acknowledge they have “personally struggled with mental illness,” and half of those pastors said the illness had been diagnosed, according to the poll (infographics below). One in four U.S. adults experience mental illness in a given year, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

Recent deaths by suicide of high-profile pastors’ children, including Rick Warren’s son Matthew and Joel Hunter's son Isaac, have prompted increased attention to mental illness from pastors’ pulpits and pens. Warren launched “The Gathering on Mental Health and the Church” this past spring. High-profile pastors, including NewSpring Church pastor Perry Noble, have publicly documented their struggles with mental illness.

“Here’s what we know from observation: If you reveal your struggle with mental illness as a pastor, it’s going to limit your opportunities,” Ed Stetzer, executive director of LifeWay Research, told CT. “What happens is pastors who are struggling with mental illness tend not to say it until they are already successful. So Perry Noble, running a church of 30,000 plus, just last year says ‘I have severe depression.’”

“We have to break the stigma that causes people to say that people with mental illness are just of no value,” he added. “These high-profile suicides made it okay to talk about, but I think Christians have been slower than the population at large to recognize what mental illness is, let alone what they should do."

The majority of pastors (66 percent) still rarely or never talk about mental illness in sermons or before large groups, the survey found. About one-fourth of pastors bring up mental illness several times a year, and 7 percent say they tackle it once a month or more.

Struggling laypeople wish their churches dealt with the issue more; 59 percent of respondents with a mental illness want their church to talk more openly about it, as do 65 percent of their family members.

“Our research found people who suffer from mental illness often turn to pastors for help,” Stetzer noted in a news release. “But pastors need more guidance and preparation for dealing with mental health crises. They often don’t have a plan to help individuals or families affected by mental illness, and miss opportunities to be the church.”

Other “key disconnects” uncovered by the study:

  • Two-thirds of pastors (68 percent) say their church maintains a list of local mental health resources for church members. But few families (28 percent) are aware those resources exist.
  • Only a quarter of churches (27 percent) have a plan to assist families affected by mental illness, according to pastors. And only 21 percent of family members are aware of a plan in their church.
  • Few churches (14 percent) have a counselor skilled in mental illness on staff, or train leaders how to recognize mental illness (13 percent), according to pastors.

The disconnect isn’t because of a lack of compassion. Most pastors (74 percent) say they aren’t reluctant to get involved with those with acute mental illnesses, and nearly 60 percent have provided counseling to people who were later diagnosed.

Instead, pastors can feel overwhelmed at times with how to properly respond to the mental health needs of members of their congregation; 22 percent said they were reluctant to do more because it took “too much time.”

“Pastors are trained for spiritual struggle. They’re not trained for mental illness,” Stetzer told CT. “And so, what they will often do is pass someone off. I don’t think what that 20 percent says is ‘Forget you,’ but ‘I can’t handle this.’”

The silence at church can lead to a reluctance to share, Atlanta-based psychiatrist Michael Lyles told LifeWay. “The vast majority of [my evangelical Christian patients] have not told anybody in their church what they were going through, including their pastors, including small group leaders, everybody,” he said in the release.

In fact, 10 percent of the 200 respondents with mental illness said they have switched churches after a church’s poor response to them, and another 13 percent stopped going altogether or couldn’t find a church.

But more than half of regular churchgoers with mental illness said they stayed where they were, and half also said that their church has been supportive. One way churches can be supportive, Stetzer suggested to CT, is regular meetings between pastoral staff and the person suffering from mental illness, even as the individual continues to receive consistent medical treatment.

“The Bible is filled with people who struggled with suicide, or were majorly depressed or bi-polar,” said Focus on the Family pyschologist Jared Pingleton in the LifeWay release. “David was totally bi-polar. Elijah probably was as well. They are not remembered for those things. They are remembered for their faith.”

Researchers focused on three groups:

They surveyed 1,000 senior Protestant pastors about how their churches approaches mental illness. Researchers then surveyed 355 Protestant Americans diagnosed with an acute mental illness—either moderate or severe depression, bipolar, or schizophrenia. Among them were 200 church-goers.

A third survey polled 207 Protestant family members of people with acute mental illness.

Researchers also conducted in-depth interview with 15 experts on spirituality and mental illness.

LifeWay's full release is copied below.

CT frequently addresses mental health, including how pastors can guard against mental illness, the spiritual side of mental illness, how Facebook can affect your mental health, and how nothing, not even suicide, can separate people from the love of God. CT also covered Saddleback Church senior pastor Rick Warren’s mental health ministry launch after his son Matthew took his own life in 2013.

—–

Mental Illness Remains Taboo Topic for Many Pastors

By Bob Smietana

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – One in four Americans suffers from some kind of mental illness in any given year, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness. Many look to their church for spiritual guidance in times of distress.But they're unlikely to find much help on Sunday mornings.

Most Protestant senior pastors (66 percent) seldom speak to their congregation about mental illness.

That includes almost half (49 percent) who rarely (39 percent) or never (10 percent), speak about mental illness. About 1in 6 pastors (16 percent) speak about mental illness once a year. And about quarter of pastors (22 percent) are reluctant to help those who suffer from acute mental illness because it takes too much time.

Those are among the findings of a recent study of faith and mental illness by Nashville-based LifeWay Research. The study, co-sponsored by Focus on the Family, was designed to help churches better assist those affected by mental illness.

Researchers looked at three groups for the study.

They surveyed 1,000 senior Protestant pastors about how their churches approaches mental illness. Researchers then surveyed 355 Protestant Americans diagnosed with an acute mental illness—either moderate or severe depression, bipolar, or schizophrenia. Among them were 200 church-goers.

A third survey polled 207 Protestant family members of people with acute mental illness.

Researchers also conducted in-depth interview with 15 experts on spirituality and mental illness.

The study found pastors and churches want to help those who experience mental illness. But those good intentions don’t always lead to action.

"Our research found people who suffer from mental illness often turn to pastors for help," said Ed Stetzer, executive director of LifeWay Research.

"But pastors need more guidance and preparation for dealing with mental health crises. They often don’t have a plan to help individuals or families affected by mental illness, and miss opportunities to be the church."

A summary of findings includes a number of what researchers call ‘key disconnects’ including:

That silence can leave people feeling ashamed about mental illness, said Jared Pingleton, director of counseling services at Focus on the Family. Those with mental illness can feel left out, as if the church doesn’t care. Or worse, they can feel mental illness is a sign of spiritual failure.

"We can talk about diabetes and Aunt Mable’s lumbago in church—those are seen as medical conditions,” he said. “But mental illness–that’s somehow seen as a lack of faith."

Most pastors say they know people who have been diagnosed with mental illness. Nearly 6 in 10 (59 percent) have counseled people who were later diagnosed.

And pastors themselves aren’t immune from mental illness. About a quarter of pastors (23 percent), say they’ve experienced some kind of mental illness, while 12 percent say they received a diagnosis for a mental health condition.

But those pastors are often reluctant to share their struggles, said Chuck Hannaford, a clinical psychologist and president of HeartLife Professional Soul-Care in Germantown, Tennessee. He was one of the experts interviewed for the project.

Hannaford counsels pastors in his practice and said many – if they have a mental illness like depression or anxiety—won’t share that information with the congregation.

He doesn't think pastors should share all the details of their diagnosis. But they could acknowledge they struggle with mental illness.

"You know it’s a shame that we can’t be more open about it,” he told researchers. “But what I’m talking about is just an openness from the pulpit that people struggle with these issues and it’s not an easy answer."

Those with mental illness can also be hesitant to share their diagnosis at church. Michael Lyles, an Atlanta-based psychiatrist, says more than half his patients come from an evangelical Christian background.

"The vast majority of them have not told anybody in their church what they were going through, including their pastors, including small group leaders, everybody," Lyle said.

Stetzer said what appears to be missing in most church responses is "an open forum for discussion and intervention that could help remove the stigma associated with mental illness."

"Churches talk openly about cancer, diabetes, heart attacks and other health conditions – they should do the same for mental illness, in order to reduce the sense of stigma," Stetzer said.

Researchers asked those with mental illness about their experience in church.

LifeWay Research also asked open-ended questions about how mental illness has affected people’s faith. Those without support from the church said they struggled.

“My faith has gone to pot and I have so little trust in others,” one respondent told researchers.

“I have no help from anyone,” said another respondent.

But others found support when they told their church about their mental illness.

Mental illness, like other chronic conditions, can feel overwhelming at times, said Pingleton. Patients can feel as if their diagnosis defines their life. But that’s not how the Bible sees those with mental illness, he said.

He pointed out that many biblical characters suffered from emotional struggles. And some, were they alive today, would likely be diagnosed with mental illness.

“The Bible is filled with people who struggled with suicide, or were majorly depressed or bi-polar, he said. “David was totally bi-polar. Elijah probably was as well. They are not remembered for those things. They are remembered for their faith.”

LifeWay Research’s study was featured in a two-day radio broadcast from Focus on the Family on September 18 and 19. The study, along with a guide for pastors on how to assist those with mental illness and other downloadable resources, are posted at ThrivingPastor.com/MentalHealth.

LifeWay Research also looked at how churches view the use of medication to treat mental illness, about mental and spiritual formation, among other topics. Those findings will be released later this fall.

Methodology:
LifeWay Research conducted 1,000 telephone surveys of Protestant pastors May 7-31, 2014. Responses were weighted to reflect the size and geographic distribution of Protestant churches. The sample provides 95% confidence that the sampling error does not exceed plus or minus 3.1%. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

LifeWay Research conducted 355 online surveys July 4-24, 2014among Protestant adults who suffer from moderate depression, severe depression, bipolar, or schizophrenia. The completed sample includes 200 who have attended worship services at a Christian church once a month or more as an adult.

LifeWay Research conducted 207 online surveys July 4-20, 2014 among Protestant adults who attend religious services at a Christian church on religious holidays or more often and have immediate family members in their household suffering from moderate depression, severe depression, bipolar, or schizophrenia.

Only a quarter of churches (27 percent) have a plan to assist families affected by mental illness according to pastors.And only 21 percent of family members are aware of a plan in their church. Few churches (14 percent) have a counselor skilled in mental illness on staff, or train leaders how to recognize mental illness (13 percent) according to pastors. Two-thirds of pastors (68 percent) say their church maintains a list of local mental health resources for church members. But few families (28 percent) are aware those resources exist. Family members (65 percent) and those with mental illness (59 percent) want their church to talk openly about mental illness, so the topic will not be a taboo. But 66 percent of pastors speak to their church once a year or less on the subject. A few – (10 percent)—say they’ve changed churches because of how a particular church responded to their mental illness. Another 13 percent ether stopped attending church (8 percent) or could not find a church (5 percent). More than a third, 37 percent, answered, “don’t know,” when asked how their church’s reaction to their illness affected them. Among regular churchgoers with mental illness, about half (52 percent) say they have stayed at the same church. Fifteen percent changed churches, while 8 percent stopped going to church, and 26 percent said, “Don’t know.” Over half, 53 percent, say their church has been supportive. About thirteen percent say their church was not supportive. A third (33 percent) answered, “don’t know” when asked if their church was supportive. “Several people at my church (including my pastor) have confided that they too suffer from mental illness,” said one respondent. “Reminding me that God will get me through and to take my meds,” said another.

News

Pew Surprised by How Many Americans Want Religion Back in Politics

Fresh stats on who thinks churches should endorse candidates, whether homosexual behavior is a sin, and has it gotten harder to be an evangelical.

Christianity Today September 22, 2014
Pew Research Center

More Americans want more religion in politics, according to a new Pew Research Center study exploring the "growing appetite" for churches endorsing political candidates and other intersections of church and state.

While three out of four Americans (72%, a record high) believe that religion is "losing its influence on American life," a majority of Americans (56 percent) also believe this shift has been for the worse. White evangelicals are the most likely to view the change negatively (77 percent), but the majority of white mainline Protestants (66 percent), black Protestants (65 percent), and Catholics (61 percent) feel likewise.

Gregory Smith, Pew’s director of U.S. religion surveys, previewed a number of what he called the study's "surprising" and "interesting" findings at the Religion Newswriters Association’s annual conference on Thursday.

Fewer Americans now believe churches (and other houses of worship) should stay out of politics. A narrow minority (48 percent) agree with this in 2014, versus a narrow majority (52 percent) in 2010, according to the study. About half (49 percent) also now believe that churches should express views on social and political questions, an increase from 43 percent in 2010.

While white evangelicals are most likely to support churches voicing political opinions (66 percent in 2014, versus 56 percent in 2010), support increased most among white mainline Protestants (49 percent in 2014, versus 35 percent in 2010). Support among black Protestants—two-thirds of whom are evangelicals, according to Smith—increased from 53 percent to 58 percent, widening the gap between how black and white evangelicals view the question.

While most Americans still believe churches should not have the legal right to endorse candidates, support for such pulpit endorsements has notably increased—including one-third of Americans overall, and a roughly 50-percent increase among the religiously unaffiliated, or so-called "nones." In 2010, 26 percent of the religiously affiliated and 15 percent of the “nones” said they would favor churches publicly backing candidates; in 2014, the percentages increased to 35 and 23 percent, respectively.

In the one statistic to combine evangelicals across ethnic groups, one in three evangelicals said it has become harder to be an evangelical in recent years.

On the increasingly prominent question of whether business owners opposed to same-sex marriage should be required to provide flowers, food, or photography for such weddings, Pew found that Americans are evenly split over the answer: 49 percent believe all businesses must serve same-sex weddings; 47 percent believe business owners should be allowed to follow their personal religious convictions. White evangelicals were the lone group where the majority sided with conscience of the business owner (71 percent); in contrast, a minority of white mainline Protestants (49 percent), Catholics (40 percent), and black Protestants (37 percent) agree.

Despite occupying opposite sides of this particular debate, white evangelicals (82 percent) and black Protestants (77 percent) were both more likely than other religious groups to believe homosexual behavior is sinful.

And overall, the number of Americans in agreement has actually risen slightly: 50 percent in 2014, versus 45 percent in 2010. "The change is statistically significant," said Smith. "What is harder to answer is if it is a substantively important change. It's too early to say if this is a reversal or a leveling off of current trends [in increased support of homosexuality and same-sex marriage]. That is not the conclusion I would reach yet."

Pew conducted the study of a national sample of 2,002 adults from Sept. 2-9. The margin of error for the general sample was 2.5 percentage points; among Protestant groups, it was 5.8 for white evangelicals, 6.2 for mainline Protestants, and 9 for black Protestants.

CT has covered evangelicals' favorite same-sex marriage laws, the court ruling which ignited debate on servicing same-sex weddings, asked whether Jesus would bake a cake for a same-sex wedding in Arizona (depends who you ask), and considered whether the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the national legalization of same-sex marriage.

CT also looked at a “theatrical” movement that encourages pastors to speak out on political issues and call the IRS’ “bluff.”

Past coverage of Pew Research studies includes perspectives on interfaith marriage, the morality of suicide, and global religious liberty issues.

Pastors

When Loving is Knowing

An interview with Esther Lightcap Meek

Leadership Journal September 22, 2014

As Christians and church leaders, we’re forever on a quest for understanding—God, ourselves, our context, the Bible, each other. But we rarely stop and think about the way we do it.

After reading Christian philosopher Esther Lightcap Meek’s A Little Manual for Knowing, I built a church staff retreat around reflections from the book. It became an opportunity for us to reflect on our approaches to such questions as:

  • What does it look like to fill a new role?
  • How do we decide what the people of our church and community need?
  • What does it mean to be a faithful spouse and parent?
  • What decisions should I make about the future?
  • How do I know how to answer questions from those I disciple?
  • What does it mean to serve as a family?
  • What does it mean for Christ to be the center of all we do?
  • I’m sensing a new direction coming in my life. Is God in it?
  • How do I choose where God is leading this church?

We didn’t all walk away with answers, but we all walked away with affirmation and tools for new ways of understanding ourselves and the work of God. We were invited into a process of listening and learning that had the power to shape us.

Recently, I was honored to have a conversation with Meek, who is a writer and professor of philosophy at Geneva College, and visiting professor of apologetics at Redeemer Seminary in Dallas, Texas. – Mandy

Mandy: The moment I heard your phrase “loving in order to know,” I loved it—even though I didn’t know what it meant. Could you sum it up for us?

Esther: We generally think that knowledge is information. It’s not that knowledge isn’t information, but “knowledge-as-information” is a posture that we ought to reconsider. The best knowing comes from loving in order to know.

We don’t collect information and then decide whether or not we love. We don’t get information right if we don’t love first. This is because knowing that invites understanding involves covenantal relationship. That starts with love, and then pledge. So in the loving in order to know approach (what I call “covenant epistemology”), the knower/yet-to-be-known relationship is more like a relationship of persons where you’re getting to know somebody. Like in a wedding—you covenant to, and in advance of, what you do not yet know, in order to invite it. There’s the intimacy of relationship.

How have you seen people practically apply this?

One of my favorite stories came from a recording engineer. He said, “Because of your work I do my job better, faster and have more fun.” He told me he had been working on the knowledge-as-information approach. As a perfectionist he figured that, when working on a record, his job was to perfect each track; and when he put it together he would have a perfect result. But instead, he learned that he needed to indwell each track as part of a larger pattern. That released him to confidence, and artistry, and a better product.

I had someone else see the potential for a business seminar, which I went on to develop. I know of a church that used it for Lent as a church discernment process. Noted therapist Dan Allender (Professor of Counseling Psychology at The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology) recommends the Little Manual as a guide in making decisions. He actually invited me to practice on him in front of an audience about his own life change!

Part of my agenda with A Little Manual for Knowing is to help people see that knowing works this way in every field. I think it’s significant to say that how you do spirituality well and how you golf well are similar. This similarity of “knowing ventures” offers pastors and laypeople a genuine connection of respect.

Has this philosophy grown from your own story?

Yes. I grew up in a Bible-believing family and church, and knew all the biblical answers in a certain theological tradition. But as I moved into my middle school years, I had two burning questions: “How do I know that God exists?” and “How do I know there’s a material world outside of my mind?” I was a baby Cartesian! (Everybody in the modern west is.) But I thought having those questions was sin, so I never voiced them.

In high school, I read Francis Schaeffer and realized that my questions were not sin, they were philosophy. That fired my imagination—but I didn’t know you could study philosophy. When, in college, I found out that you could, it took me 12 hours to decide that was what I needed to do. Then my whole search became philosophical, but I was still searching for the same thing.

During my Ph.D studies, someone gave me Michael Polanyi’s book, Personal Knowledge. He had this sentence that he repeated frequently but never really developed: “You know you have made contact with reality if you have a sense of the possibility of indeterminate future manifestations.” That’s how someone who has made a discovery is convinced that they’ve made a discovery—sensing future possibilities that you cannot currently name. That sentence was the water of life to me. What you have is a sense of possibility.

“Our choice is also a choice about how we want to see life. Is a vision of life, of reality, as finally about love and shalom something that we can believe? Or are we compelled to think that ultimately reality is personless, meaningless, chaotic, warring?” -From A Little Manual for Knowing

If you listen to scientists, or even just someone who is making a new friend, they say the same thing—it’s a hope that you cannot name at the point when you say, “Hey, this is significant.” The same thing works with a clue. How do you know that something is a clue? At the point that you can confirm it’s a clue, you’ve solved the mystery! But then you no longer need to rely on it as a clue.

I ended up writing my dissertation on Polanyi’s sentence. In it, I was still trying to crack my own crazy question: “How do I know there’s a material world outside of my own mind?” Polanyi’s sentence was the only thing I ever found that gave me a clue. In my earlier book, Loving to Know, I tell how I connected that magical sentence about indeterminate future manifestations with the signature of God.

I realized all along that my search for truth had been God wooing me. Now I’m practically intoxicated with reality.

I can hear the joy in your voice.

What we need to do is find where people are excited and blow on that like you would blow on a coal. Care invites Reality. So if you’ve got a dead, wooden person who is besmirched by the two-dimensionality of the modern west, there’s nevertheless got to be something they’re excited about—it might be horses, or knitting. What you need to do is “blow” on the coals of what they care about. You can help them spread that love to all their other knowing.

What we need to do is find where people are excited and blow on that like you would blow on a coal. Care invites Reality.

But this feels so unlike all the ways we’ve been taught to learn.

Absolutely! The academy’s default is knowledge-as-information. But as Jesus said, “If you want to know the truth of what I’m saying, you have to do what I say.” There’s no guarantee that the authoritative word is going to make sense to you unless you do what it says.

This is so different from how we’ve been taught to learn in our culture. How do we overcome so many shaping influences?

There’s always somewhere you can find knowing happening in the right way.

Here’s how it happens all through education: great teachers. Teachers need to see that the educational ingredient that makes the most difference is themselves. What teachers teach is themselves. Because of the knowledge-as-information approach, we tend to think of the passion that the teacher brings as an add-on. It’s really the heart of the matter.

That’s true for pastors as well.

Yes! The good news about this is that once you start to get covenant epistemology, it’s retro-active. Any teacher or any class plants seeds. Because knowing is transformation, more than information, those seeds can come to life at any time. It’s like when Joseph, in Genesis, says, “You meant it for evil but God meant it for good.” We’re continually, in God’s grace, reinterpreting and seeing fresh patterns that go back and redeem things from our past. What you want, when you’re looking for an authoritative guide, is someone who loves the subject and who loves you.

For pastors tempted by our performance culture, sometimes it feels like the congregation is an audience to perform for—or critics to convince—as opposed to people to love. How do we guide and love?

People who are transformed to understand that knowledge is transformation then spread transformation to others. It gently disarms and subverts. It’s winsome. It restores people to themselves. You’re inviting people into wholeness as humans. This is fundamentally human. But it’s also fundamentally divine.

How have you seen people who have taken on your approach become better at experiencing God?

If one is going to come to God through scripture, one needs to realize that the bible is not information. When your mother says “Clean your room” you don’t say “True or False,” you say “Yes Ma’am.” Because we have this information model of knowledge, we mistakenly think that the first thing we do with scripture or a sermon is collect information. What we need to see is that we’re in the presence of an authoritative guide and so what we need to do instead is love and pledge. We need to do that before we even understand.

If we’re going to treat scripture as the place where God comes, we can’t be in information mode. Information mode is about control and power.

If we’re going to treat scripture as the place where God comes, we can’t be in information mode. Information mode is about control and power. We just assume in the western tradition that if you get down to the bits of something, you’re down to the real deal. It’s not that collecting info is bad—it’s bad if that is your vision of knowing. Starting with a commitment to love actually does information better. Pledging yourself to the yet-to-be-known renders diligent information collecting a meaningful overture of love.

Do different people “love” and “pledge” in different ways?

I think so. Inviting the real involves a kind of etiquette. If reality is person-like, how do you behave properly in order to woo it? You don’t go in and help yourself. You must let it come to you.

So how do you welcome it? I do think it at least partly depends on the person. There are some strategies that we find that work for us. For me, personally, it’s delight. That’s my middle name! I’m a very excitable, childlike person. So I’m liable to be bouncing around in awe of just a flower. That’s childlike delight. I don’t think of myself as “having expertise.” I often feel like a bumbling teacher when it comes to articulating things. But I’m ecstatic about my subject and I’m ecstatic about my students. And they know it. It seems to me that they blossom in my delight.

In a post-modern culture, how do we acknowledge our subjectivity while affirming truth?

Well, covenant epistemology gives us an innovative, fresh, positive, third alternative to both modernism and post-modernism. It’s not that our subjectivity keeps us from reality. Instead it’s the very thing that launches us into reality. When we think knowledge only involves the things we’re consciously focusing on, that means that knowledge has to be articulated. We think everything else is subjective. But there are other ways to know, that can’t be expressed or communicated as information—like the balance you keep while riding your bike. It’s “subsidiary.” It’s inarticulable, and it’s personal, but it is hardly subjective. It is palpable and trainable and capable of immense expertise and artistry. Your embodied subsidiaries are the very thing that allows you to love in order to know.

This is what it is to be human. We are vantage points in the world.

For Further Reading:

Esther’s 3 books:

Longing to Know: The Philosophy of Knowledge for Ordinary People

Loving to Know: Covenant Epistemology

A Little Manual for Knowing

Esther suggests:

Biblical Knowing: A Scriptural Epistemology of Error by Dru Johnson

Scott and Moleski, Michael Polanyi: Scientist and Philosopher

Two books whose authors have been inspired by Esther’s work:

Slow Church: Cultivating Community in the Patient Way of Jesus by C. Christopher Smith and Jon Pattison

The New Parish: How Neighborhood Churches are Transforming Mission, Discipleship and Community by Paul Sparks, Tim Soerens and Dwight J. Friesen

Mandy Smith serves as lead pastor at University Christian Church in Cincinnati, Ohio, and is the author of Making a Mess and Meeting God: Unruly Ideas and Everyday Experiments for Worship

Church Life

When Missions Opportunities Aren’t Pretty

The topics that make us uncomfortable can spur the church to action.

Her.meneutics September 22, 2014
Marisol Grandon / Department for International Development

I first noticed our reticence to tackle taboo topics in the church over 15 years ago, years before I became the head of the Wesleyan Church in North America. After being exposed to human trafficking during a visit to Svay Pak, Cambodia, I found this multi-billion dollar industry horrifying and left determined to join with other Christians to end this injustice. For years, I met a church hesitant to talk about, much less fight, this violation of human rights.

It was more than a lack of awareness, but a resistance to discuss difficult things like sexual exploitation within the church. Nevertheless, I joined the other Christian advocates who could not stop talking about the invaluable role the church had to play in the fight against trafficking. Little by little, we witnessed attitudes shift, and today we see the church has tremendous momentum in the global effort to end human trafficking.

I’m encouraged by this. I’m encouraged because it means we're closer to ending human trafficking. And I’m encouraged because it means there is hope that the church will have the courage to address other difficult issues like female genital mutilation, or FGM.

Female genital mutilation has received growing interest from policy makers and not-for-profit organizations. With this awareness, this practice may come to an end within a generation, a goal set forth by the United Nations.

Earlier this year, President Barack Obama addressed FGM for the first time, announcing that his administration will conduct new research to determine prevalence in the U.S. and next steps for addressing the problem. Yet for all the initiatives aimed at ending FGM worldwide, this issue—due to its unfamiliarity and graphic nature—is rarely spoken about in the Western church.

Also known as female circumcision, FGM is the total or partial removal of the external female genitalia. The procedure is performed on nearly 3 million girls in Africa every year, according to the World Health Organization. More than 125 million girls and women alive today have been cut in the 29 countries in Africa and the Middle East where FGM is most prevalent. The procedure has no health benefits, but is ingrained in cultural tradition and is considered a passage from childhood to adulthood.

Currently, FGM’s graphic nature presents the greatest hurdle to widespread Christian involvement with the cause. The very process of defining FGM makes many churchgoers, and their leaders, uncomfortable or even offended. Our prayer is that the offense of the injustice would far outweigh the offense of the practice.Victims of this barbaric practice include some of the most vulnerable, oppressed, and poor people on the planet. The church, whose mission is to stand for the vulnerable, the oppressed, and the poor, has an opportunity to join the humanitarians and politicians, or even to lead the fight against FGM.

Rather than being offended by the graphic details of FGM—damaged sex organs, inhibited sexual pleasure, severe pain, and life-long complications for women’s physical and reproductive health—our prayer is that we would be offended by the subjugation of women and the irreparable damage it causes to their bodies. Our hope is that we would fight for these women’s God-given worth in the midst of a practice that marginalizes them and perpetuates their inferior status in society.

The topic of human trafficking was initially met with a similar uncomfortability, and we can learn from that process. In the Wesleyan Church, we found greater success when we introduced our message with safer topics. For example, while the most common form of human trafficking (79%) is sexual exploitation, we learned that our message was initally better received when we discussed the topic in terms of forced labor, the second most common form of human trafficking (18%). Likewise, with FGM we’re finding that discussing complications in childbirth and increased risk of newborn deaths as a pro-life issue is a more palatable entry point for the North American church.

The church also faces a propensity to gender-qualify issues like FGM, to deem it a women’s ministry cause since the victims are female. And, indeed, the early activists in the church’s efforts to end FGM are often women. But God does not call only women to stand up for the vulnerable and oppressed. He calls the entire church to have compassion.

The final hurdle the church will need to overcome is apathy. While we can wrap our minds around the existance of a demand for sex and for forced labor, our Western worldview in most cases has no framework for comprehending a foreign cultural practice like FGM. Where human trafficking is connected to crime and prostitution in our own backyard, FGM is largely connected to villages and families in distant corners of the world. Though FGM happens in North America with surprising frequency, getting people to care and giving them opportunity for their heart to break like God’s heart breaks for this injustice is a challenge.

Despite these hurdles, ending FGM is well within our reach. The pressure is already there – from the UN, from the nonprofit community, from policy makers and even from church leaders in countries like Sierra Leone where the practice is most prevalent.

Witnessing the church’s shift in engagement with a difficult issue like human trafficking leaves me hopeful. I am hopeful because we are nearer to an end for trafficking, though I’m prepared for it to be an ongoing battle with many more victims.

But I am also hopeful because ending FGM is within sight. Imagine a global generation of girls who are physically whole! Their capacity to imagine a God who values human life and human dignity could change the world. The tide is already turning. how much more quickly could it turn if the church steps up to the fight. May we remember that we are called and empowered by God to overcome injustices in the world, even the difficult ones! And therein lays our greatest hope.

“She opens her hand to the poor and reaches out her hands to the needy.” – Proverbs 31:20

Jo Anne Lyon is the General Superintendent for The Wesleyan Church and the founder of World Hope International, an international Christian NGO working with vulnerable and exploited communities worldwide.

Andrea Summers is the director of women's ministries for The Wesleyan Church and oversees Good News for Girls, The Wesleyan Church's initiative to raise awareness and end FGM in Sierra Leone. The Wesleyan Church and World Hope International are partners in the effort to end FGM in Sierra Leone through country-wide prevention and education. They hope to expand preventative and educational efforts to other countries in the future.

Ideas

Why ISIS Must Be Stopped

But no special pleading on behalf of Christians is required.

Gail Orenstein / NurPhoto / Corbis

Here’s a chilling thought experiment that, given the arc of world events, might seem eerily like a peek into the not-so-distant future.

Imagine a community of Middle East Christians under assault from a ferocious, well-armed band of terrorists. The Christians live peaceably and faithfully, their presence stretching back centuries. The terrorists aim to destroy them or drive them out, and they have both the power and ruthlessness to prevail. Imagine, further, that the United States can halt the onslaught and restore harmony—but only by deploying military might. Should Uncle Sam send in the troops?

Now repeat the same thought experiment, but replace the besieged Christians with a community representing some other religious faith. Then ask yourself, once more, whether America should intervene to prevent genocide.

If the first scenario stirs you to demand boots on the ground, but the other doesn’t, perhaps some soul-searching is in order. Why favor an aggressive national response only when Christians need protection?

Of course, few of us give voice to such blatant chauvinism. We’re unlikely to tolerate a foreign policy governed by crude religious litmus tests. And yet, as Christians, the suffering of fellow believers tends to pierce our hearts more profoundly. We sympathize, often achingly, with the plight of non-Christians under persecution. But it’s savagery against Christians that really gets our blood boiling.

It’s important to keep this in mind as we encounter anti-Christian cruelty, with depressing regularity, in today’s headlines. This summer, the world awoke to discover a jihadist army, styling itself the Islamic State (also known as ISIS), brutally seizing power across Iraq and Syria. In conquered territories, ISIS has proclaimed a new caliphate and introduced a draconian brand of Islamic law. Christians—along with dissenting Muslims and obscure religious minorities like the Yazidis—confront a terrifying choice: Leave home, convert to Islam, or die a martyr.

ISIS must be stopped. That much is certain. But how? By whom? To what extent? All are prudential questions that must be answered by those closest to the situation. Yet as we advance this case, we ought to refrain from making Christian suffering the clinching factor, as in These monsters massacre Christians, and something has to be done. Raise your hand if you’ve never entertained that thought. No need to scold yourself. Yet consider how it starts us down a problematic path.

Trouble is, the “something” needed to strangle ISIS is shaping up to be military force. President Obama ordered air strikes to help refugees escape the coming slaughter. It may turn out that nothing short of full-fledged assault will dislodge ISIS. Safeguarding American national security and averting humanitarian disaster may require wiping ISIS off the map.

But that’s a far cry from wanting this particular enemy vanquished because—and only or mainly because—it oppresses Christians. The U.S. oath of enlistment requires soldiers to defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic. We might dream about heroic soldiers sweeping into town and stomping all over the bad guys. But they haven’t signed up to stand between persecuted Christians and their persecutors.

Partiality toward Christians, however natural, shouldn’t disproportionately influence American foreign policy judgments. We need to remember what the military is, and isn’t, for.

A recent multifaith petition, spearheaded by the Catholic conservative Robert George, strikes a proper balance. The statement (endorsed by evangelicals, including Russell Moore, Eric Metaxas, and Jim Daly) calls for defeating ISIS, but without giving off the slightest whiff of faith-based special pleading.

It’s not hard to envision a future of spiraling danger for Christians in the Middle East. And if the situation for Christians grows more precarious, the temptation to enlist American soldiers as avenging angels may intensify. Here’s the sobering reality: As a global church, we will have to prepare ourselves to witness thousands of our brothers and sisters face extermination or exile, even as it lies within America’s power to militarily save the day. That’s a nightmarish thought, and it sounds cold-hearted even to suggest it. But even our own Messiah declined to summon angels to save his skin.

There’s something natural and right about praying for justice to rain down and scorch the evil (look at the Psalms!). But let’s not be selective about who counts as an enemy. Whenever any group, religious or not, finds itself at the dangerous end of rifles and swords, we are looking at the evil of injustice. And before the kingdom of God arrives, we are called to stop injustice wherever it assails the oppressed.

Maybe that means wielding military force against groups like ISIS, and maybe it doesn’t. Either way, let’s guard against the subtle temptation to desire one course of action when Christians are in the cross hairs, and another when they aren’t.

MATT REYNOLDS is CT associate editor of books.

Get Prufrock

An indispensable literary newsletter.

Books & Culture September 22, 2014
Culture
Review

This Is Where I Leave You

Watch anything else. Anything.

Tina Fey, Corey Stoll, Jane Fonda, Jason Bateman, and Adam Driver in 'This Is Where I Leave You'

Tina Fey, Corey Stoll, Jane Fonda, Jason Bateman, and Adam Driver in 'This Is Where I Leave You'

Christianity Today September 22, 2014
Warner Bros.

A time-honored tradition of movies follows these basic contours: adult progatonist’s parent dies/relative gets married/family celebrates holiday. Adult protagonist returns to ancestral home from comfortable, grown-up life to discover that everything that he/she has assumed about him/herself is blown to pieces, and he/she must rediscover self in the company of an inevitably zany but ultimately loving family.

Tina Fey and Jason Bateman in 'This Is Where I Leave You'Warner Bros.
Tina Fey and Jason Bateman in ‘This Is Where I Leave You’

Usually a parent or other elder relation is unhinged. Explosions, accidents, or sexual escapades of a dubious nature ensue. Frequently the protagonist’s romantic life is on the rocks, which is convenient for the introduction of an old or new flame who can reveal to the protagonist some new dimension of life or identity. Ultimately, protagonist must learn to loosen up or accept people for who they are or take life one day at a time or something else you might read in a slogan on Pinterest.

I inexplicably adore this genre—even the mediocre-to-pretty-bad ones. I can rattle off a list off the top of my head from the last decade or so: Garden State, Margot at the Wedding, Rachel Getting Married, Elizabethtown, A Christmas Tale, August: Osage County, The Royal Tenenbaums (lots of Wes Anderson’s work, actually).

So, as an aficianado, I beg of you: if you get the impulse to see This Is Where I Leave You, save your money and watch any of the above films. Any of them, even the ones with low Rotten Tomatoes scores. They’re all better than this one.

To rehash, with particulars: a week ago, Judd Altman (Jason Bateman) had a nice life, with a comfy apartment, a good job as a radio producer, and a beautiful wife. It all falls to pieces when he comes home early with a birthday cake (of course) to find his wife in bed with his boss (Dax Shepard), who is a terrible person, as evidenced not just by his womanizing but also by his obnoxiously blonde hair. Then Judd’s mother (Jane Fonda) calls to say that his father has died. Though he was a Jewish atheist, his dying request was that his family sit shiva for him.

Corey Stoll and Jason Bateman in 'This Is Where I Leave You'Warner Bros.
Corey Stoll and Jason Bateman in ‘This Is Where I Leave You’

So all the family returns home to mourn for the prescribed week: Judd, his big brother Paul (Corey Stoll), sister Wendy (Tina Fey), and little brother Philip (Adam Driver), along with assorted significant others. Philip is dating his much older former therapist (Connie Britton); Paul and his wife Alice (Kathryn Hahn), who dated Judd for six months before getting together with Paul, are trying to beat infertility and conceive a baby; Wendy’s terrible husband (Aaron Lazar) sticks it out for four days before he takes off for a work trip to London, leaving Wendy to ponder the existence of her ex-boyfriend (Timothy Olyphant) across the street, whom she left behind after he suffered a brain injury in an accident that landed him permanently living with his mother. Judd—in a move that shocks nobody—runs into an old flame (Rose Byrne), who is a little kooky but mostly sweet and runs the local skating rink.

It goes on from there, every piece of this plot setup unraveling pretty much exactly as expected. If the movie were merely formulaic, that wouldn’t sink it entirely. After all, it’s following a formula that plenty of other films (see above) follow, successfully, while demonstrating a creative spark. And the most mystifying aspect of This Is Where I Leave You may be this cast, which includes four of my favorite television actors as the four siblings, plus some great minor characters (particularly the weird young rabbi, played by Ben Schwartz, aka Jean-Ralphio from Parks and Recreation). And thankfully, at times, their comic delivery saves a terrible scene and makes it sort of okay.

Jane Fonda in 'This Is Where I Leave You'Warner Bros.
Jane Fonda in ‘This Is Where I Leave You’

So perhaps the biggest problem with the film (though I’m having trouble choosing) is exemplified by the running joke that gets pulled up for laughs at ten-minute intervals, in which Jane Fonda’s character has gotten breast implants, which makes her kids uncomfortable in various ways. Some comedies traffic in bawdy humor successfully, but though I’m no expert, the key seems to be letting your viewer know up front that they’d better buckle in, because this is going to be a wild, cringe-inducing ride. This Is Where I Leave You never does that. In its desperation to make all the funny, it can’t decide if it’s a Judd Apatow film with anatomy jokes, or more of a Meet the Parents style groaner, or (another) Anderson-style send-up of the adult children of neurotic therapist parents, or a vaguely inspirational movie about discovering yourself after life goes south.

That means the tone ricochets wildly back and forth too much for anyone to settle into the genre convention and enjoy it. That’s what genres are for: they make you comfortable and let you enjoy what’s about to happen. Sometimes a great writer or filmmaker can transcend genre boundaries and make something unique, but screenwriter Jonathan Tropper (who also wrote the novel on which it’s based) and director Shawn Levy (probably best known for his work on the Night at the Museum franchise, of all things) are not up to the challenge.

And it also means that some of the more off-color humor is so off color that it generates nervous laughter, not genuine laughter. The audience at my Manhattan screening (in a group not given to prudery) laughed in most of the right places, but by the end, during some of the more painful jokes, the chuckles were mixed with unpleasant groan-laughing.

There’s also just too much going on here, which probably comes from being adapted from a novel by someone who loves the quirky characters he created in the book too much. Without a very steady hand willing to strike material that doesn’t fit the 100ish-minute runtime, novels often don’t translate well to movies.

Adam Driver and Connie Britton in 'This Is Where I Leave You'Warner Bros.
Adam Driver and Connie Britton in ‘This Is Where I Leave You’

So we get set piece after set piece, character moment after character moment, with few of them doing more than letting characters talk about themselves and tell each other things that we’re not yet sure we believe. Telegraphing meaningful relationships is no substitute for actually letting us get invested in them. And this is a tragedy, because every single one of these actors is richly able to do just that. They just don’t get a chance.

This Is Where I Leave You has all the makings of about four different potentially funny comedies, but it’s one big slog to the finish line. If it’s the sort of movie you like (complete with a little bit of off-color humor), let me strongly recommend you rent the 2008 French film A Christmas Tale, or go back and enjoy The Royal Tenenbaums again, or if your taste runs more to the uncomfortable, even go back and watch Meet the Parents. But you can definitely skip this one.

Caveat Spectator

Profanities, all of them, plenty of them, plus the rabbi’s childhood nickname comes up a lot, which is a euphemism for aroused male anatomy (though that’s hardly the only instance of euphemism jokes). There is the aforesaid running joke about Jane Fonda’s implants. Two characters who are trying to conceive a child accidentally leave the baby monitor on while having loud sex and a houseful of mourners hear it. Characters who are unmarried, or not married to one another, sleep together on several occasions. There are the requisite brother-to-brother moments of (a) bonding over drug usage and (b) fistfights on the front lawn. A married character propositions another character. And spoiler, I guess: it is revealed near the end, somewhat half-heartedly, that two women have had a relationship of a romantic and sexual nature, one of them while still married.

Alissa Wilkinson is Christianity Today’s chief film critic and an assistant professor at The King’s College in New York City. She tweets @alissamarie.

Ideas

Third Culture

Columnist

Faith…from the hyphenated point of view

Me Living That Hyphenated Life

Me Living That Hyphenated Life

Christianity Today September 22, 2014

One might ask what I am doing here, a young Korean-American pastor blogging alongside such well-respected figures as Ed Stetzer and Amy Julia Becker. I’m not sure, but I suspect it’s some kind of mistake. It has something to do with an article I wrote last year for Christianity Today, which was one of the twenty most read articles for that year – number 12 to be exact, ahead of an interview with Billy Graham, but behind an article about Tim Tebow, which is in itself a sad commentary on the state of things. CT editor Mark Galli must have read my piece and assumed that I could write like that all the time, and I didn’t have the heart to tell the poor guy the truth.

Oh well, he’ll realize his mistake soon enough.

CT editor Mark Galli must have read my piece and assumed that I could write like that all the time, and I didn’t have the heart to tell the poor guy the truth.

All joking aside, I am deeply honored and humbled by this opportunity, and want to use this inaugural post to describe what you might find in this blog. You will often find posts on fatherhood and my life as a pastor, as well as discussions on race and diversity, and the incredibly messy intersection between all of these issues.

But what is more central to this blog is not so much what I write about as the perspective from which I do so. This blog is named “Third Culture”, a term used by sociologists to describe individuals who don’t fit neatly into one cultural category or another, be it ethnically, racially, or culturally. For those kinds of people, they forge for themselves a third culture, a kind of fluid identity which is a fusion of diverse influences and perspectives.

“Third culture” describes my own upbringing and point of view quite well. I am a child of Korean immigrants, and yet cannot speak Korean myself, and last visited that country when I was not yet potty trained. As a result, I find it difficult to fully identify myself as a Korean person. I am also an American who was born in Illinois, and yet still feel a profound sense of otherness here in the US, the unfortunate reality of many people of color who are perpetually considered foreigners in the country of their birth. As a result, I am neither fully Korean, nor American, but Korean-American, a discrete cultural identity.

My theological and even geographical backgrounds are equally eclectic. I am an evangelical, but was born in the Roman Catholic church, and have spent an equal number of years in a range of Christian traditions: Presbyterian, Foursquare, Evangelical Covenant, Mennonite, and currently, Free Methodist. Geographically, I was raised in a quiet suburb of Chicago, but because my parents worked as small store owners, also spent a good portion of my childhood in the inner city. As a pastor, I have done ministry both in wealthy suburbs of Fairfax Virginia, as well as the most economically depressed communities of DC, the neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River.

As such, I find that the only way to identify myself appropriately is through a series of hyphenations: Korean-American. Evangelical-Ecumenical. Suburban-Urban. Dazed-Confused.

I find that the only way to identify myself appropriately is through a series of hyphenations: Korean-American. Evangelical-Ecumenical. Suburban-Urban. Dazed-Confused.

One might imagine that such an upbringing is a drawback, that a third culture perspective fails to understand any one culture to its fullest extent, or creates confusion and ambivalence about one’s identity. Both are valid concerns. But I am now convinced that the third culture point of view is of profound and increasing importance because it allows me, and others like me, to better navigate a culture in conflict, which describes our culture quite well.

One needs only to read the headlines and comment boards to see that this is the case. Nearly all issues of life, both spiritual and secular, are increasingly approached in an adversarial and binary manner. The middle ground, an already slender topography to begin with, has been further eroded by our preference for sound bites and hamfisted diatribes over actual conversation and critical thought. Now opinions can only be one of two things: right or wrong; a given person, either a friend or a foe. In such an environment, constructive dialogue and cooperation, those priceless qualities that we were supposed to have developed in elementary school, have become all but impossible.

And this is why the third culture perspective is so important. While certainly not immune to dogmatism, the life of an immigrant demands a willingness to learn and adapt to diverse contexts and ideologies. That has been our reality, figuring out how to honor our parents while still looking cool to our middle school classmates, eating corndogs one day and kimchi the next. We simply did not have the luxury to subscribe to one cultural context to the exclusion of another – we were forced to straddle them.

As such, individuals who have grown up in a hyphenated context often find it less difficult to hold two moderately diverse perspectives in some sort of balance with one another. We know what it is to be American but not American, to be Korean but not Korean, to be suburban and urban, to be “both/and”, and not necessarily “either/or”. We have lived our entire lives this way, at the intersection of cultures and identities. We know that one does not necessarily have to choose one over another, to be this or that – we are this and that. The cultural terrain we have involuntarily traversed our entire lives, although convoluted, has made us nimble, able to tread finer lines that others now find it impossible to navigate.

The cultural terrain we have involuntarily traversed our entire lives…has made us nimble, able to tread finer lines that others now find it impossible to navigate.

Now it would be easy to think of this as a perspective of compromise, as if third culture people do not really believe anything, but that would be a mistake. A third approach in no way precludes conviction, and Christ sits solidly enthroned in my heart and in my life. No, third culture is not so much a perspective of compromise as it is one of creation: the creation of a third and new way, one that no longer sees all things as a pitched and destructive battle between one ideology, culture, person and the other. It is a way forward, a way of synthesis, which is what we need now more than ever.

And so that is truly what I hope to accomplish through this blog: to introduce a Christ-centered, loving, and thoughtful third-cultural perspective, one that might help us imagine new ways to understand our faith, but also, one another.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube