The Complete Book of Everyday Christianity

Introduction

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Everyday life is a complex affair. Most of it is made up of familiar situations, responsibilities, frustrations, pressures, conflicts, obligations, dilemmas and demands. In the midst of these we entertain hopes and expectations and meet satisfactions and disappointments. But sometimes crisis, public or private, intrude on the regular rhythms of our lives. New opportunities come our way; long-standing certainties are replaced by newly discovered ambiguities. The world around us changes, and it is hard to keep peace with all that is happening. If we are able to deal with portions of what is happening, the big picture often eludes us. Life easily becomes confusing, and the messages we pick up are often contradictory.

There are two further complications. First, those of us who are committed to connecting our faith with every part of our lives are not always sure bow to do so. If it is true, as the major Christian traditions have always insisted, that our religious convictions and values should be reflected in all that we do - the way we eat and drink, work and play, worship and vote, the quality of our parenting and friendships, our involvement with neighbors and of our parenting and friendships, our involvement with neighbors and colleagues, our engagement with popular or high culture - then there is much to consider. All these activities need to be related to our understanding of God, and whatever we learn must be incarnated in our behavior. How else will others know that God makes a distinctive claim on their lives? This is a daunting task, one we cannot handle alone but only with help from others.

Second, it would be easier for us to deal with these matters if there were a deposit of accumulated wisdom on which we could draw. Down through the centuries some impressive groups have developed an integrated approach to life. In such groups, everything was viewed through the lens of faith, hope and love. If the early monastic movements and medieval Christian orders did this for the few, the early Anabaptists and Puritans did it for the many. In the intervening years we have lost some of the breadth of such visions. We have compartmentalized life and either separated ourselves too much from the world or accommodated ourselves too much to it, generally without realizing what we are doing.

There is little to help us over this gap. Sermons are often too general, small groups avoid sensitive subjects, Christian magazines mainly deal with personal or relational issues, theological writings rarely address everyday concerns. This book seeks to provide what we are lacking. We have tried to make it as comprehensive, accessible and substantive as possible. While we have sought to make it practical, it is more than a self-help book because it analyzes wide issues, peers beneath the surface of the subjects it treats, and identifies some of the connections between them.

You can use The Complete Book of Everyday Christianity in a number of ways.

1. You may have a particular interest you wish to pursue (such as developing a simpler lifestyle) or a felt need on which you require help (say, the issue of workaholism). All you have to do is look up such terms in the subject index, find the entries you want, and then follow any cross-references to related articles.
2. You may be passing through a troublesome period of life (such as a midlife crisis) or facing a specific set of concerns (perhaps family problems). In such cases the Life Experience Index is especially helpful, since it lists a range of entries under various life stages and situations.
3. You may be preparing a talk, study, sermon or workshop. As you do so, you may profitably consult entries directly in the dictionary itself. Alternatively, many entries in this volume would lend themselves to being part of a series of small-group or class discussion. You might develop a series with the help of the Life Experience Index, or create your own with the help of group cross-references in a major entry. For instance, a series on redeeming our daily routine might be based on articles about washing, chores, reading newspapers, commuting, office politics, coffee drinking, shopping and television.
   
4. You may wish to use the volume as a textbook for a church or para-church-based class or a college or a seminary course. With regard to the first of these, you could consult the Life Activities, Interest & Concerns Index and take one of its main divisions and construct a series out of it, or choose a theme (such as community) that crosses several divisions. With regard to the second, we ourselves will be using the volume in courses on lifestyle ethics, marketplace ministry and the spirituality of everyday life.
5. You may simply prefer, at times, to browse through the book when and where you have opportunity, moving from topic to topic as your interest takes you. Throughout the volume you will find numerous cross-references in see or see also listings.

For the two of us, working on this volume was an adventure that has developed a growing friendship and appreciation of one another. Through its hundred or so contributors, the book has also introduced us to a wide range of thoughtful practitioners who share some common interests. From the outset InterVarsity Press took a keen interest in the project and, with the help of Rodney Clapp, brought our "concept" into being. We are also grateful to the secretaries and research assistants who helped us at various points on this journey. Above all, we are thankful to God, for all the encouragement and sustenance that came to us along the way, and whose vision for all people and every part of creation is so astonishingly inclusive, vibrant and glorious.

(Originally published 1997. This text is taken from the 2011 version)

"Fire and Ice" from The Poetry of Robert Frost, edited by Edward Connery Lathem, Copyright 1951 by Robert Frost, Copyright 1923, © 1969 by Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Henry Holt and Company, Inc.
Portions of "Baptism", "Sacraments", "Fellowship" and "Lord's Supper" originally published in New Testament Spirituality by Michael Green and Paul Stevens, Copyright © 1996. Used by permission of Eagle, United Kingdom. Distributed in North America by Harold Shaw Publishers, Wheaton, IL
Portions of "Body" originally published in Embodied Prayer: Harmonizing Body and Soul by Celeste Schroder, Copyright© 1995. Used by permission of Triumph Books, Liguori, MO.
Excerpts reprinted from Disciplines of the Hungry Heart by R. Paul Stevens, Copyright © 1993. Used by permission of Harold Shaw Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60189.
Excerpts reprinted from The Equipping Pastor by R. Paul Stevens and Phil Collins with permission from the Alban Institute, Inc., 4550 Montgomery Avenue, Suite 433N, Bethesda, MD 20814. Copyright© 1993. All rights reserved.
The article "Farming" is adapted from the "Long Range Vision Statement" of the organization EarthKeeping.
Portions of "Spiritual Gifts" originally published by Gordon Fee as "Gifts of the Spirit" in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Gerald F. Hawtrone, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid. Copyright © 1993 by lnterVarsity Christian Fellowship of the U.S.A. Used by permission of lnterVarsity Press, P.O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, IL 60515.

Abortion

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Abortion has been with us throughout the ages. While first accepted as a necessary measure or “therapy” in saving the life of the mother, it has also been accepted in many countries as a means of population control, “quality of life” control (in the case of deformed fetuses) and reproductive control. It is often a choice for teens and women in economic hardship who do not have the resources to care for a child, as well as for women who are victims of rape and incest. In modern Western culture the justification and acceptance of this practice has widened as women’s rights and reproductive rights have come to the forefront. Often a woman’s request for abortion is justification enough for the procedure.

Medical Considerations

Abortion is termination of a pregnancy. It can be classified as either spontaneous or induced. A spontaneous abortion is a miscarriage, that is, the pregnancy ends usually due to various chromosomal or congenital defects, diseases or infections—of fetal or maternal origin. Unlike spontaneous abortion, an induced abortion is not a natural process of the body and involves a medical intervention. This intervention is of two types—therapeutic or elective—depending on the reason for the abortion. If the mother’s life is in danger, as in the case of cardiovascular and hypertensive diseases, an abortion might be performed for therapeutic reasons. An elective or voluntary abortion, on the other hand, is requested for reasons other than maternal health and is the most commonly performed type of abortion in the West today. It is estimated that approximately 25 percent of all pregnancies in the world are terminated by elective abortion, making this the most common method of reproduction limitation.

The method chosen for an abortion is commonly determined by factors like the duration of the pregnancy, the patient’s health, the experience of the physician and the physical facilities. The methods include (1) suction or surgical curettage; (2) induction of labor by means of intra- or extraovular injection of a hypertonic solution or other oxytocic agent; (3) extraovular placement of devices such as catheters, bougies or bags; (4) abdominal or vaginal hysterotomy and (5) menstrual regulation. About 75 percent of induced abortions in the United States are performed by suction curettage for a pregnancy of twelve weeks’ duration or less; these are usually performed in abortion outpatient clinics. There are, however, medical concerns about this spreading practice.

The two major medical reasons for limiting abortion today are fetal viability (which changes with technological capabilities) and medical consequences to the mother. Viability, the point at which a fetus can survive outside the mother’s womb, now stands at twenty-four weeks and can often be easily defined. Yet the consequences of an abortion procedure to the mother are debated and controversial. While most abortions, especially those done in the first trimester, are safe for women physically, the psychological sequelae have gone undocumented. Some reports deny serious psychological effects of abortion, but most cite overwhelming statistics indicating dire long-term negative effects, including guilt, shame, depression, grief, anxiety, despair, low self-esteem, distrust and hostility. Women with previous histories of psychiatric illnesses tend to be affected to a greater degree.

Both the Canadian Medical Association and the American Medical Association recognize abortion as a medical procedure available under the law. Recently, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education called for compulsory abortion training for students of obstetrics (McFarland, p. 25). In contrast, the Christian Medical and Dental Society (CMDS) opposes the practice of abortion.

Prolife Versus Prochoice

It is most unfortunate that the abortion debate is divided into two clearly opposing camps: the prolife and the prochoice, each entrenched in its respective uncompromising positions. The prolife stance holds the view that the fetus is a developing human being with intrinsic values and inviolable rights. She is as much a human being as the mother. So the sanctity of the fetal life in the womb, however developed, should have priority over the reproductive freedom of the woman. Abortion should be considered only when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. The basis of the prolife position is largely, but not exclusively, grounded on divine authority and the belief that human life is a gift of God.

The prochoice position does not see the fetus as possessing rights independent of the mother, who alone has the right to decide the fate of the fetus. This maternal right is in turn grounded in the principle of autonomy or self-determination, which provides the mother with freedom to make reproductive choices. The prochoice position also views access to abortion as necessary for women’s complete social equality. They see reproduction as the major obstacle to women’s competing successfully with men, and hence control of reproduction, including abortion, is necessary for equality. Any restriction of the availability of abortion is interpreted as coercing women to carry pregnancies to term against their will.

Personhood

While it is seldom disputed that a conceptus or a fetus is human, there is hardly a consensus as to when a human person begins. Personhood is still a crucial and practical issue, since modern society accords a person certain moral rights, such as the right to life. General philosophical criteria for personhood include any one, a few or all of the following: rationality, consciousness, self-consciousness, freedom to act on one’s own reasons, capacity to communicate with others and capacity to make moral judgments. Some hold that only when one or all of these qualities have been actualized should a human being be considered a person (actuality principle). Others feel that these qualities of personhood only emerge gradually in the course of fetal and early childhood development, so what counts in defining personhood is the potential that the human life possesses (potentiality principle). In this view fetuses and infants are recognized as having different degrees of personhood and therefore are given different measures of right to life.

The Bible does not use specifically the words person or personhood, but a biblical view of personhood can be established on the basis of a Christian doctrine of the image of God. Genesis 1:26-27 reads: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule.’ . . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Because God exists as three persons in communion, we also believe that human persons are created in his image to live in community. The most fundamental attribute of being in the image of God and human personhood, therefore, is relationality. God creates every single human person in order to relate to him or her. In response, every created human person seeks to relate to the Creator and other fellow creatures. Since each human being is created uniquely by God, every single human being is God’s image bearer. This is the ground for personhood, uniqueness and the right to life. Life is sacred because God creates a particular life for a unique relationship between him as the Creator and us as his creatures. This relationship begins when a conceptus is formed as God permits a human sperm and ovum to unite in the creation of a new unique life. How that life unfolds and whether all the inherent potentialities are actualized or not do not take away the intrinsic value of that life as God’s image bearer, a human person.

A Christian Response

Such a Christian understanding of personhood undergirds the proper attitude toward abortion. The sixth commandment in the Bible (not to kill; Exodus 20:13) carries the positive mandate of stewardship of all lives as sacred to God. This means not that the value of life is absolute (Matthew 24:9) but rather that no life is to be taken without an absolutely and unequivocally justifiable reason. As the Creator and Giver of life, it is God who ultimately has the sovereign right to take away life. So any attempt to terminate life, as in an abortion, must be done with the fullest sense of accountability before the sovereign God. For this reason the CMDS, both in the U.S. and Canada, in contrast to its secular counterparts, opposes the routine practice of abortion. Four main points are maintained in their position: (1) CMDS opposes abortion, yet supports alternatives; (2) CMDS believes abortion is in opposition to the Word of God, to respect for the sanctity of life and to traditional, historical and Judeo-Christian medical ethics; (3) CMDS believes that the Bible espouses principles that oppose the interruption of pregnancy (the sovereignty of God, the value of life over quality of life, moral responsibility in sexual conduct); (4) in the face of rights arguments put forth by patients and physicians alike, CMDS adheres to the final authority of Scripture, which teaches the sanctity of human life.

But resolving the dilemma of abortion takes more than ardently defending the sanctity of life in the unborn, for there is sacred life to embrace, though tragically unwanted, when abortion is opposed and denied. As a community that espouses Christian teachings and opposes abortion, we must be prepared to parent any children, not just our own, as a shared obligation. This means taking concrete steps to receive unwanted children into our families as a gesture of taking seriously the sacred lives God has created and exercising stewardship.

As a community of grace, Christians must, in addition to exercising the stewardship of life, honor our obligation of love. Love sees a woman seeking abortion as a neighbor in need of compassion. Regardless of whether abortion is given or denied, the pregnant mother, father and other members of the family will likely feel wounded. The Christian community must live out its spirit of koinōnia by developing various forms of care and support during such a difficult time and by providing a context in which repentance, reconciliation, healing and nurturing may take place.

Finally, the Christian community must not abdicate its responsibility in the prevention of abortion in our society. This must be achieved through education of our teenagers and young adults with regard to moral sexual conduct and responsible family planning. Sexual abilities are given to human beings to experience in part on earth what God is fully in eternity—love. Children, as a product of the love between husband and wife, are gifts from God to deepen the experience of love. No sex or childbearing outside the institution of marriage fulfills this divine intention. Christian education in the form of counseling is also important, and participation with a Christlike humility and patience in organizations such as Pregnancy Crisis Center enables a Christian community to resolve and persevere with the abortion dilemma.

» See also: Parenting

» See also: Self-Esteem

» See also: Sexuality

References and Resources

T. Beauchamp and L. Walters, eds., Contemporary Issues in Bioethics (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1989) 181-239; S. McFarland, “The Abortion Rotation,” Christianity Today 39, no. 4 (1995) 25; F. Mathewes-Green, Real Choices: Offering Practical, Life-Affirming Alternatives to Abortion (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1994); M. L. Pernoll, ed., Current Obstetric and Gynecologic Diagnosis and Treatment, 7th ed. (Stamford, Conn.: Appleton & Lange, 1991); P. Ramsey, “Morality of Abortion,” in Life or Death: Ethics and Options (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1968) 60-93; D. C. Reardon, Aborted Women, Silent No More (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1987); N. Stotland, “Psychiatric Issue in Abortion, and the Implications of Recent Legal Choices for Psychiatric Practice,” in Psychiatric Aspects of Abortion, ed. N. Stotland (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, 1991) 1-16; J. R. W. Stott, “The Abortion Dilemma,” in Issues Facing Christians Today (Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1984) 2:187-214.

—Edwin Hui

Abuse

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

There has been a dramatic increase in the public’s awareness of and concern about various forms of abuse, primarily family abuse. Most of this is physical and sexual assault as well as psychological and emotional abuse against women and children. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation one out of every two American women is beaten during her marriage; 28 percent are battered at least once a year. A woman is battered every fifteen seconds. Battering is the single greatest cause of injury to women in the U.S., more than accidents, rapes and muggings combined. Over 70 percent of men who batter their wives also physically or sexually assault their children. The vast majority of women who are beaten, raped or murdered are assaulted by someone with whom they are intimate. By contrast, men who are beaten or murdered are assaulted by total strangers. The FBI estimates that less than 10 percent of domestic violence is reported to authorities.

Understanding Abuse

Abuse is a buzzword today. One way of overcoming this is to view abuse on a continuum. At one end of the continuum we place brutal, systematic exploitation and oppression. Here power abuse is often premeditated, and the perpetrator knows full well that the abuse hurts others. At the opposite end of the continuum we place relatively mild and sporadic social manipulation. Here the abuser does not intend harm but blindly pursues personal desires and hurts others in the process. Many such abusers are curiously naive about the damage they do to others. This naiveté is usually a factor when abuse occurs in the church.

Abuse of any type occurs when someone has power over another and uses that power to hurt. Physical abuse means that someone exercises physical power over another and causes physical wounds. Sexual abuse means that someone exercises sexual power over another and causes sexual wounds. Spiritual abuse means that someone in a position of spiritual authority uses that position to inflict spiritual wounds. And so, social, political and psychological abuse occurs when those in power use that power to cause unjust suffering to those around them.

The Silent Epidemic

The American Medical Association refers to physical and sexual abuse against women and children as the “silent epidemic” of the 1990s. The AMA tells physicians to be on the lookout for symptoms of abuse and then to go beyond just treating those symptoms. Once doctors see evidence of abuse they are urged to report it to authorities. If necessary, doctors are to assist in pressing charges against the perpetrators of the abuse. This new activism on the part of physicians is one indication of society’s alarm over abuse.

Is there a real increase of abuse today, or are we just reporting it and talking about it more? The answer to both questions is yes. There is a documented increase of child abuse in the home and sexual abuse in and outside the home. For instance, twenty-year-old women are reporting nearly twice the instances of sexual assault against them as their mothers had experienced at the same age.

Also, abuse has become a less taboo topic. For years Americans maintained a virtual silence on the issues of child abuse and sexual violence against women in the home. The church was most reticent of all to discuss these concerns, but now they are out in the open. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, is dealing openly with child sexual abuse by its priests. Some leaders estimate that by the year 2000, the Catholic Church will have paid out over one billion dollars in settlements to victims of clergy sexual abuse.

Spiritual abuse happens when a leader with spiritual authority uses that authority to coerce, control or exploit a follower, thus causing spiritual wounds. Unlike physical abuse, which often results in bruised bodies, spiritual abuse leaves scars on the psyche and soul. Counselors report that those wounded by spiritual abuse share many symptoms seen in victims of childhood sexual abuse, including deep fearfulness, depression, anxiety and an inability to trust. They are often too ashamed to talk openly about it. Some who do talk about their experiences are called “divisive” or “troublemakers” or are told that they are the problem.

Spiritual abuse is as widespread today as it was at the time Jesus spoke the words which contain the Bible’s clearest teaching on the subject. Jesus points out that abusive spiritual leaders demand authority for themselves, based on title and office (Matthew 23:6-7), whereas healthy leaders rely on their demonstrated servanthood to exercise influence. Abusive leaders oppress and manipulate people by heaping on people loads of legalism, guilt and shame (Matthew 23:4), while nonabusive leaders lift those burdens off, directing their followers to Jesus Christ for rest and for “yokes” that are light and fit well (Matthew 11:28-30).

Spiritual abuse occurs on a continuum from minor and sporadic to heavy-handed and systematic. Some abusers are easy to identify by their obviously immoral behavior. Others are much more subtle, but equally damaging. They may officially embrace an orthodox theology and present a polished, respectable public image. But in reality they practice “another gospel” which undermines adult reasoning and personal relationship with God in favor of unbalanced submission to an authoritarian church leadership. Such people subtly coerce their congregations through skillful use of language of intimacy and trust. When these types of leaders pretend to be a friend representing the heart of God and use this illusion to dehumanize and manipulate people, they inflict deep spiritual wounds.

Exploring the Reasons

Many factors contribute to the increasing incidence of abuse: sociological, political, cultural and spiritual. People in the Western world feel an increasing sense of powerlessness, pressured as they are by an increasingly automated, depersonalized and globalized society. One way of responding to powerlessness is by violence, and persons closest at hand frequently are the targets of this frustration. Further, society in general is decaying. Increasingly we hear our culture described as “post-Christian.” One symptom of this is that what is right and wrong from a biblical perspective is taught and understood less and less. Since there no longer exists a moral consensus among us, people increasingly do what is right in their own eyes.

The breakdown of the family also contributes to the increase of abusive behavior in children. Children who grow up in broken and otherwise dysfunctional homes often suffer from poor emotional health and tend to be less psychologically stable. Statistically they are also more likely to be the victims of abuse. Add to this their anger and frustration over being neglected and their efforts to survive under oppressive living conditions, and it is easy to see why disadvantaged children often act out and tend to become abusive toward others. Abusive parents today were very likely victims themselves of parental abuse. This creates a dismal generational view of the problem.

Sadly, there is little difference between the moral performance of the general public and churchgoers. Frequency of all kinds of abuses is more or less the same for the “Christian” and non-Christian population—the abuse of power among church leaders approximates the abuse of power among leaders elsewhere. Power always brings privileges, and all too frequently these privileges are abused.

Using and Abusing Power

The idea of power is complex. Every living human being possesses power. That is to say, every living person has some capacity to act on the environment and effect change—some more, some less. Some people are strong physically, intellectually, spiritually, politically, socially and so on. They have more power. Others are weak. They obviously have less power. Society dictates how certain kinds of power are distributed. Some people are awarded more power, some less. That means that some are dominant and others must defer. In most societies police officers are assigned power. In business bosses are assigned power. In religion pastors and priests are assigned power. In all our social arrangements, power is unequally distributed.

This unequal distribution of power is not the problem so far as the Bible is concerned. “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established” (Romans 13:1). The problem arises when those with power use that power to hurt others. When the power arrangements in church and society produce injustice, then God comes against the power abusers and to the aid of the victims. As God’s people, we must have the same attitude.

The Old Testament prophets spoke frequently on God’s behalf against the political and religious power abusers of their day: “For three sins of Damascus, and even for four, I will not turn back my wrath. Because she threshed Gilead with sledges . . .” (Amos 1:3). When those who were abusing power did not repent of their sin, God stepped in to judge them and work justice for the victims. “The Sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. I will remove them from tending the flock. . . . I myself will search for my sheep and look after them” (Ezekiel 34:10-11).

Jesus continued God’s justice work as he spoke out against the ecclesiastical power abusers of his day and offered help to their victims: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of God in men’s faces” (Matthew 23:13). “They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders” (Matthew 23:4). “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).

God not only distributes power and allows society to make power arrangements but also demands that those in power act responsibly. Specifically, God calls those in power to use it to serve those subject to them. Isaiah says to the power brokers of his day, “If you do away with the yoke of oppression . . . and if you spend yourself in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed . . . the Lord will guide you always” (Isaiah 58:9-11). That is to say, those in power with the ability to serve the needy are obliged to do so. Jesus put it this way: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them. . . . Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” (Matthew 20:25-26). Jesus has no problem with someone becoming powerful so long as the power of greatness is exercised in servanthood.

Healing Abuse

Anyone with power over others is a potential abuser. Parents have power over children, husbands over wives, bosses over workers, police over citizens, pastors over church members. Before God, these positions of authority, privilege and power come with obligations. Jesus himself models how to carry out these obligations. Jesus exercised authority and power over his followers by washing their feet and laying down his life for them. He was among them as one who served. Paul says that if we possess power and authority of any kind we are to follow Jesus’ example. “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant” (Phil. 2:5-7).

Abuse should not become the next cause or the witch-hunt of the nineties. We must be careful to discern patterns of abuse from incidents of mistakes. However, Jesus was certainly not silent on this issue, and we should, as always, follow his example. Any type of abuse continues because of ignorance and silence. As we responsibly discuss it, we can identify and stop it. As we learn to spot and correct abusive leaders and systems, we can also identify and support healthy, nonabusive leaders and systems. In addition, we can bring understanding and healing to many who remain shamed and wounded by past abuse.

The cure for abuse is spiritual healing. This begins with knowing the truth. “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). The truth is that God is angry at abuse perpetrated in the divine Name. God stands ready and able to heal the effects of such abuse and to turn bad family and church experiences into wisdom and power in our lives.

References and Resources

K. Blue, Healing Spiritual Abuse (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993); P. R. Gaddis, Battered but Not Broken: Help for Abused Wives and Their Church Families (Valley Forge, Penn.: Judson Press, 1996); Bruce A. Chadwick and Tim B. Heaton, eds., Statistical Handbook on the American Family Violence (Phoenix: Onyx, 1992); Linda Schmittroth, ed., Statistical Record of Children Crimes (Washington, D.C.: Gale Research, 1994).

—Ken Blue

Accountability, Relational

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

It used to be popular to say, “No one is an island,” reflecting a cultural understanding of connectedness and responsibility between people. But it is different today. Simon and Garfunkel’s plaintive 1960s folksong preached, “I am a rock; I am an island,” reflecting the extreme of our society’s rugged individualism. It is in this environment that accountability has almost disappeared and loneliness has become dominant.

Designed for Accountability

Rugged individualism goes against God’s design for human society. We were designed to be interconnected and complementary to each other. Even though the word accountability does not occur in most Bible translations, the concept is foundational. Male and female were designed to “become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). People of faith are to answer to one another (Acts 15:1-4; James 5:14-20).

A very clear picture of accountability is presented by Paul in his letter to the Corinthian church. Here he uses the image of a builder to describe all people of faith. He then describes how what we build will be measured and the quality or lack of it will bring either reward or loss. He clearly explains how responsible we are to God for all we are and do (1 Cor. 3:10-23).

Meaning of Accountability

What does accountability actually mean? Some contemporary definitions include the following:

Reckoning. Computation. A statement explaining one’s conduct. (Webster’s Dictionary)

Accounting denotes certain theories, behavioral assumptions, measurement rules and procedures for collecting and reporting useful information concerning the activities and objectives of an organization. (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Accountability looks back to some deed done or attitude held. Obligation looks forward to moral demands that need to be met in relationships. (Cole, pp. 734-35)

Our cultural understanding suggests that accountability is best designed when it encourages desirable performance. This process is served by the disciplines of bookkeeping or the classifying of data and activities in order to measure them against agreed-upon standards and expectations.

But in the community of faith it is much more. Accountability for believers is more dynamic. It is organic in nature and expressed through relationships, networks and systems. It is developed through visibility as in commissioning or storytelling, reporting and case-study processes. Further it is developed through strong relationships and creating a “confessing” environment among congregational or small-group leaders, thereby encouraging it among others (James 5:16). Reflection questions can be used in small groups to help people self-audit and mutual friends inquire of each other. Finally, accountability is demonstrated through stewardship and audit rhythms through annual reports, budgets, building upkeep, staff reviews and so on that are magnetic, enriching and clarifying.

Accountability in Scripture

There are examples of accountability in Scripture. Jesus exhibited accountability to his Father as he prayed and reviewed his work in his high priestly prayer (John 17:1-25). He illustrated our accountability to particular kinds of people by his concern for “the least of these” (Matthew 25:40). Ananias and Sapphira were held accountable for their manipulation of money and reputation in the early church and were punished for their violation of the group’s integrity (Acts 5:1-11).

Paul and Barnabas demonstrated their understanding of accountability when they voluntarily reported to the Jerusalem council regarding the controversy about non-Jews coming into the faith through their new work in Antioch (Acts 15:1-35). Paul declared, “Each of us will be accountable to God” (Romans 14:12 NRSV). Rewards and penalties will be administered in light of whether we construct our lives on the foundation of Jesus Christ or something less (1 Cor. 3:9-17). James held his churches accountable for their treatment of widows, the poor, the wealthy and sinners (James 1:9-11, 18; James 3:12-18; James 5:7-8, 17-18). John demonstrated that evil will be judged and recompensed in absolute and final ways (Rev. 20:1-5).

Outcomes of Accountability

Accountability is essential to healthy living. Herein we find protection from our worst tendencies. Sin has given us the terrible ability to misuse every good thing. Belonging to a body of faithful believers shields us from the worst manifestations of this condition. Living in relationships that call for responsibility to others brings balance and complementarity in our areas of weakness and encourages love, forgiveness, insight, protection and care. We are designed for and are called to this, and herein we thrive. Being held responsible to each other in the faith is a human demonstration of our creation nature as those who belong to God and who delight in that relationship.

» See also: Accountability, Workplace

» See also: Church in the Home

» See also: Confronting

» See also: Discipleship

» See also: Fellowship

» See also: Friendship

» See also: Networking

» See also: Small Groups

» See also: Spiritual Growth

References and Resources

G. A. Cole, “Responsibility,” in New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology, ed. D. J. Atkinson et al. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1995), pp. 734-36; D. L. Watson, Covenant Discipleship: Christian Formation Through Mutual Accountability (Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 1991).

—Pete Hammond

Accountability, Workplace

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Accountability is not a new concept. Deeply ingrained in the prophetic mind of the Old Testament was the understanding that God holds the leaders of Israel accountable for the care and nurture of his people. For example, God says to the shepherds of Israel, “who only take care of themselves! . . . I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock” (Ezekiel 34:2, 10). Where there is expectation, there is also accountability. This is true for family life, for church membership, for volunteer work, in organizations and in business.

How am I doing? Am I going anywhere? Am I growing? Am I learning? These are the questions of accountability. The expectation of progress, change or movement carries with it the element of accountability.

Accountability and Mission

Accountability therefore rests on a corporate purpose. Without a goal, objective, mission or expectation, there would be no need for accountability. It comes into play as soon as someone desires to change from the status quo to a new level of reality, experience or accomplishment, a future against which the present is compared. Accountability accepts responsibility for movement from the present in line with the purpose and measures progress toward the mission. It does this whether the responsibility is a self-expectation or the expectation of others.

Accountability and Responsibility

Accountability is in fact the flip side of responsibility. While we often use the concept of accountability to refer to the measurement of specific action or behavior in pursuit of the mission or objectives, it might be more appropriate to keep accountability closely linked with responsibility. It is only when a person is understood (and understands himself or herself) to be responsible for a particular action or progress that he or she is accountable. So accountability measures the progress or growth for which a person has accepted responsibility. It assumes that we want to grow, that we expect some movement which we want to measure, unless of course we want to stay in a steady state, in which case accountability seeks to measure that we have not lost ground!

While it is possible to be held accountable by another for a responsibility assigned, accountability and responsibility are most powerfully linked when they are owned. Ownership is the intentional internalizing of responsibility so that a person holds himself or herself accountable. When responsibility is owned, when accountability is internalized, it becomes a personal commitment and a powerful motivating force within the person.

Accountability and Commitment

Peter Block, in his excellent book The Empowered Manager, calls attention to the difference between commitment and sacrifice. When responsibility is imposed from outside and not owned by the person responsible, it requires sacrifice. The individual must sacrifice his or her personal vision to pursue a vision owned by someone else. This is neither satisfying nor motivating. Responsibility is assigned by someone else, and accountability is measured by someone else. On the other hand, ownership of responsibility leads to commitment. When the individual owns responsibility for the purpose, accountability flows from personal commitment. This is the highest form of motivation. The individual is accountable to himself or herself to fulfill the accepted responsibility as an expression of his or her own personal vision.

Accountability and Power

This distinction becomes painfully important in organizational settings where responsibility is given (and accepted), where accountability is expected, but the authority or resources necessary to fulfill the responsibility are not provided. This is the classic definition of powerlessness and leads to a significant loss of motivation and performance. It is critically important that the appropriate authority and resources be available to enable the person to fulfill the responsibility. Otherwise accountability is personally frustrating and organizationally meaningless.

In an organizational setting it is important to distinguish between accountability for results and accountability for tactics or strategies. Responsibility is best shared when it focuses on results and allows the individual to invest himself or herself in the determination of the best way to achieve those results in line with the organization’s mission and values. If too much specificity is involved in this, there is little responsibility given and thus little accountability. The assumption here is that responsibility can and should be shared, recognizing that this does not release those drawn into its exercise from responsibility and accountability.

Whether in business or volunteer church work, accountability structures need to be clearly defined. This can be one to one in spiritual friendships, through small groups, by means of performance reviews and through formal accountability groups, such as those outlined in David Watson’s book Covenant Discipleship.

Accountability at its best is the ownership of responsibility for results with self-evaluation and self-correction as one moves toward the accomplishment of a purpose or the living of a vision. It assumes personal integrity and organizational trust and loyalty.

» See also: Organization

» See also: Organizational Culture and Change

» See also: Organizational Values

» See also: Play

References and Resources

P. Block, The Empowered Manager (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987); D. L. Watson, Covenant Discipleship: Christian Formation Through Mutual Accountability (Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 1991).

—Walter Wright Jr.

Addiction

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

In the past the term addiction was reserved for the compulsive and uncontrolled use of certain psychoactive substances, notably alcohol, cocaine, narcotics and other mood-altering drugs. In recent times the term has been used as an overall label for a set of diverse addictive behaviors to objects, people, relationships, ideas or pursuits. So we now talk about addictions to food, work, sex, perfection, religion, ministry, gambling and even computer games. It is commonly believed that there is an underlying similarity among the entire spectrum of addictive behaviors—that all addicts desire a sense of well-being, a temporary heightening of self-esteem, a transient experience of ecstasy, a state of oblivion or some measure of relief from pain or tension.

The Addictive Process

The first step in a potentially addictive process is the individual’s encounter with the addicting “object” and the mood-altering experience it produces, the so-called peak experience. This affects different people in differing degrees. Those who are more susceptible to addictive behaviors tend to seek repetition of the peak experience until they become mentally obsessed by this emotional craving and preoccupied by the euphoric recalls, often fed with fantastic imaginations. Because of the mental obsession, the individual begins to lose contact with self and the environment; this is most obvious in the person’s denial of his addictive relationship to the peak experience by saying, “I am not an addict.” Other forms of denial may present themselves as a tendency to minimize the problem, to find an excuse for the preoccupation or to blame others for it.

The next stage in the addictive process is a loss of control. This is manifested not only in the frequent mental recall of the peak experience but also in an escalation of the frequency of acting out. In this stage, seeking peak experiences has become a behavioral obsession, and the individual usually develops observable personality changes, becoming defensive and irritable. Although the addictive behavior may still be within socially acceptable limits, the individual begins to feel shame and remorse and may make repeated resolutions and compulsive attempts to control his or her own thought patterns and behaviors. There is a need to create an illusion to oneself and to others that he or she is still in control.

Nevertheless, repetitions of the peak experience require an increasing amount of the addictive object (for example, alcohol) to be established and maintained. (This process is known as tolerance—a form of physiologic habituation in which the nerve cells become less sensitive and responsive to repeated stimuli so that an increase is required in order to produce a similar level of satisfaction.) When this stage is reached, the addicted individual’s loss of control becomes obvious, as it is accompanied by personal and social breakdowns. Often the addicting behaviors have to be interrupted abruptly due to a number of possible reasons, including financial exhaustion or repeated troubles with the law leading to incarceration. The individual will experience a state of withdrawal that can be mentally, emotionally and physically terrible. The physical withdrawal from some substances can be life threatening.

Psychosomatic Interpretation of Addiction

Throughout the last century, a number of theories have been advanced to explain the causes of addiction. One approach starts from the observation that addicted persons commonly exhibit one or all the following attributes: (1) exaggerated emotions and inability to deal with them, (2) difficulty with forming and/or maintaining normal relationships, (3) inability to look after oneself and (4) low self-esteem. A psychodynamic interpretation following the Freudian tradition suggests that the addicted person may be seeking to counterbalance an unfulfilled need experienced in infancy or a developmental defect due to either a physical or a psychological deficiency; in this view an addictive behavior serves as an affective prosthetic designed to strengthen the individual’s self-esteem. In this sense, addictive behavior is seen as a form of self-medication.

Disease Model of Addiction

While the psychodynamic model is valuable in explaining certain psychological aspects of addiction, it tends to disregard any biological factors as possible determining forces in addictive behaviors. In contrast, the biologic/disease model views addiction as a form of physiologic-genetic abnormality more or less beyond the control of the individual. This has been proposed since 1933 as a cause for alcoholism, with the result that hospitals were opened to treat alcoholics. The biological basis of addiction has since been corroborated by an enormous amount of neurophysiological and genetic research.

One of the most fascinating and significant studies was undertaken by James Olds and Peter Milner, who accidentally discovered in 1954 that stimulation of certain parts of the brain in experimental animals was able to elicit a pleasurable response. When allowed to self-stimulate through an electrical device, a variety of animals would seek these stimulations until they collapsed from exhaustion.

These brain areas are now referred to as reward centers or pleasure centers, and the activities within these centers are mediated by neurotransmitters such as serotonin, GABA and a number of opioid peptides. It is postulated that defects in these centers are linked to a loss or impairment of the sense of well-being and induce in the animal or human a craving for a substance(s) or activity that will relieve the feeling of dysphoria. Heroin, cocaine and amphetamines are known to interact with these centers, making them good candidates for substance abuse. Studies have also shown that activity-related elations and mood upswings associated with physical exercise, such as jogging, are related to an increased release of certain opioid/peptides (for example, endorphins known to be active in these brain centers), thus making health conscious compulsive joggers classic addicts.

Addiction and Heredity

Furthermore, to some extent deficiencies and imbalances in the pleasure centers have been shown to be inheritable. A degree of heredity in addictive behavior was postulated as early as the 1940s, when studies showed that the children of alcoholic parents often underestimated the amount of alcohol they consumed and usually drank considerably more than others before sensing any effect. Recent genetic research has shown that children of alcoholics have an unequal and increased susceptibility to alcoholism or other addictive behaviors when compared to their peers, even if they are raised by a nonalcoholic family.

In a thorough study based on the statistical analysis of the families of 2,651 alcoholics and 4,083 nonalcoholics, parental alcoholism was correlated specifically to alcohol problems in the children. Other adoption studies have shown a high incidence of alcoholism among the children of alcoholic parents, even if they are raised in a nonalcoholic home. These and other studies strongly suggest a possible genetic predisposition for addictive disorders, although the biological mechanism has yet to be elucidated. While the biologic/genetic model is scientific and rational and provides clear explanations for a relatively complex phenomenon, it is too much influenced by a modern paradigm of biomedicine and as such is reductionistic. Specifically, it overlooks social context and personal responsibility in health and sickness.

The Sociocultural Context of Addiction

The sociocultural/behavioral model emphasizes the impact of the social and cultural environment upon the behavior of the individual and its role in the development of an addiction. This approach regards addiction as a socially acquired habit carried to the extreme. Because family plays the most significant role in one’s psychosocial well-being, the stability of the family and particularly its interactive patterns, between parents and between parents and children, may be regarded as the main psychosocial determinant for addictive susceptibility. On the whole, research has shown that a family in which adolescents are living with both biological parents represents a low-risk family environment because it allows secure attachment patterns to be established; children growing up in such an environment are less susceptible to addictive behaviors than those living with single parents or stepparents. High-risk family environments are those in which anxious and fearful parents are extremely protective and restrictive, emotionally abusive parents are contradictory and misleading in communication, or parents are physically and emotionally abusive. Marital and psychiatric problems or conflicts with the law on the part of the parents are also factors in promoting addictive behaviors in children. Outside the family, societal values and worldviews also contribute to a person’s sociocultural milieu and thus play crucial roles in causing addictive behaviors. An example of the influence of social values is seen in the spread of eating disorders, which is correlated to the idealization of slimness in modern society.

Spiritual Basis of Addiction

Finally, there is the moral/spiritual model. This interpretation takes into consideration the importance of human desire as a basic determinant of human life. It views human desire as created by God and for the purpose of relating to God (Genesis 1:26; Psalm 42:1-2; John 17:5). Saint Augustine’s prayer “You have made us for yourself, and our soul is restless until we find rest in you” testifies to this basic human desire. But this desire has been distorted by our sinful nature. When we are disengaged from desiring God, our proper desire is derailed. Turning away from the Creator, we look for created things, objects and relationships to replace God (Exodus 20:3-5; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 8:4). We seek peak experiences and tend to indulge in them even when they are harmful to ourselves and others. Ultimately, human desire is corrupted to lust, worship to idolatry, devotion to addiction. This model views all addictions as sinful and all sins as addictive. A true test of grace is, therefore, freedom from all our addictions. The Christian life is a pilgrimage from lust to desire and from addiction to freedom.

It is unlikely that an adequate theory of addiction will be provided by any one single model. To the extent that humans are created and redeemed to be whole (see Healing; Health), any satisfactory analysis of addictive disorders must include biological, psychological, social and spiritual dimensions.

Recovery

The first step to recovery is to overcome the denial of addiction, not only by the addict but also by the significant others, who often act as codependents. This may involve painful but necessary confrontations, for which prayer, education and counseling are useful preparation. Next, a modification of one’s sociocultural milieu by avoiding addictive environments (for example, bars, casinos) and joining a specifically antiaddiction group (for example, Alcoholics Anonymous) is important. There is also a need to develop new skills and activities to fill the void after addictive behaviors are removed and to relearn to attend to such basic needs in life as relationships, family, physical health, housing, work and finances. At the same time, one needs to develop new skills to cope with stress, tension and inner hurts involved in feeling one’s true self, which has been masked by the addictive process in the past.

The popular Twelve Steps is a powerful and indispensable program in addiction recovery. Christians may recapture its Christian roots and put the biblical foundation back into this program. Many have witnessed it to be a life-transforming spiritual journey in which they have met God. Admission of one’s powerlessness and surrender to God (steps I, II, III; Proverbs 3:5-6; Romans 12:1) is followed by an honest self-examination and a taking of one’s personal moral inventory (step IV; Psalm 139:24; Lament. 3:40). Confession of wrongdoings and asking for forgiveness ensue (steps V, VI, VII; Psalm 37:4-5; James 4:10; James 5:16; 1 John 1:9), which also includes making restitution to those who have been harmed (steps VIII, IX; Luke 19:8). Ongoing recovery involves an ongoing journey of sanctification by continuing personal inventory and confession whenever necessary (step X; 1 John 1:7-8), and this means daily prayer and meditation to maintain conscious contact with God and to seek his will and power to carry it out (step XI; Col. 3:16). Having been visited by grace and set free, one also tries to share the good news with others who are in bondage and reach out to others who may need help (step XII; Galatians 6:2).

» See also: Drivenness

» See also: Drugs

» See also: Healing

» See also: Health

» See also: Spiritual Conflict

» See also: Spiritual Disciplines

» See also: Spiritual Growth

References and Resources

G. May, Addiction and Grace (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988); J. E. Royce, Alcohol Problems and Alcoholism (New York: Free Press, 1989); The Twelve Steps—A Spiritual Journey (San Diego: Recovery Publications, 1988).

—Edwin Hui

Adolescence

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Adolescence is the period of life between childhood and adulthood in which life-affecting changes occur. Many academics have called adolescence an invention of modern society. They claim that people in more primitive and earlier times, even as late as the nineteenth century, did not view people between the ages of fifteen and twenty-five as being in a special time of growth and development. Certainly this time period was not filled with the stresses and struggles that we often associate with contemporary adolescence. While there is some truth to their assertion, one can find many historical references to the fact that the period we call adolescence is significantly different from childhood and adulthood. Some references go back as far as Socrates, who decried the behaviors of youths in his day. It would be worthwhile for us to acknowledge these changes and work with them to facilitate the growth and development of youths from childhood to adulthood.

A Time of Inner and Outer Change

Adolescence is a special time of development in all areas of a young person’s life. Development occurs as youth grow from less to more mature in all areas of their lives within their own social and cultural environment. Because of their development in several domains, adolescents sense new powers, abilities, interests and processes at work in them. Exploring these new avenues leads to new creations both internally within the adolescent and also externally between the adolescence and his or her world.

Internally, adolescents restructure and develop values, and ultimately a new understanding of the self, of “who I am.” This occurs in the six domains of human development: physical—growing from a child’s body to an adult body; cognitive—developing the ability to think abstractly (perform formal operations); social—learning to recognize and accept adult social and sex roles; affective—gaining control of one’s emotions; moral—moving from making egocentric moral judgments and actions to those that are other-centered, then principle-driven and ultimately agape-based; spiritual—forming a personally owned, examined and internalized faith.

Externally, adolescents make many changes in their relationships with others. These changes take the forms of new processes by which adolescents relate to their entire world, new modes of behavior, new relationships and experiences, and new feelings and meanings about others and the external world.

These internal and external processes and relationships produce intrapersonal disruptions, changes, stresses and at times turmoil, as well as interpersonal conflicts between self and parents, relatives, friends, siblings, teachers and many other authority figures.

In short, adolescent development is the process within the total personhood from approximately age twelve through twenty-five by which various structural and development changes occur at identifiable stages along the way.

Adolescent development is manifested in various forms of behavior, some of which are socially acceptable. Other forms are questionable, and some are socially and personally destructive.

Culture and Adolescence

The world of adolescence in both Western and non-Western societies is composed of major dimensions or factors that are characteristics of any subculture. The astute youth worker or parent will want to keep in mind that youth subcultures go through dynamic changes. What might be in vogue today may be out tomorrow; something new will become all the rage for anywhere from a few weeks to a few years or even longer. Only one thing is certain. Youth culture does not remain static; it is in a constant state of flux.

How can one address the needs of youth when the subculture is constantly changing? By becoming a social anthropologist, that is, one who studies youth culture and seeks to understand what is going on. All cultures have certain common factors, but particular subcultures exhibit them in unique ways.

Consider these major dimensions (for 1-8 see Sebold):

Values and norms. These are the basis for decision-making and behavior. They are usually unique to youth and are often not understood by adults.

In-group language, their argot. Youths have their own words and language to communicate with each other that are unique to their own culture and time. This language is not shared by children or adults. In this way adolescents keep their secrets and keep out nonadolescents from their world.

Distinct channels of mass communication. MTV is their station. Rock music radio stations are also theirs. They have their own magazines, Internet pages and forums. This is how they communicate with each other and how the subculture of adolescents is made more homogenous worldwide.

Unique styles and fads. Adolescents have distinct hair and clothing styles, mannerisms and so on. These styles are usually fads that change often within a year or two.

Sense of solidarity. Adolescents feel like they are in their own clan, and they are correct to a large degree. They are segregated into schools, offered low-paying after-school jobs and generally kept separate from the adult world. They hang out together because they are pushed by social institutions.

Status criteria. They have developed a way of measuring successful achievement, ownership and use of their subcultures’ status symbols—language, fads, values, channels of communication and identification with their subculture. People who do not measure up are often shunned or treated badly because they do not confirm to the criteria.

Influence and power of leaders. Adolescents are influenced by heroes and charismatic leaders, especially those that are disdained by adult cultures.

Subcultural institutions. Specialized institutions meet the needs that the main culture cannot, or does not, desire to meet; the entertainment/recreational industry caters to teens by offering youth-oriented magazines and electronic malls.

Geography. This is where adolescents reside and, almost equally important, where they go to learn, hang out, work, have fun, recreate, be entertained and play. They have their own locations, be it a street corner, someone’s house or a mall. It is their own bit of turf. Almost all American high schools have particular sections on their campuses where various subgroups assemble.

Use of technology. Mechanical and electronic technology allows adolescents to escape (or leave) their immediate surroundings and go somewhere else literally or figuratively. Teens escape by means of cars, bikes, skateboards, body/surfboards, radio and TV stations (MTV), youth-oriented movies, video games, amusement parks and concerts. Of great and increasing importance to adolescents are the Internet and other electronic means of communicating with those of like mind.

In many ways adolescents today are in their own world. They are a subculture to themselves. This world is only more complicated by the fact of the irregular but sure development from immature to more mature persons. What youth need today, as in any other day, is loving acceptance of them as real human beings, not some sort of otherworldly creatures that have to be tolerated until they “grow up.” Adolescents are people now. They are people whom God loves, for whom Christ died and in whom the Holy Spirit may dwell. Christian teens are spiritually gifted people called into ministry just as are adults.

Jesus as an Adolescent

Jesus was a teenager! For many, this might be a revelation. Luke 1 and Luke 2 tell of his conception, birth and growth as a normal human being. This does not denigrate Jesus’ divinity; he was entirely God. Luke is careful, however, to tell us that Jesus was also very much a total human being. Hebrews 2:17-18; Hebrews 4:15 also state explicitly that Jesus was just like any other human being. In fact, the writer of Hebrews makes it very clear that Jesus had to be human. If he were not, then he could not identify with us, and his reconciling act of redemption would not be complete.

What is most amazing is that Jesus’ adolescent behaviors in Luke 2:51-52 are similar to those that many teenagers evidence today—and with the same reactions from their parents as Jesus had from his! So the temple narrative provides parents with a great deal of encouragement that their own adolescents, whether they are twelve or twenty-two, are quite normal. Adolescents themselves can find comfort in this story if they recognize that the problems Jesus encountered are similar to their own, and that he can be a model for how to handle similar ones today.

The age of twelve was critical for a Jewish male. This age was the transition from childhood to adulthood, much like modern adolescence is for today’s youth. In Jesus’ day life was less complex, temptations were less prevalent, and society was of one mind in how to raise up children into adulthood, so adolescence may have been less turbulent than now. Yet it was at the age of twelve that Jesus went to the temple, full of the excitement that anyone his age would have contemplating the holy city and the temple rituals associated with the Passover feast.

The narrative of Jesus in the temple illustrates all six of the previously stated major developmental domains or areas.

Physical development. Jesus was evidently a physically mature person, enough for him to take care of himself alone in the capital city of Jerusalem for at least three and perhaps up to five days. Perhaps he even looked older than the normal twelve-year-old.

Luke states: “Jesus grew in wisdom and stature” (Luke 2:52; see also Luke 2:40). Jesus grew up physically just like any other human, and just like young people today. This verse along with Hebrews 2 and Hebrews 4 suggests that Jesus’ physical body went through the same growth and development as any other adolescent. If this is so, then we can assume that he developed structurally and muscularly like any other teenager. His body proportions changed from a boy to a man. He began to grow body hair and develop sexually just like any normal youth. His voice changed from a child’s to that of an adult. He developed hand-eye coordination so that he could pound a nail in the carpenter shop in Nazareth without destroying either the wood or his fingers. He could run and play and had lots of energy. He probably ate as much as possible so that his parents wondered if he had a bottomless pit for a stomach.

Cognitive development. According to Jewish custom, Jesus would at this age begin to study the Law (Talmud) and to take on the responsibilities associated with the Law. His parents evidently felt he could be trusted to make informed judgments about what to do. They had to have allowed him much unsupervised time in Jerusalem, otherwise how could he have been left behind? Jesus evidenced independence from his parents, seeking out his own interests and concerns. He knew enough about himself and what he was about to begin to enter into dialogue with the teachers in the temple.

Mary and Joseph did not seem to understand Jesus. First they thought he was with the pilgrims on the return trip; then they looked for him all through the city. Seemingly in exasperation and not without some sense of hopelessness, they finally went to the temple, not really expecting to find him there. We can almost hear one of Jesus’ earthly parents saying to the other, “Well, we’ve searched everywhere and can’t find him. Let’s start where we last saw him and go from there.” And surprise of all surprises, there he was!

Why did Jesus go back to the temple? He was like any other cognitively growing adolescent. He had questions about life, about his experiences in the temple, about what he saw and heard as he went through the feast of the Passover. One wonders what he might have been thinking if he recalled the words of Isaiah 53 and of the suffering servant of other parts of Isaiah. His parents found him among the teachers in the temple, listening to them and asking them questions. He was using his mind to inquire and learn. One can only speculate as to his questions. It would seem natural that he had questions about the Feast of the Passover which they had all just experienced. Whatever he asked and said, he amazed those around him with his understanding, insights and replies. The teachers and other adults present treated him as a person on a par with themselves. They did not dismiss him as some little child. They allowed him to interact with them. Adults are amazed when a younger person today, like Jesus, listens carefully, asks thoughtful questions and offers responsible answers. So Jesus surprised those teachers in the temple.

In typical adolescent fashion, he was developing a sense of self-identity and mission that would eventually lead him to Calvary. But in the temple, he knew that he was not just the son of Mary and Joseph. He, like adolescents today, had begun to distinguish self from others, to know what he was not and what he wanted to become, and to articulate that self-identity even though in only partial ways. His reply to Mary is instructive about his self-identity. He distinguished between Joseph and his heavenly Father and the need to be in his Father’s house, and by implication, to be about his Father’s instead of his father’s business.

In one sense, Jesus demonstrated what many adolescents want to demonstrate, namely, that they are growing up; they do not want to be considered children any longer; they are searching for new and exciting experiences to test their own sense of identity and development. Jesus’ young life was awakening to his mission and to the very essence of his being.

Social development. Jesus’ parents evidently thought he was a “social” person, that he was somewhere with the crowd of friends and family on the return trip to Nazareth. They must have considered other occasions when Jesus would be gone for a long part of the day and had no great concern for his safety. They probably thought, He’s probably with his friends. Jesus, however, wasn’t with his usual associates; he was holding his own with teachers and priests. Evidently, he could talk and interact socially with many people in such a way that they did not think to consider his young age and his apparent lack of supervision.

Today’s youth are similar to Jesus. They are increasingly socially adept in various situations. With the advent of the first totally TV generation already in history, and now a second and even third TV generation, adolescents around the world are ever more sophisticated in situations that would have totally discomforted their grandparents of the 1950s. Today’s adolescents surprise many adults when given a chance to ask questions and state their thoughts or insights. The problem many adolescents face is not that they lack social skills but that adults will not carry on a serious conversation with them. Often most of the communication from adults to youth is in the form of commands or prohibitions. The “Just Say No” campaign is a good example of well-meaning adults’ failure to recognize the social and cognitive development of today’s youth and the temptations surrounding them. Merely telling youth not to do something without giving them a chance to talk, share, inquire and question is a recipe for failure.

Affective development. Both Jesus’ parents and Jesus himself showed affective, emotional development in the incident in Luke 2 (see Emotions). His parents showed their astonishment and exasperation, if not even panic. Upon finding him in the temple, seemingly calmly interacting with the teachers, his mother let out a typical “Jewish mother” shout. She exclaimed, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.” She was emotionally upset. It is no wonder: Jesus had been missing for three or more days, depending on how one counts the days in the text. There had been no hint of where he could be. They were upset, and rightly so. They did not understand why he had done what he had done.

This is a common plight of just about every parent in the world when it comes to their adolescent sons and daughters. Parents continually ask the emotionally laden question “What have you done and why did you do it?” The often-asked question of parents is “What has become of our little boy/girl? You used to be so good. Now look at you. We don’t understand what is happening to you.”

Jesus, on the other hand, showed typical adolescent lack of thought about what consequences his actions might have for other people’s feelings. He was looking for new experiences; he was caught up in the emotion of the event, finding great personal satisfaction by being in his Father’s house. There is no suggestion that “the devil made him do it” or that he was driven to stay in the city by the Holy Spirit. It was his free choice, flowing from his decision to encounter more of the great delight that he found at the temple. Undoubtedly he was excited by the big city of Jerusalem compared to the small town of Nazareth. The activities of the Feast of the Passover with its sacrifice and meals stirred his heart, mind, and soul to reflect on the lamb that was slain. His response would be similar today to an adolescent who attended the Super Bowl and then sneaked his way on the team airplane.

Moral development. Moral development focuses on the way one decides what actions to take and which actions are considered good or bad. Children usually make moral judgments based on what is best for themselves. If they are punished, they know something is bad. If they like what they are doing and there is no punishment associated with it, then it must be good. In the temple story we see Jesus making a moral judgment that it was fine for him not to tell his parents where he was, to remain in Jerusalem without permission, and not to be accountable to any earthly person except himself. He was focused on his own needs, identity, and desire to interact in the temple. He did not think about his parents and their needs. This should sound familiar to parents worldwide. Jesus evidenced typical moral judgments of a twelve-year-old. He may have been physically mature, precocious in intellectual or cognitive development, and well adept at social relationships, but he was typical of early adolescence when it came to moral development.

When Mary rebuked him by her comment, Jesus responded with mild rebuke to her in the form of a question: “Why were you searching for me? . . . Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” Regardless of Jesus’ sinlessness, he responded typically of someone at his stage of moral development. Unfortunately, that response is often taken by authoritarian parents as being disrespectful, insolent and therefore offensive.

If we understand Jesus’ developmental stage, we would not see it this way. Jesus’ response to his mother’s question should be taken as it is meant to be understood: a statement of a well-meaning young person who cannot understand why his parents were all upset by what appeared to him as innocent behavior. They should have know where to look for him. Why? Because Jesus knew what he was doing and where he was. He assumed, like most adolescents, that his parents would somehow know what he was thinking if he was thinking it. It takes a higher level of moral development for a young adolescent to be able to switch places with others to learn how they might understand a particular moral situation. Jesus was not mature enough at this point to do so and therefore responded in a typical way to his mother’s excited question and statements.

Jesus demonstrated the way many adolescents make their moral choices. They view things only from their limited moral viewpoint: it takes time for normal adolescents to move from their immature egocentrism to a more mature stage.

Jesus, however, willingly submitted to his parent’s authority. Though he had just alluded that Joseph was not his father, yet he went with his parents to Nazareth and was obedient to them. He recognized that they had authority over him and that his role was to obey that rightful authority. Jesus’ sinlessness comes to the fore at this point. Although all adolescents are tempted and often succumb to defying their parents’ authority, Jesus, being tempted to do the same at the temple, did not. This is where Jesus’ actions differ from those of adolescents: he did not consider his parents’ lack of understanding of him, his actions and motives as sufficient grounds to disobey them. Parents would very much like to see Jesus’ behavior copied by their own adolescent children.

Spiritual development. Jesus’ faith development was evidenced in several ways in the narrative. He was in the temple with the teachers, obviously interested in the faith of his parents and nation. His cognitive and social development helped him to be comfortable asking questions, listening and processing the teachers’ comments. He also was seemingly quite at home in his “Father’s house.” It seems by implication that he had spent a good amount of the days separated from his parents in the temple. His developing sense of who he was and what he was to do was growing on him. One can imagine the intense look on his face and the thoroughness of his questions as he sought to understand what was being taught.

Like all adolescents, Jesus had a genuine interest in religious things, more so since he grew up in a society that enculturated the Jewish faith from infancy through adulthood. To be Jewish meant believing in the one true God of Abraham and the law of Moses. Today the vast majority of adolescents have a sense of religion and a high interest in spiritual matters. Few are truly atheists, especially younger adolescents. Not until young people arrive in university or college classes do they begin to “lose their faith,” or at least begin to have serious doubts about what they have been taught.

Because Jesus was human, likely he had doubts about many things as he grew up. His faith development, however, continued and did not waver. Luke states, “And Jesus grew . . . in favor with God and men.” His strong identification of himself with his Father’s house indicated that his faith development was more mature than that of most adolescents his age. Yet while he was precocious in faith development, he was not totally off the normal faith development scale. He had questions to ask about his faith. Many youth have a strong identity with God and do not waver into unbelief even though they may have doubts from time to time. Many youth have a strong spiritual sense that continues to cause them to seek God and to keep on growing. It is not until the “cares of this life” in adulthood come upon them that they begin to lose some if not much of their enthusiasm for spiritual things. More than one adult has commented on the spiritual enthusiasm of youth by saying, “Just wait until they get to be adults and they see how difficult it is to be a Christian in the world. They’ll not be so excited about Christ then.” If we assume that spiritual and faith development get thwarted by the cares of this world, perhaps these adults are correct. The message of Jesus’ own life and the teachings of the Epistles suggests that while lack of continual spiritual development may not be too unusual, it is by no means the biblical norm. Jesus showed us that a young adolescent could be actively engaged in his own faith development and that such action is normal and welcomed.

Adolescence is a normal part of human development, as Jesus’ example shows. Adults need to recognize the signs of normalcy in the lives of all the adolescents with whom they have contact. Adults should help adolescents along their developmental paths so they may continue as smoothly as possible in their growth and development into more and more mature adolescents and then adults.

» See also: Faith Development

» See also: Family

» See also: Life Stages

» See also: Parenting

» See also: Spiritual Growth

References and Resources

D. P. Ausbel et al., Theory and Problems of Adolescent Development (New York: Green and Stratton, 1977); M. Brake, The Sociology of Youth Culture and Youth Subcultures: Sex, Drugs and Rock ’n’ Roll (Boston: Kegan Paul, 1980); J. M. Dettoni, Introduction to Youth Ministry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993); D. Elkind, All Grown Up and No Place to Go: Teenagers in Crisis (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Welsey, 1984); T. Lickona, Raising Good Children: Helping Your Child Through the Stages of Moral Development (New York: Bantam, 1983); D. Offer, E. Ostrove et al., The Teenage World (New York: Plenum, 1988); S. Parks, The Critical Years (New York: Harper & Row, 1986); L. Parrott, Helping the Struggling Adolescent (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993); Q. Schultz, R. M. Anker et al., Dancing in the Dark: Youth Popular Culture and the Electronic Media (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991); H. Sebold, Adolescence: A Social Psychological Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1984).

—John M. Dettoni

Adornment

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Adornment is a mark of humanity. Seashells and lilies of the valley do not need decoration, and it is an affectation to clothe animals, who are never naked. Clothing is a gift of God to humankind.

Adornment Initially Provided by God

In the beginning husband and wife were at ease with one another and naked before God without shame (Genesis 2:21-25). After the original sin, Eve and Adam felt exposed and tried to cover themselves with makeshift aprons of fig leaves (Genesis 3:7). God’s first act of mercy was to provide the man and woman with leather coats so they would be less vulnerable in God’s good world to the cursed thorns, the heat, the cold and the violence and decrepitude that humankind now would be busy resisting (Genesis 1:26-31; Genesis 3:14-21). To this day clothing is a blessing that protects the privacy peculiar to us human creatures made in God’s image.

Adornment and Celebration

When a person is grieving or depressed, you feel like Job that being stripped down to your nakedness is somehow elementally appropriate (Job 1:21). But when it is time to be happy, married or festive, or time for a song about Christ’s victory over sin, you want to be dressed up (compare Isaiah 61:10-11; Rev. 7:9-17). The Old Testament reports extensively on the splendid finery prepared for the high priest Aaron to don after he was ritually purified (Exodus 28-29). The elaborate vestments and perfuming oils certified that Aaron’s official “naked purity” and the priests who mediated God’s forgiveness to God’s people were covered over by the holy glory of God (Exodus 39:27-31). Such attention to careful adornment is probably behind the practice of praising God on the Lord’s Day in “your Sunday best,” since all God’s people are now priests, thanks to Jesus Christ’s mediatorial sacrifice (1 Peter 2:1-10; Rev. 1:5-6).

Adornment as Temptation

Any of God’s gifts to humankind can be perverted by our vanity. The show of a leg, a hairstyle or the jewelry of women and men is evil if it supplants hope in the Lord’s mercy or distracts us from heartfelt love of the neighbor. Then adornment stinks in God’s nostrils (Psalm 147:10-11; Isaiah 3:16-26; 1 Peter 3:1-12). It is typical of false leaders, said Jesus, to wear elaborate suits (Matthew 23:1-12).

Adornment and Joy

It is significant that Christ mentions clothing in the same breath that he says our heavenly Father knows we need food and drink but advises we not chase it down the way godless people do (Matthew 6:19-34). If a person follows secular fashions in order to put himself or herself on display as a conspicuous consumer or simply dresses in a humdrum manner for all occasions, the clothes betray the man and disclose where the woman’s heart is. Both aesthetes who are dressed to kill and ascetics who reject the God-given opportunity of adornment to enhance our bodily lineaments go wrong. Humans are called upon to thank God for clothing, to use cotton, flax, wool and animal fur and skin to protect ourselves from evil, and to reflect that we are corporeally a good-looking godly man or boy or a glorious girl or woman of God—in short, that we are beautiful. Homespun, imaginative ethnic apparel can often be more normative and comely in the Lord’s eyes than reigning secularized Western couture if the dress brings an ordinary, peaceful joy of nuanced glory to one’s neighbor.

» See also: Body

» See also: Culture

» See also: Dress Code, Workplace

References and Resources

J. Craik, The Face of Fashion: Cultural Studies in Fashion (London: Routledge, 1994); A. Lurie, The Language of Clothes (New York: Random, 1981); M. Starkey, Fashion and Style (Crowborough, U.K.: Monarch, 1995).

—Calvin Seerveld

Advertising

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Years ago Marshall McLuhan said, “Ours is the first age in which many thousands of our best trained minds made it a full-time business to get inside the collective public mind . . . to manipulate, exploit, and control” (p. v). Given its pervasive and persuasive character, advertising is without doubt one of the most formative influences in popular culture, shaping values and behavior and telling people how and why to live. It is estimated that the average North American is subjected to over one thousand advertisements daily in one or other of the media (television, radio, magazines, newspapers, billboards, direct mail) covering everything from perfume to automobiles, from fast food to insurance.

Advertising is simply any paid form of nonpersonal presentation to promote products, services or ideas, sometimes, but not always, in a way attractive to the person the advertiser wishes to influence. In a market economy, advertising can supply information needed for the people to make an informed choice. But on the other hand, advertising is frequently used to persuade people or even seduce them to believe that what they want is what they need and that consuming a particular product will in some way change them. In other words, advertising tinkers with identity and values.

Not a Recent Invention

While many people think advertising was invented on Madison Avenue in New York City during the post-World War II boom, advertising is as old as civilization. Ironically one of the oldest pieces of advertising from antiquity that can be viewed today is an inscription of a woman in the pavements of ancient Ephesus (modern Turkey) advertising the nearby brothel. But even before this, in ancient Egypt (3200 b.c.) the names of kings were stenciled on temples, and runaway slaves were “advertised” on papyrus. Advertising took a giant step forward with the invention of movable type and the printing of the Gutenburg Bible (a.d. 1450). It could then be endlessly repeated and mass-produced. Not long after this, an English newspaper advertised prayer books for sale, a forerunner of the newspaper ad. While it can be argued that people have always been trying to persuade others to do, buy or experience something—from town criers to preachers—it is unquestionable that rapid industrialization, urbanization, the proliferation of media and now the information superhighway have escalated advertising to a central role in culture formation, perhaps even in spiritual formation, since it is a major player in establishing values and defining meaning-giving experiences.

As a form of communication, advertising has some good intended effects, some recognized by commentators on the Third World scene, where advertising has found almost virgin territory. Besides sometimes giving people information to make choices when there is more than one product or service offered, advertising is often used to promote desirable social aims, such as savings and investment, family planning, health-promoting products (such as antimalarial drugs), lifestyles that will reduce AIDS and fertilizers that will enhance crop production (MacBride, p. 154). Advertising helps the media to be autonomous from politics—not a small matter in some countries. But when we consider the overall impact, it is less clear to most observers that the effects of a highly commercialized culture are beneficial. Nowhere is this more evident than in the West.

The Not-So-Subtle Message

The intended effect of advertising is not merely to make a sale but to awaken or produce predispositions to buy an advertised product or service (Britt, p. 195). To advertise “Coke Is It” is not simply to sell a brand, but to have us think of branded, packaged goods when thirsty, not just plain water. It also alters our perceptions so that when we experience that branded beverage, we will see it a certain way, associating fizziness with youthfulness and joy. The total effect of advertising is to preoccupy society with material goods and services as the path to happiness and the solution to virtually all problems and needs. Commercial persuasion appears to program not only our shopping patterns but also the larger domain of our social roles, language, goals, values and the sources of meaning in our culture.

Advertising does this very effectively for several reasons. It is (1) pervasive, appearing in many modes and media; (2) repetitive, reinforcing the same and similar ideas relentlessly; (3) professionally developed, with all of the attendant research sophistications to improve the probabilities of attention, comprehension, retention and/or behavioral impact; and (4) delivered to an audience that is increasingly detached from traditional sources of cultural influence like families, churches or schools. A stunning example of the deceptiveness of advertising is the story of American cigarette ads in the 1960s. Backed by massive television budgets, they implied that filtered brands were good for our health. Smoking rates among teenagers continued to grow even after the famous report of the surgeon general in 1964.

Unintended Consequences

Not surprisingly, such an intrusive and all-pervasive system of communication has been negatively critiqued by academics and social scientists who are concerned with the effects of advertising on role-modeling, child development, social behavior and even religious belief. A Yale psychologist confessed, “Advertising makes me miserable” by an intensified pursuit of goals that would not have been imagined save for advertising (Dollard, p. 307). People are induced to keep productive in order to keep consuming, to work in order to buy because we are always in need of more. This has the serious (unintended) side effect of displacing feelings from people to objects and an alienating effect in which the self is perceived not as a child of God or as a person in community, but as an exchange commodity. Life is trivialized, not dignified, when someone becomes evangelistic about mundane material objects like mayonnaise.

Nowhere may interpersonal relations be more affected than in the home as the roles of both women and children as consumers get expanded and redefined. Advertising has become an insolent usurper of parental function, “degrading parents to mere intermediaries between their children and the market” (Henry, p. 76). Relations with neighbors, the proverbial Joneses we strive to keep up with, are increasingly based on envy, emulation and competition. Advertising works on the tension-arousal and tension-reduction (with the use of the product) process. In the case of the poor and marginalized, the inaccessibility of the products being offered “may create in some viewers feelings of frustration sufficient to make them engage in antisocial acts” (Myers, p. 176).

Advertising, for almost as long as it has existed, has used some sort of sexual sell, sometimes promising seductive capacities, sometimes more simply attracting our attention with sexual stimuli, even if irrelevant to the product or the selling point. While less graphic than pornography, advertising is more of a tease than a whore, for sexual stimulation is moderated and channeled. Nevertheless, the overall effect represents a challenge to standards of decency, a devaluing of women and a revaluing of the body. Erik Barnouw notes that we now see women caressing their bodies in showers with a frequency and reverence of attention that makes “self-love a consecrated ritual” (p. 98).

Advertising also affects the credibility of language. S. I. Hayakawa notes that “it has become almost impossible to say anything with enthusiasm or joy or conviction without running into the danger of sounding as if you were selling something” (p. 268). Advertising is a symbol-manipulating occupation. For example, “Christmas and Easter have been so strenuously exploited commercially that they almost lose their religious significance” (Hayakawa, p. 269). Because virtually all citizens seem to recognize this tendency of ad language to distort, advertising seems to turn us into a community of cynics, and we doubt the advertisers, the media and authority in all its forms. Thus we may also distrust other received wisdoms from political authorities, community elders, religious leaders and teachers of all kinds. But without trustworthy communication, there is no communion, no community, only an aggregation of increasingly isolated individuals, alone in the mass.

Religious Significance

Some anthropologists view advertising in terms of rituals and symbols—incantations to give meaning to material objects and artifacts. Advertising defines the meaning of life and offers transcendence in the context of everyday life. Our commercial-religious education begins early with jingles, slogans and catch phrases, the total commercial catechism, so that children learn the “rite words in the rote order.” So direct exhortations are employed, literally a series of commandments, a secular litany that Jacques Barzun identified as “the revealed religion of the twentieth century” (p. 53). “You get only one chance at this life; therefore get all the gusto you can!” is a theological claim and a moral injunction. Toward this end advertising appeals to the traditional seven deadly sins: greed, lust, sloth, pride, envy and gluttony, with anger only infrequently exploited or encouraged. Since these words are frowned upon in the advertising community, they must be given a different spin. Lust becomes the desire to be sexually attractive. Sloth becomes the desire for leisure. Greed becomes the desire to enjoy the good things of this life. Pride becomes the desire for social status (Mayer, p. 128). In this way advertising cultivates what Paul called “the works of the flesh” (Galatians 5:17-23; Galatians 6:8 NRSV). Morality is subverted; values are revised; ultimate meaning is redefined.

The Ethics of Persuasion

All this happens largely without the viewer knowing it. Those who defend the present state of the advertising art claim that the most far-reaching advertising campaign cannot force someone to buy something he or she does not want. The citizen is supposedly immune to persuasion. But advertising is by definition intrusive, so intrusive that the real message communicated on television or in magazines is often the commercials. This successful commanding of attention makes the attempt to concentrate on the remaining content of media “like trying to do your algebra homework in Times Square on New Year’s Eve” (Hayakawa, p. 165).

Such intrusion, first into our consciousness and then into our inner voices, distracts us from the serenity of solitude and thereby inhibits self-awareness. The repetitive, fantastic, one-sided and often exhortative rhetorical styles of advertising combine to blur the distinction between reality and fantasy, producing a state of uncritical consciousness, passivity and relative powerlessness. Nonwants becomes wants; wants become needs. Advertising would never have taken hold the way it has without the American (and ultimately the Western) psyche having undergone a change in the direction of viewing itself therapeutically. We need help; advertising offers it. Not only this, but morals and values get adapted to the message: indulge, buy, now and here. As Barnouw observes, “The viewer’s self-respect requires a rejection of most commercials on the conscious level, along with some ridicule. Beneath the ridicule the commercial does its work” (p. 83).

It does this work in ways that are ethically questionable. Advertising is advocative through giving incomplete information, half-truths or careful deceptions, by being insistent, exhortative and emphatic. It appeals essentially to emotions, seducing people to indulge themselves now rather than defer gratification, reducing life to the here and now, if not the moment. It reinforces social stereotypes, aggravates sexism, racism and ageism. In idealizing the “good life” advertising makes us perpetually dissatisfied. Can it be resisted?

Battling Seduction

The myth of immunity to advertising’s inducements is clearly a delusion for some or perhaps many or even most of the public, including Christians. So the first thing we need to do is admit that we live in an advertising environment. Then what?

First, Christian organizations and churches need to repent of their own seductive advertising. The end never justifies the means. Keeping the televangelist on the air does not justify half-truths and appeals to the flesh. Many relief organizations use rhetorical devices and selected “truths” to get money for their great cause. A good first step would be for Christian organizations to establish an ethical code for their own advertising to be published along with their financial statements.

Second, the church or groups of people can lobby or use legitimate channels of political expression to press for the closer regulation of advertising. Some obscene ads have been effectively banned by consumers boycotting certain suppliers, although an unintended side effect is sometimes more publicity for the product itself, as happened with some of the Calvin Klein ads (Faltermayer, p. 64).

Third, Christians working in the advertising industry need the prayerful support of their church as they are stewards of the culture and shapers of morals. There is no place in the world where it is easy to work as a Christian (even the church), but there is no place so demonized that a Christian might not be called to work there. The well-known novelist and apologist Dorothy Sayers worked for many years in advertising and turned the experience to good literary and theological effect.

Fourth, individually we can become more critical of advertising, reflecting on what we see and hear and discussing the intended and unintended consequences as families and groups of friends. One of the most important facets of Christian education in the family is to learn how to more than survive in the world. This will normally involve limiting time watching television, deliberately excluding commercials where possible and discussing the values implicit in advertising.

Fifth, in place of the seven deadly sins, which are often cultivated by the advertising industry, we should cultivate the seven cardinal virtues—wisdom, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope and love (see Organizational Values; Values). Spiritual conflict is a fact of life in this world, but if we live in the Spirit and are firmly rooted in a genuine community of the Spirit we can battle the world, the flesh and the devil victoriously. Paul said, “Live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature” (Galatians 5:16 NRSV).

Sixth, the recovery of solitude, sabbath and spiritual disciplines are crucial to regaining and keeping our true identity. Most people in the Western world need to reduce the input they receive from the media, take periods of fasting from television, magazines and advertising, in order to regain perspective. If we get over a thousand messages each day to buy and consume, we need equally to hear God speak through Scripture and the stillness of our hearts. The advertising world cultivates discontentment; true spirituality leads to contentment whether we have much or little (Phil. 4:12). By recovering God at the center through worship, we are protected from both being manipulated and becoming manipulators.

Seventh, we need to recover shopping as a spiritual discipline: not shopping impulsively, not shopping thoughtlessly, not buying on the strength of advertisements but doing our own research on products and services with the help of others and objective surveys.

Advertising is clearly not an omnipotent master, nor is the consumer a helpless puppet. But the cumulative effect of an advertising environment cannot be avoided. The analogy of rain is appropriate. Individual raindrops are benign and have little noticeable impact, like individual advertisements inducing us to consume. But when heavy rains come, defensive gear is needed. In a deluge individuals become preoccupied, and in extreme conditions, overwhelmed. Advertising has such influence not only because of its saturation impact but because it normally addresses many of life’s common issues, while other institutions, especially the church, have all too often neglected everyday life—eating, sleeping, playing, working, relating, washing and so on. The issue posed by advertising today is simply who will become the social and spiritual guide.

» See also: Consumerism

» See also: Culture

» See also: Need

» See also: Shopping

» See also: Simpler Lifestyle

References and Resources

E. Barnouw, The Sponsor: Notes on a Modern Potentate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978); J. Barzun, “Myths for Materialists,” Chimera 4, no. 3 (1945) 52-62; S. Britt, “Advertising,” in Encyclopedia Americana (Danbury, Conn.: Grolier, 1989) 1:195-206; J. Dollard, “Fear of Advertising,” in The Role of Advertising, ed. C. H. Sandage and V. Fryburger (Homewood, Ill.: Irwin, 1960) 307-17; C. Faltermayer, “Where Calvin Crossed the Line,” Time, 11 Sept. 1995, 64; S. Fox, The Mirror Makers: A History of Twentieth Century American Advertising (New York: Morrow, 1984); E. Griffin, The Mind Changer: The Art of Christian Persuasion (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1976); S. I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action (New York: Harcourt, 1964); J. Henry, Culture Against Man (New York: Random, 1963); S. MacBride, Many Voices, One World: Communication and Society, Today and Tomorrow (New York: Unipub-UNESCO, 1980); M. Mayer, “The American Myth and the Myths of Advertising,” in The Promise of Advertising, ed. C. H. Sandage (Homewood, Ill.: Irwin) 125-33; M. McLuhan, The Mechanical Bride (Boston: Beacon Press, 1951); J. G. Myers, “Advertising and Socialization,” in Research in Marketing, ed. J. Sheth (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1978) 1:169-99; R. W. Pollay, “The Distorted Mirror: Reflections on the Unintended Consequences of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing 50 (April 1986) 18-36, portions quoted with permission; R. W. Pollay, “On the Value of Reflections on the Values in ‘The Distorted Mirror,’” Journal of Marketing 51 (July 1987) 104-9.

—Richard Pollay and R. Paul Stevens

Affirming

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

The Boston Marathon is among the world’s best-known races. One of the most infamous portions of the 26-mile, 385-yard course is “Heartbreak Hill.” Thousands of spectators gather there to cheer on the near-collapsing runners. During one race a young man was near total exhaustion as he approached the foot of Heartbreak Hill. Halfway up the hill an older man, in better shape, came alongside the younger man, put his arm around him and spoke quietly to him. Together step by step, they painstakingly made their way to the top. This is a picture of affirmation. To affirm is to endorse someone who needs consolidating or firm up what is crumbling. The writer of Hebrews calls us to “strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees” (Hebrews 12:12). We do this primarily with words, but sometimes through actions.

The Bible not only encourages us to affirm but also contains stories of how people were affirmed. For example, the story in Exodus 17:8-13 is a picture of enormous struggle and the weariness that comes from striving to reach up to God. Certain destruction is averted by coming alongside of committed family and friends. When the Amalekites attacked Israel from the desert, Moses sent Joshua into battle. Moses withdrew to the mountain for the labor of oversight and intercession with God. He discovered that when he held his hands and staff up to the Lord, Israel prevailed in the battle, but when he let his hands down, the Amalekites prevailed. Soon Moses’ hands were so heavy that he could no longer raise them in victory. His brother and brother-in-law moved him toward a resting stone and helped him lift his hands to the Lord. As a result, Joshua defeated Amalek. Moses’ action was affirmed in a very practical way.

In the New Testament mutual affirmation is one of the normal ways of ministering love to one another in Christian fellowship. Paul himself is a wonderful example of this in the way he endorses those to whom he writes, always encouraging them in the opening lines of his letters, even those who were not affirming, but criticizing him (as, for example, the Corinthians).

Affirming Others in Daily Life

In a survey parents were asked to record how many criticisms versus affirming comments they made to their children. The results were alarming: they criticized ten times for every affirming comment. In one Florida city teachers revealed that they gave 75 percent more criticisms than verbal blessings. The Institute of Family Relations reports that it takes four affirming statements from a teacher/parent to offset the effects of one criticism to a child. William Barclay comments:

One of the highest duties is the duty of encouragement. It is easy to pour cold water on . . . enthusiasm; it is easy to discourage others. The world is full of discouragers. We have a Christian duty to encourage one another. Many a time a word of praise or thanks or appreciation or cheer has kept a man on his feet. (p. 95)

We should also affirm each other in the church. Knowing some of the difficulties our church leaders would be facing in the beginning of the new year, I wrote the following blessing for them:

Enough joy to keep you pure.

Enough slings and arrows to keep you courageous and watchful.

Enough anguish to keep you vulnerably human.

Enough hope to keep you faithful daily.

Enough failure to keep you humble.

Enough sleep to keep you rising early pray.

Enough wealth to keep you generous to others whom few are generous to.

Enough confusion to keep you wondering and dreaming.

Enough success to keep you eager.

Enough friends to keep you encouraged.

Enough enthusiasm to keep you expectant.

Enough hardihood to keep you willing.

In this way I sought to affirm in advance the work they would do and struggles they would have.

Practical Ways to Affirm Others

In intimate relationships, we can lose intimacy by overfamiliarity. Often it is good to return to treating each other as we did when we first met. We are polite, affirming and interested. Our conversation is more focused on the other than on ourselves. For married couples who find their affections broken and in need of affirmation, this idea can help.

Ask to see what God is doing and comment on it. Seeing others through our Lord leads to discernment. We can affirm others and be there for them in their hour of need. Seeing another’s need in the light of God’s love for him or her frees us to respond in that love, making us safe, giving and serving.

Understand that seeing the good in someone is a spiritual discipline! It is uncreative and lazy to find a person’s weaknesses. This is probably why we do it so often. However, to see the good in another and to make comment are a great encouragement.

Practice “positive gossiping” (see Gossip). Exchanging positive affirmations about our family, friends and colleagues distributes warmth to all. A couple who did this each night about their children allowed the children to fall asleep hearing their parents brag about them. Sometimes it is awesome to overhear your name spoken well of.

Observations are always more powerful than compliments. Compliments can make you feel worthless and are often discarded before they are fully enjoyed. A therapist, after giving an affirmation, wanted his client-friend to remember it. Upon hearing the dismissive thank-you, the therapist said, “This is not a compliment; it is an observation.” This is more likely to be valued as being true and authentic.

Catch someone doing “good.” When my daughter was four years old and quite proud of her long brown hair, she was observed by the church grouch stroking her locks during worship. Wanting to protect her from a reprimand, I leaned over, but heard, to my surprise, “Christine, you have beautiful hair and are a beautiful girl. I love how you sing.” Later, my daughter said, “That nice lady caught me doing good!” That is affirmation!

Dump the “yes, buts.” A “yes, but” is a hidden criticism behind a halfhearted compliment. Drop them both. Also, evaluating and comparing one person with another is almost always unaffirming. Address people on their own merits.

Recognize that affirmation is a challenge. When someone is well affirmed, it often is psychologically upsetting! People are not used to the straightforward challenge of an affirmation. Affirmations challenge how a person thinks about himself or herself; it confronts discrepancies in how one views life.

Affirmation is a friendship skill. It warms both the giver and the receiver to the relationship. Friendships are built and sustained by affirmation. So too are good marriages and parenting. Author Lawrence Peters (The Peter Principle, p. 82) has noted that you can tell a real friend by the fact that when you have made a fool of yourself, he or she does not feel you have done a permanent job. Affirmation is the ability to maintain a relationship with a friend who has failed.

When we affirm each other, God too is there affirming us: “The Lord your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing” (Zeph. 3:17). The ultimate affirmation is from God at the end of the race: “Well done, good and faithful servant” (Matthew 25:23 NRSV). But even before the end of the race, God affirms us in the context of everyday life through God’s servants—whether knowingly or not—and through the hug of the Spirit within.

» See also: Blessing

» See also: Blessing, Family

» See also: Family Communication

» See also: Friendship

» See also: Love

References and Resources

W. Barclay, The Letter to the Hebrews: The Daily Study Bible (Edinburgh: St. Andrew Press, 1955); R. F. Capon, The Parables of Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989); X. Leon-Dufour, Dictionary of Biblical Theology (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1970); B. Manning, The Ragamuffin Gospel: Good News for the Bedraggled, Beat-Up and Burnt-Out (Portland, Ore.: Multnomah, 1990); L. Peters, The Peter Principle (New York: Morrow, 1969).

—Paddy Ducklow

Aging

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Every species has a definite life span, and human beings are no exception. Aging is an inevitable concomitant of life. As the preacher put it: “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die” (Eccles. 3:1-2 NRSV). Human beings age rapidly. The human body attains its peak of efficiency early. The rate of scar formation begins to decrease as early as age fifteen. Eventually, there are inescapable signs of physical decline: failing eyesight, impaired hearing, shortness of breath, high blood pressure; often associated with these is a measure of mental deterioration: memory lapses (an inability to remember the recent past while retaining intact older memories) and frequent repetitiveness. The final stage of the aging process is that of second childhood: when a semiliquid diet replaces solid food, the digestive function becomes the focus of attention, and one becomes increasingly dependent on the care of doctors and nurses.

The aging process, being biologically determined, is part of God’s providence and is to be accepted with grace. Somerset Maugham, the Nobel Prize-winning novelist, was obsessed with the matter of his longevity and sought desperately to arrest the aging process. During the last twelve years of his life he regularly submitted to a series of rejuvenation treatments (involving life-preserving injections) at a clinic in Switzerland. It is doubtful whether they extended his physical life. What is not in question is the moral and intellectual deterioration that was such a sad feature of his final years.

Not everyone resorts to such desperate expedients; more popular is cosmetic surgery. Medical science suggests, however, that self-acceptance is the best antidote and cure for the discomforts that are inseparable from growing old.

Aging from a Sociological Point of View

Sociologists note the significant involvement of older people in politics and religion as well as their active membership in clubs, lodges and auxiliaries. Golden-age clubs and senior-citizen groups, which provide recreational, educational, health and welfare services, cater to an aging population and have an important role to play. There are also widely read magazines for seniors, such as Modern Maturity.

The older people are, the fewer the social roles open to them. Older people retire from work, their children leave home, their peers die, and their contacts with others tend to contract and lessen. Social activity, however, remains greatest among those who are in good health and who come from a higher, rather than a lower, socioeconomic background. For those with a living spouse, the marital relationship continues to be of central importance, making possible a variety of joint activities. Shakespeare speaks of the seven ages of humankind. He paints a sad and poignant picture of human beings in their dotage: “sans teeth, sans eyes, sans everything.” Though the aging process is often sad, it can also be strangely beautiful, for Christians believe that “at evening time there shall be light” (Zech. 14:7 NRSV).

The extraordinary advances in medical science, together with the availability of new drugs, have had a dramatic effect on such things as life expectancy. An increasingly aging population is a social challenge. Most of the elderly are women. Furthermore, there is a growing disparity between the age of retirement and the time when all biological effects of aging begin to make themselves felt.

Aging from a Biblical Perspective

The classic description of the aging process is that given by the preacher in Eccles. 12. He provides a beautiful and poetic description of progressive fading and failing in each of the several faculties of the body. It is a picture of sad and ineluctable deterioration and decay.

We are exhorted to remember our Creator in the days of our youth “before the sun and the light and the moon and the stars are darkened,” before “the day when the guards of the house tremble, and the strong men are bent, and the women who grind cease working because they are few, and those who look through the windows see dimly; when the doors of the street are shut” (Eccles. 12:2, 3-4 NRSV). The marvelous beauty of the imagery cannot disguise the fact that what is being described is the painful loss of one’s capacity to work, walk, eat, see and hear. The exhortation then is to look beyond all earthly vanities, to face the fact of our coming mortality: when “the silver cord is snapped, and the golden bowl is broken, and the pitcher is broken at the fountain, and the wheel broken at the cistern, and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the breath returns to God who gave it” (Eccles. 12:6-7 NRSV). So, in matchless language, the remorseless decay of all our faculties and their final dissolution are portrayed.

Other passages of Scripture highlight additional facets of aging. The psalmist describes divine companionship in the green pastures and by the still waters and also in the valley of the shadow of death (Psalm 23). The apostle Paul uses the image of a tent to speak of the body: a time is coming when the tent must be pulled down, to be replaced by “a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens” (2 Cor. 5:1 NRSV). In the meantime, those who are aging know that their times are in God’s hands (Psalm 31:15). Each age has its own glory. If the young are given the privilege of seeing visions, the old are given that of dreaming dreams (Joel 2:28). If there is the happy remembrance of things past, there is also the joyous anticipation of what is yet to be: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor. 2:9).

» See also: Body

» See also: Church Family

» See also: Empty Nesting

» See also: Grandparenting

» See also: Retirement

» See also: Sickness

» See also: Soul

References and Resources

R. Blythe, The View in Winter: Reflections on Old Age (Baltimore: Penguin, 1981); S. M. Chown, ed., Human Aging (Baltimore: Penguin, 1972); N. Coni, W. Davison and S. Webster, Aging (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992); D. Hobman, ed., The Impact of Aging (London: Croom Helm, 1981); R. A. Kenney, Physiology of Aging (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1989); P. Tournier, Learning to Grow Old (London: SCM, 1972).

—Barton Babbage

Allowances

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Many people believe that the best way parents can give their children a financial education is to give them practical experience through an allowance, “a sum regularly provided for personal expenses” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1974). As you cannot learn to read without books, you cannot learn how to handle money if you never touch it.

The Bible contains much about training up children in the way of the Lord (for example, Deut. 6:6-7; Ephes. 6:4), and personal finances are as important an area in which to lay down a godly life pattern as any other. There are many general references to handling money in the Scriptures, and many of these can be applied to the raising of godly and wise children. For example, insights such as “Whoever loves money never has money enough” (Eccles. 5:10 NRSV) and Jesus’ comment on the sacrificial generosity of the widow’s offering (Mark 12:41-44) are vital parts of a child’s home “curriculum.” The specific commandments against stealing and coveting that, according to Deuteronomy, are to be impressed upon children are certainly to the point. The passages in Proverbs about money are also applicable (for example, Proverbs 1:19; Proverbs 3:9; Proverbs 13:11, 22; Proverbs 15:16; Proverbs 28:8). Certainly handling personal finances is one of the key ways in which a child needs to be trained. In our increasingly complicated and stressful economic world, as much practice with money as possible before adolescence is particularly essential.

Two Kinds of Allowances

We must be clear on terminology: some parents apply the word allowance only to regular money given to a child that is not tied to any chores but just reflects the child’s membership in the family. Most families expect contributions by the child to the cleanliness of his or her own body and bedroom and usually encourage some participation in household work, but the allowance is never seen as a direct reward for any duties. It is never removed as a punishment for “sins” of omission or commission in the area of chores or personal responsibilities. With this approach, which we might call the true allowance, additional funds can still be received by the child for assignments in the household that they take on voluntarily (for example, grass cutting).

Other families downplay or eliminate the type of allowance just described in favor of a pay-for-work approach. While the parents with this mindset agree that personal hygiene, tidying one’s closet and doing school assignments should be their own reward, they arrange (often in dialogue with the child) regular, age-appropriate duties that are real contributions to the household (for example, dusting, laundry and gardening) to which all or most of the allowance is directly linked. This approach, which could be called the cooperative family economy, clearly puts emphasis on the Scriptures that teach against laziness (for example, Proverbs 10:4; 2 Thes. 3:11-12) and about the dignity of work.

For at least two reasons those taking this approach should not give up on some expression of the true allowance: (1) to avoid turning childhood into a job and caregivers into managers and (2) to help regularize and control the inevitable gifts of money (for small treats) that flow from parent to child during a week. Why not collect these “gifts” into a simple, true allowance and eliminate a lot of bother? On the other hand, for the biblical reasons already stated, true-allowance parents should also pay attention to the value of “money for work,” recognizing that even young children can make a significant contribution to a family economy. In practice the two approaches often come together in child rearing, with a true allowance being emphasized in the earlier years and working directly for a share of the family income being stressed more with teenagers.

Guidelines

There are many specific systems used by parents to manage the distribution of family income. The following commonsense guidelines can be applied by all parents.

Progressive. Increase weekly money as the children get older, with consequently more responsibility for making purchases for themselves (for example, teenagers purchasing clothes, personal grooming products and entertainment). One rule of thumb suggests a number of dollars each week equal to half the child’s age, but each family needs to decide for itself what is realistic and reasonable.

Consistent. It is extremely important to give the allowance regularly, in full and at the same time each week (consider how adults would respond to an employer who operated any differently). Wisdom can be applied to the best timing (Sunday or Monday evening avoids the temptation of Saturday shopping sprees), and extending advances should be kept to a minimum (having to save for a costlier purchase is usually a better discipline).

Independent. The benefit of an allowance as a training tool is maximized if the “allowance” part includes freedom in spending. Though it is difficult to see children “wasting” money on sweets or trinkets, there is no better way for them to learn to make decisions, plan ahead and determine value. Parental guidance or caution is not thereby eliminated, but parents must be prepared to let their children grow through mistakes.

Positive. The temptation to use an allowance as a bribe or punishment (“Do this or else no money”) should be avoided. The important thing is not to change the rules midstream and unilaterally and thus begin to create a negative image around what should be a gift (true allowance) or compensation (cooperative family economy). Other strategies to change a child’s behavior unrelated to the allowance should be used (for example, removal of privileges for breaking curfew).

There will always be differences of opinion about how to handle allowances. For example, some people create complicated ways to distribute the allowance over several categories (tithing, a family “tax” for group outings, long-term savings and personal spending). The most important thing is to involve children as much as possible in setting up the system and the amounts in the context of an appreciation of the overall state of family finances, to embody the practice in wider teaching about God’s will for money and stewardship, and to establish good attitudes and behaviors from the earliest age: “If the groundwork has been correctly laid, there’s little cause to worry” (Weinstein, p. 89).

» See also: Family Goals

» See also: Family Values

» See also: Gift-Giving

» See also: Money

» See also: Stewardship

References and Resources

J. R. Peterson, It Doesn’t Grow on Trees (Crozet, Va.: Betterway Publications, 1988); G. W. Weinstein, Children and Money (New York: Charterhouse, 1975).

—Paul W. Lermitte and Dan Williams

Ambition

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Ambition is normally associated with the ardent desire to have high position or a place of influence though it can, simultaneously, be a passion for excellence and improvement (Schnase, pp. 10-11). The passion for personal advancement, so widely cultivated in the secular world, places the Christian in an ambiguous situation. In the workplace there is wide acceptance of the creed that one should be challenged at all times and keep “moving up.” In professional ministry the call to a bigger church is generally understood to be God’s will. Is ambition positive, neutral, destructive or fallen but redeemable? When General Booth spoke of the founding of the Salvation Army as prompted by the “urgings of an undying ambition” (see Schnase, p. 11), was he simply using the wrong word? This everyday issue touches people at many critical points in their lives—considering a new job, coping with discontentment at home, developing new friendships, struggling with comparisons made with others on a rising career trajectory and wondering why enough is never enough (see Drivenness).

The Biblical Data

The word used for “fleshly” or “selfish” ambition in Galatians 5:20 is eritheia. Originally this meant “work done for pay” and came to mean accepting position and office, not from motives of service, but for what one can get out of it. It is related to the word jealousy, which started out well—as “the desire to attain to nobility”—but came to mean “the desire to have what someone else has” (Barclay, pp. 47-48). Since zelos is the word from which our English word zeal comes, jealous, self-seeking ambition may be thought of as “zeal gone bad.” James speaks of “selfish ambition” as earthly, unspiritual and demonic “wisdom” (James 3:13-16). The Lord himself warned against seeking first place (Matthew 20:26-27), desiring power, prestige and wealth (Luke 14:10). Jesus called his disciples to a life of self-sacrifice that gives priority to God’s kingdom and righteousness (Matthew 6:33).

Since Scripture is somewhat ambiguous on the subject of ambition, it is not surprising that many Christians are confused. Paul warned against unbridled appetites (Phil. 3:19) and the danger of loving money (1 Tim. 6:10). But there are also positive statements like the one approving those who set their hearts on being an elder—a godly ambition (1 Tim. 3:1). While Paul counseled against being conformed to the mindset of the world (Romans 12:2) and rejoiced to see his enemies preach the gospel even though they wanted to make life more difficult for him (Phil. 1:18), he was ambitious to have a harvest among the Romans (Romans 1:13) and to evangelize Spain. It has often been suggested that when Paul got converted, so was his ambition: “What Paul can teach us is that there is a gospel-centered way to speak about competitiveness, a way to be ambitious for the sake of Christ, a way to raise the desire for success above the level of self-interest or ideology” (Kuck, p. 175).

The Old Testament is rich in examples of both unholy and holy ambition. These are often given to us without comment, leaving us to read between the lines for their positive or negative effects. Joseph’s dreams were not simply an expression of a subconscious superiority complex; they were a part of his having a legitimate vision of greatness under God. Though at first Joseph wrongly used his dreams as weapons against his brothers (Genesis 37:1-11) and only later learned to let God be the architect of their fulfillment, his dreams were a powerful motivating factor in his life. Jacob, in contrast, was rightly ambitious to have the Lord’s blessing but resorted to stealing and subterfuge to get it (Genesis 25:19-34; Genesis 27:1-40), thus fulfilling his prophetic name (which means “heel-grabber”). Gideon had the holy ambition of wanting to save Israel, Joshua of conquering the land, Nehemiah of restoring the kingdom and Paul of planting a self-propagating church in every major center of the Roman Empire.

Unfortunately passages like Matthew 6:33 that encourage holy ambition are usually applied exclusively to Christian service roles in the church and evangelistic activity in the world rather than to the promotion of kingdom values in the home, workplace and community. Having an ambition to provide extraordinary service to customers and to provide fair compensation packages to employees can be as holy as desiring to plant a new church in a presently unreached area. Indeed, selfish ambition may be easily disguised in a Christian service career and praised as godly zeal.

Any consideration of ambition must take into account the function of personality. More important, however, is the way ambition becomes an expression of our spirituality and therefore an important dimension of self-knowledge and self-discipline in everyday life.

Bad and Good Ambition

As a work of the flesh, selfish ambition is present when we define ourselves by our achievements, rather than by our character. For many men, and increasingly for women, the choice of career represents an “idealized fantasy of who one is or might become . . . the medium through which these dreams are enacted and judged” (Ochberg, p. 3). Defining our identity by achievement is, in the end, self-defeating as it leads either to a frenzied, driven life spurred by diminishing returns of past successes or to despair when we realize we can never become that wished-for self. Because our motives are so mixed, the search for a satisfying and challenging career is less like fitting a peg into its slot and more like compressing an unruly spring into a container and wondering how long it will stay (Ochberg, p. 4).

At the root of this spiritual pathology is the autonomous self trying to find meaning in life by its own action rather than as a child of God. Symptoms of this selfish ambition are relentless striving with an inability to rest, discouragement at the lack of recognition obtained for one’s hard work, predatory competition (even in Christian leadership), use of the present situation (and people) as a stepping stone and an “endless itchiness for other possibilities” (Schnase, p. 17). The Bible leaves little room for exalting human achievement and constantly points us in the direction of exulting in God’s achievements. But our motives are always mixed, and a theology of grace accepts humanness just as it is. At the same time it points to something better. Because ambition is not uniformly evil, it is a risk worth taking.

Life without ambition would be largely passive and complacent, victim to the latest manipulating persuader or discouraging turn, rather than directed toward a goal. As a redeemed passion, ambition gives force to a life direction of seeking God’s purposes in family, workplace, church and community. Ambitious people take initiative and are future oriented and consistently motivated: “Ambition gives color to our dreams and places before us an appetite for the possibilities of life. Ambition gives us strength of character to turn aspirations into reality through muscle and sweat, mind and imagination” (Schnase, p. 14). Ambition can be redeemed through orthopathy, that is, the conversion of our passions to line up with God’s pathos, what God cares about. A truly Christian conversion is concerned not only with orthopraxy (true and right action) but also with orthopraxy (true and right affections).

Converting the Passions

As the Galatians 5:16-26 passage makes plain, simple trust in Jesus does not immediately eliminate the battle within. Ambition is a reflection of this inner struggle.

Ongoing reconquest. After initial conversion the Christian normally experiences an ongoing reconquest of the person through walking and living in the Spirit (Galatians 5:15, 25) and maintaining a crucified perspective on our fallen human nature (the flesh; Galatians 2:3; Galatians 5:24; Galatians 6:14). The latter is not self-crucifixion, mortifying one’s bodily life, or self-hatred but fully and continuously agreeing with God’s judgment on our autonomous self-justifying life. Since such a life puts God to death and crucifies Christ in our hearts, it is worthy of death. Negatively, walking according to the Spirit means not setting the mind on or doing the deeds of the flesh (Romans 8:5; Galatians 5:19-21) nor doing the deeds of the flesh, but putting these desires and deeds to death by the Spirit (Romans 8:13; Galatians 5:16-18, 24-26). Also, the one who walks by the Spirit does not boast in human achievement (Phil. 3:3-6), human wisdom (1 Cor. 2:1-6) or righteousness (Romans 2:17-19; Galatians 2:15-21). Thus, walking according to the Spirit means a renunciation of the desires and deeds of the flesh, including the temptation to define our identity and self-worth by “getting ahead.” In a positive statement, walking according to the Spirit implies that the Christian “keeps in step” (Galatians 5:25) with what the Spirit is already doing. This involves setting one’s mind on the things of the Spirit (Romans 8:5) and allowing the Spirit to produce character fruits (Romans 12-14; Galatians 5:19-21) and to empower works of holiness (Romans 12:9-21; compare Isaiah 58).

Inside godly ambition. Several life patterns in the New Testament surround and illuminate the process of the conversion of our ambitions: self-control, contentment, faithfulness, neighbor love and praise. Self-control is bringing one’s whole self into harmony so that we are in charge of our own life—thoughts, feelings, appetites, drives and bodily needs. Some people claim they want Christ to take control of their lives, but this may be something less than the full dignity of being a self-controlled child of God. Self-control is the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:23), a byproduct of a life lived in harmony with God’s purposes and for God’s glory. Ironically we are most likely to be freed from compulsive ambition and addictions when we give up trying to accomplish the conversion of our passions by self-justifying self-discipline and focus on following Jesus and glorifying God.

Contentment is not antithetical to godly ambition, but it is incompatible with selfish ambition. Ambition and contentment must coexist peacefully in the Christian soul (Shelley, p. 3). Paul was able to confess that he had “learned the secret of being content in any and every situation” (Phil. 4:12). He gained this through trust in God (Phil. 4:13) and the practice of continuous thanksgiving (Phil. 4:6). Paul claims he had “learned” contentment; it was not something automatically gained through conversion or by an ecstatic Spirit-filling. It is sometimes argued that we should be content with what we have but not content with what we are. This seems to shortchange the full conversion of our passions, a conversion involving the pruning of unworthy ambitions to encourage godly ambitions. This is best done in the company of other believers who can hold us accountable and, when necessary, name the lie in our stories. In this way we can be released from the slavery to more, better and bigger.

Faithfulness feeds the godly ambition and is complementary (Galatians 5:22). Eugene Peterson described the faithful life as a “long obedience in the same direction,” a life neither passively quiet nor frantically busy. In the marketplace ambition can be good if it is used for the common good and is harmonized with the advancement of others (Troop, p. 25), a life pattern I call neighbor love. In 1 Cor. 3-4 Paul raises the crucial question of evaluation, or God’s praise, in the context of a congregation that compared its leaders and prided itself on spiritual advancement. He argues that “each will be rewarded according to his own labor” (1 Cor. 3:8), stressing that any difference in work will be for God to reward and judge at the final judgment (1 Cor. 3:10-15; compare Matthew 25:21). No one else is capable of finally evaluating a servant of God: “Even the servant’s own self-evaluation means nothing. Only one opinion matters—that of the Lord” (Kuck, p. 179), a factor that is relevant not only for Christian service workers but Christians tempted to unholy ambition in the workplace or political realm.

Self-control, contentment, faithfulness, neighbor love and praise all contribute to the redemption of ambition, for they liberate ambition from paralyzing self-centeredness. J. S. Bach had it right. He wrote over every manuscript what we can write over balance sheets, sermons and shopping lists: “SDG,” which means soli Deo gloria (to God alone be the glory). Coupled with this should be the statement by the playwright Anton Chekhov: “One would need to be a God to decide which are the failures and which are the successes in life” (Kuck, p. 174).

» See also: Calling

» See also: Career

» See also: Drivenness

» See also: Spiritual Conflict

» See also: Spiritual Growth

» See also: Success

» See also: Work

References and Resources

W. Barclay, Flesh and Spirit: An Examination of Galatians 5:19-23 (London: SCM, 1962); J. Epstein, Ambition: The Secret Passion (New York: Dutton, 1980); D. Kuck, “Paul and Pastoral Ambition: A Reflection on 1 Cor. 3-4,” Currents in Theology and Mission 19, no. 3 (1992) 174-83; R. L. Ochberg, Middle-Aged Sons and the Meaning of Work (Ann Arbor, Mich.: U.M.I. Research Press, 1979); R. Schnase, Ambition in Ministry: Our Spiritual Struggle with Success, Achievement and Competition (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993); M. Shelley, “From the Editors,” Leadership 11, no. 3 (1990) 3; J. Troop, “High Hopes,” Christianity Today 30, no. 14 (1986) 24-25.

—R. Paul Stevens

Anniversaries

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Remembering significant events on an annual basis is something as old as humankind. Even before calendars were invented, people used the annual cycle of seasons and the rhythms of the work year—planting, cultivating and harvest—to recall significant marker events. Israel celebrates Passover (the annual remembrance of deliverance from Egypt; Deut. 16:6), and the church celebrates the festivals of Easter, Christmas and Thanksgiving. Nations celebrate their day of independence, the queen’s birthday or the day the constitution was approved. In the same way each individual life is annually marked with significant events, the most obvious being one’s birthday. Married people celebrate their wedding anniversaries. Some pastors celebrate the anniversary of their ordination. Christians sometimes celebrate the day of their baptism. All these are happy occasions.

Most people have anniversaries inscribed in their souls that are difficult to celebrate: the anniversary of a spouse’s, parent’s or child’s death, the day one was raped or fired or the date that the decree came through on the divorce. Even if these dates are not written on the wall calendar, they are inscribed on the calendar of the heart. Most people have an annual emotional cycle that forms the seasons of the soul, both summer and winter. These too are worthy of theological and spiritual reflection.

Sacramental Events

Celebrating important marker events in one’s life serves the yearly cycle in the same way as sabbath serves the weekly: it gives perspective to the rest of the time and points us godward. It invites contemplation. It focuses affirmation. It is a way to redeem time. So having a birthday party or a special anniversary dinner for one’s beloved is a way of remembering the significance of the original event and deepening the meaning. This is especially so if it is an occasion of corporate prayer and recounting the mercies of God. Parents may use the anniversaries of a child’s marriage to express and deepen their “letting go” of son or daughter in order to “cleave” (Genesis 2:24 KJV), as well as to express and welcome the entry of a daughter- or son-in-law into the family. Some people with a radical conversion celebrate the anniversary of their new birth or the day they stopped drinking.

In the Hebrew way of living, remembering is not simply digging back the past; it is making something from the past present to us now. This is the real meaning of remembering the Lord’s death until he comes (1 Cor. 11:25-26; see Communion). So there is sacramental significance in remembering. It becomes a means of grace both to the person or relationship so honored, as well as to those who honor them. Families, as part of their family traditions, do well to establish a few significant anniversaries that will become the means of recounting the goodness of God and reinforcing family values. Why not keep an anniversary of the day you moved into your home or the day Dad came home from the hospital for good? But what can we do with our negative anniversaries?

Healing Painful Memories

Some misguided Christians think that denying painful anniversaries is a mark of advanced spirituality. They never talk about the loss and pretend that it is “all over.” But like a cork pushed down in water, such painful wounds surface in compensatory behavior: inappropriate emotions, depression, withdrawal from situations that bring back memories, conspicuous lack of reference to deceased people, unwillingness to risk being loved again or rebound relationships. Often this happens around the date written on the emotional calendar. Most commonly an unhealed past leads to a wall of defense built around the person. Grieving, as we know, is a long-term process, and it is literally true that we never really get over a significant loss; we adjust to it. But the adjustment cannot happen if there is denial. So anniversaries can help expound this part of our soul life as well.

Significantly Israel’s “church” year included painful memories and a remembrance of the bitter experiences in Egypt (see Sugar/Sugary), just as the modern remembrance of the Holocaust and the birth of the state of Israel has an edifying function. In the same way people can find creative ways to celebrate painful anniversaries. They do this not to keep the pain alive and nurture the root of bitterness (Hebrews 12:15) but to put it into perspective and allow God to heal. For example, the annual remembrance of a death can become an occasion for a family to recall the contribution of that person, telling stories, thanking God for their lives, and when unforgiven sins are remembered, to “let go.” A meal is a great time to do this. The mixture of tears and laughter on such occasions is emotionally healing and spiritually edifying. Some people find it constructive to write a letter to a dead or divorced spouse expressing thoughts, regrets and gratitude, a letter that will afterward be burned.

Extremely painful marker events, such as a rape or unjust dismissal, may require continuing counseling and inner healing with an experienced friend or counselor. But even these extremely bitter experiences can be healed, especially if they are not cocooned in a cloak of secrecy and denial. Having dinner and conversation with an intimate friend each year at “the time” can be a healing sacrament of remembrance. There are some wounds and events that in this life will never be forgotten, but they can be forgiven and substantially healed. And the process of getting there is part of God’s agenda for our spiritual growth and maturing.

Celebrating anniversaries as individuals is based on good theology. God is sovereign and has a wonderful purpose (not a plan) for our lives. Nothing has happened to us that cannot be incorporated into his good purpose for us. He is a saving and healing God. We are not a bundle of accidents or a victim of fate. God’s grand purpose, not the stars or horoscope, defines our life path. Each person is a unique creation (Psalm 139), and celebrating the marker events of our unique life path is a way of celebrating creation and Creator at the same time.

Not only is celebrating anniversaries good theology; it is good spirituality. It helps us find God at the center of our lives. True spirituality is gained, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer once said, “by living unreservedly in life’s duties, problems, successes and failures, experiences and perplexities. In so doing we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God” (Bonhoeffer, p. 15).

» See also: Birthdays

» See also: Festivals—Christmas

» See also: Festivals—Easter

» See also: Festivals—Thanksgiving

» See also: Partying

References and Resources

D. Bonhoeffer, letter from Tegel Prison in 1944, quoted in M. Morrison, “As One Who Stands Convicted,” Sojourners 8, no. 5 (May 1979) 15-19; M. E. Hazeltine, Anniversaries and Holidays: A Calendar of Days and How to Observe Them, 2d ed. (Chicago: American Library Association, 1944).

—R. Paul Stevens

Anxiety

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

“Don’t Worry—Be Happy” was the title of a song that swept the pop charts in 1988. Why was it so popular? I suspect because this phrase expresses one of the deepest yearnings of the human heart—to be free of all anxiety. Is such a yearning realistic? Is all anxiety bad for us? Thirty years in the psychologist’s chair has taught me one important lesson: anxiety is intricately interwoven with the essence of living. You cannot expect to live and be free of all anxiety.

“Don’t be anxious; anxiety is the exact opposite of faith”—so reads a tract, written by a popular preacher, that I came across recently. How realistic are such admonitions? Are these writers attacking all forms of anxiety or just some?

How is it possible for some to see anxiety as an essential emotion while others see it as a sign of spiritual failure? The answer lies in the fact that there are many forms of anxiety. When Jesus tells his disciples not to be anxious (Luke 12:25), he is referring to that form we commonly call worry anxiety. It is that form of anxiety that incapacitates and serves no useful purpose. Unfortunately, there are other afflictions we also call anxiety that are not so easy to dispose of. Before we pass judgment on anyone for being anxious, therefore, we need to know what form of anxiety we are talking about and understand how it differs from the neurotic form we call worry.

Why Should We Be Free of Anxiety?

Is it because God does not like anxious people? Is it because anxiety is synonymous with a lack of faith and is thus sinful? Is it because anxiety serves no useful function in the human psyche? These are provocative questions. The fact is that anxiety is an enigma. It has many faces, and while we can effectively treat some of its symptoms, we still do not fully understand its function or purpose in human experience.

While worry anxiety is clearly an undesirable disorder, anxiety’s very presence in human experience seems to point us to some larger and useful purpose. To many, including this author, some forms of anxiety are necessary and can be purposeful. Take the mother’s anxiety over her newborn baby. Is it breathing normally? Is it getting enough milk? These anxious thoughts help the mother to care for the baby.

Like pain, therefore, some anxiety is an important emotional “warning system” that alerts us to potential danger. Just as pain is necessary to the body to warn of disease and damage (though we may not deliberately seek it), so anxiety serves to send important messages of impending threat or danger to our emotional well-being. Without it, we would become emotional lepers and be constantly harming ourselves by not heeding emotional danger. To put it in a nutshell: people who have no anxiety are dangerous, tend to be sociopaths and feel no guilt. This is hardly a desirable set of traits!

Such a model of anxiety, however, assumes a perfect world and a mind that has been trained to respond only to healthy anxiety. In reality this wonderful warning system can all too quickly go astray very early. For many, then, too much anxiety is the problem, and their anxiety becomes a painful and debilitating experience. Furthermore, there is now ample evidence to show that the high demands and stress of modern life are taking their toll on and distorting our anxiety warning systems. Natural brain tranquilizers, produced within the brain to keep us at peace when there is no real threat or to enable us to act constructively when in danger, become depleted in our overworked brains. The result is a high incidence of incapacitating, purposeless anxiety disorders. This, as well as purposeless worry, is what Jesus warns us to avoid!

Battling Anxiety

Despite our high level of sophistication and technological expertise, anxiety and its related manifestations remain a major psychological and medical challenge today. The treatment of severe anxiety disturbances puts many at risk for addiction to the medications used. It is no wonder that many Christian leaders are concerned about how this problem is approached today.

Intuitively we know that prescribing massive doses of artificial tranquilizers is not a satisfactory solution. We also know that the incidence of severe anxiety disorders is on the increase. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, panic anxiety disorder is now the number-one mental-health problem in women (Hart, p. 56). It is second in men only to substance abuse. Distress, restlessness, nervousness, fear and panic, competitiveness, crowded living conditions and too much stress make matters worse, not better. The stress of twentieth-century living affects everyone, and part of the price we pay for it is an increase in general anxiety.

And what will the twenty-first century bring? Better and less addicting tranquilizers? Perhaps! Certainly not less anxiety. With problems such as polluted air, contaminated food, the greenhouse effect and nuclear waste (to name just a very few) already staring us in the face, a person would have to be awfully naive not to be anxious about the future.

The Anxiety Picture Today

As a result, scores of people in every neighborhood suffer from persistent anxiety-related problems: difficulty in sleeping, stomach problems and generalized stress. They worry themselves into an early grave or fret away their precious life seeking an escape in alcohol, drugs or shopping.

The anxiety-related disorders we suffer from today include the following: worry anxiety (excessive rumination on imagined or unlikely fears, expectation of the worst and a bracing for an imagined catastrophe), fear anxiety (anxiety over real fears, threats or demands; overconcern about a particular happening that may only have some basis in reality), existential anxiety (anxiety over lack of purpose or nonbeing, awareness of the inevitability of death leading to concern for a meaningful life), panic anxiety (chemical imbalance in the brain due to the lack of natural tranquilizers, causing all systems to become hyperactive and easily panicked; can lead to agoraphobia), phobic anxiety (exaggerated and persistent fears, avoidance of certain places, people or projects), generalized anxiety (unfocused and generalized anxiety that becomes free-floating, often changing its object of concern), and separation anxiety (originating in an insecure childhood, this anxiety arises whenever a person is cut off from home or loved ones).

How Common Are Anxiety-Related Disorders?

Millions of Americans experience incapacitating anxiety every day. For most it lasts long enough, is severe enough and causes sufficient dysfunction to disturb their everyday living and warrant psychological therapy and/or medical treatment. Just how many suffer from some sort of anxiety problem? No one really knows. One estimate puts it as high as forty million (15 percent of the population). According to a recent news report, thirty-five million Americans suffer from periodic panic attacks alone, and this is only one form of anxiety disorder (Hart, p. 3). And while we now know a lot about how to treat the more severe anxiety disorders, there is still much confusion about the best form of treatment.

Many other emotional problems also have their roots in anxiety. Several studies have shown that those who suffer from depression also have severe anxiety symptoms. Clinically, the close connection between anxiety and depression has been known for many years. The problem is further complicated by the fact that some of the medications used to treat anxiety will aggravate depression symptoms and vice versa. This can be perplexing, even to professionals.

Getting Help for Anxiety

Few emotional problems are more common or more debilitating than anxiety. Most of us realize, on the basis of personal experience as well as observation of fellow humans, that anxiety is a pervasive and profound phenomenon in our society. As we approach the end of the twentieth century, its devastation seems to be on the increase. We are anxious as individuals, and an air of anxiety hangs over everything.

Medications that calm the nerves or relax the muscles are helpful and absolutely essential in panic and generalized anxiety. Sufferers from these forms of anxiety disturbance need to seek immediate professional help because the sooner they are treated, the less likely the problem will become permanently entrenched.

But medications are useful only if they buy the time needed to bring one’s life under control—to master fears, reduce stress and susceptibility to anxiety. In the end the problem with all anxiety is a problem of lifestyle, a matter of goals and priorities. No matter how effective treatment is, the problem will recur if major life changes are not made.

Faith and Anxiety

How does one’s faith in Jesus Christ interface with anxiety? It would be grossly irresponsible to say that all anxiety is a sign of spiritual failure. While stress underlies panic anxiety and can therefore be susceptible to the choices we make, separation and generalized anxiety have roots that go way back to early childhood and possibly even have genetic influences. These forms of anxiety need very careful handling, and it usually takes the skill of a well-trained professional to help. Inept help can significantly increase anxiety problems.

Whatever the type of anxiety being experienced, however, the resources of the Christian life are profoundly designed to help us cope with it. Achieving a balanced life is the ultimate goal. Whether or not medication is used, we ignore to our loss the profound effect that spiritual dimensions can have on our emotional well-being. Prayer and Scripture are more than just spiritual resources. They influence how we feel, our values and priorities. Humans are more than physical organisms, and nowhere does a balanced spiritual life affect us more than in the realm of our anxieties.

I am convinced that one reason so many people suffer from acute anxiety in our society is that they fail to make this important connection. Not even our most sophisticated technology, medical or psychological, can free us from an important but painful facet of our existence—our built-in need to be reconnected with our Creator. This need overrides all others, and when it is unmet, there is much cause for anxiety. Because most researchers and therapists ignore this reality, they tend to place too much emphasis on the physical world as a cause of anxiety and fail to address deeper spiritual needs.

Christians are by no means free of the problem of anxiety. Many are even at greater risk than the general population because trying to live a holy life in an unholy world where fragmentation is the norm is not easy. The words of Peter are a strong medicine even today, and we ignore them to our detriment: “Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you” (1 Peter 5:7 NRSV).

» See also: Depression

» See also: Drugs

» See also: Emotions

» See also: Failure

» See also: Health

» See also: Stress, Workplace

References and Resources

S. Agras, Panic: Facing Fears, Phobias and Anxiety (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1985); A. D. Hart, Overcoming Anxiety (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1989).

—Archibald D. Hart

Architecture, Urban

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

The first arresting image of urban architecture in Scripture is the tower of Babel—hardly a great beginning for a biblical view of the built environment. Starting with the tabernacle (in the wilderness wanderings) and later the temple, we see a much more positive approach. God gave the children of Israel the design for these structures, not just providing the overall size and shape but detailing such items as blue pomegranates as part of the decoration. In fact, we learn in the New Testament that the tabernacle was “a copy and shadow of what is in heaven” (Hebrews 8:5; Hebrews 9:24). The vision of the heavenly city at the end of history also contains many specific materials and measurements (Rev. 21:9-21).

Modernism

Modern urban architecture is set in a very different world. In the early twentieth century, philosophy shaped buildings more than functional concerns did. Mies van der Rohe, Adolf Loos, Walter Gropius and Charles Edouard Jeanneret (better known as Le Corbusier) remade the world. With technical advancements, the elevator and skeleton construction (resulting in nonweight-bearing walls), combined with a morally superior, utopian outlook, this small handful of architects left their image on modern cities worldwide. Their ideas on town planning and design have made close kin of downtown Boston, Brasilia and Beijing.

A number of basic doctrines drove these changes (these owe much to Brent Brolin, The Failure of Modern Architecture):

Inventive technology. New building materials, like glass, steel and reinforced concrete, brought forth new forms.

Worship of change. New processes made stylistic traditions irrelevant. Modernism “has never been presented as a style; it has been considered a movement of truths for so long that we are unable to think of it as a set of arbitrary, systematized aesthetic choices” (Brolin, p. 13).

Simplicity. With modernism the inevitable result of design would be something reductive, pared down, simplified. In a way, modernist building shape was inspired by minimalist painting and sculpture. Decoration on a building was equated with crime. Simplifying a building meant getting rid of nonessentials. In this way function was stressed over ornamentation.

Antihistorical. Modernists turned their backs on tradition in favor of a Darwinian idea of progress. In 1923 Le Corbusier declared traditional architecture to be a lie. Materials had to be “honest,” and architects were to be true to themselves rather than just mirror the past. According to Adolf Loos: “The time is nigh, fulfillment awaits us! Soon the streets of the city will glisten like white walls. Like Zion, the holy city, the capital of Heaven. Then, fulfillment will come!” (Brolin, p. 17).

Standardization. Hand in hand with new materials was mass production. The modernists wanted to rationalize the industry so that wherever buildings were built, the same principles would apply. The impersonal look of concrete would replace hand-shaped local materials. “Wherever western civilization has penetrated, impersonal forms intrude upon the traditional profiles of cities, towns and villages” (Brolin, p. 12).

Planning. To Le Corbusier, Manhattan was a mess. The buildings were getting big, to be sure, but it was all muddled. He preferred “La Ville Radieuse,” the radiant city, an urban arrangement of large skyscrapers in parklike settings connected by rapid transit to other areas of the city containing different functions. Le Corbusier spoke of humankind’s need for “greenery, sunlight, fresh air and space. All very true; but man’s primary yearning, it seems, is not for great expanses of open space, but for other men, women and children” (Blake, p. 88).

The automobile was crucial to this ideal city. “We watched the titanic rebirth of the traffic—cars, cars! speed, speed! One is carried away, seized by enthusiasm, by joy . . . enthusiasm over the joy of power” (Hughes, 188). Ironically, what they eliminated was the life of the street. In the Radiant City—the Vertical City—the elevator ruled, not the sidewalk (see Public Spaces). (And you know what it’s like on an elevator for relationships of even the most basic type.) The inhabitants of such a modern city go to the old town center, where there are shops, cafés, people. When you travel to a city as a tourist, you end up on the same crowded streets, maybe medieval, probably meandering, rubbing shoulders with people—all miles from the rational park settings of the high-rise with its “machines for living” (Le Corbusier).

All that the well-intentioned planning tended to produce was ghettos. “The finest public housing projects to be found anywhere in the world, and designed according to the noblest precepts, are turning into enclaves of rape, murder, mugging and dope addition, with the only way out a change of dynamite to reduce those noble precepts to rubble” (Blake, p. 11).

In St. Louis in 1972, this came true quite literally. The Pruitt-Igoe development blew up a number of their buildings after continued vandalism. The buildings were impersonal and not in keeping with the needs of the inhabitants.

More could be said about modernism as a world- and city-shaping philosophy, but where does this leave us? Most people who live in cities, anywhere in the world, see the same glass and steel high-rise shapes. What do these mean? The message they send: human beings don’t matter; elevated aesthetic views about esoteric minimalist designs do.

This modernist architectural dictatorship seems to be near its end. What concerns should we as Christians have as we think of its demise?

Concerns and Directions

An appreciation of history. Whatever was built in the past does not need to be rejected or superseded automatically without much thought. Let us learn from its richness, its shapes, its decoration.

A sensitivity to locale. Instead of dropping in a specific setting the same vertical, glass and steel, right-angle building, let us relate what we construct to what is there, in terms of buildings, natural setting, mix of functions and so on.

A willingness to conserve. Don’t destroy just to be up-to-date. The wholesale clearing of our cities’ historic districts is a sad legacy. Tearing down what is too old-fashioned, too small or too whatever needs to be looked at seriously.

The richness of different scales. The visual intricacy of hand-done ornamentation on traditional buildings presents a rich vision, from varying distances. The closer you get, the more you see and learn. The fascination with minimalist art made modernist buildings that give the same information whatever distance you are from them. The fascination with speed also led to the omission of detail—you go by too fast to see or appreciate it.

Attention to local concerns. What kind and size of buildings should be built? With what materials? What traditions need to be respected?

The importance of street life. People need to be with each other. Streets with their shops, churches and parks need to be retained for human contact, places where people can talk about life. In the wake of the destruction caused by the automobile, we need to remember the pedestrian and the variety of sensations available on a walk (see Walking).

A mix of functions. Planning shouldn’t mean segregating uses and placing them tidily in separate areas around a city. A variety of housing types (see Home), public spaces and appropriate commercial facilities should coexist within neighborhoods.

Architecture is the one art form that touches us all. We may not visit art galleries or go to concerts, but we do live in buildings, whether forty stories high or only one with a large backyard. What the city looks like, therefore, concerns us. The view expressed by Philip Johnson, that “architecture would improve people, and people improve architecture until perfectibility would descend on us like the Holy Ghost, and we would be happy ever after” (Hughes, p. 165), sounds like idolatry.

Instead, the architect should give up his or her semidivine pretension to be Creator and Judge, and aspire, as Vincent Scully says, to “the more humane and realistic role of healer, of physician” (Katz, p. 224). No other profession leaves such large and permanent reminders of its ideas. It is crucial that Christian architects and planners think and work together to design buildings and communities that respect the God-given dignity of people. Let us shape homes and places of work where people flourish, jobs are done creatively and healthy relationships are encouraged.

Ultimately, let us look forward to that “city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Hebrews 11:10).

» See also: City

» See also: Neighborhood

» See also: Public Spaces

» See also: Zoning

References and Resources

P. Blake, Form Follows Fiasco (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977); B. Brolin, The Failure of Modern Architecture (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1976); R. Hughes, The Shock of the New (New York: Knopf, 1991); P. Katz, The New Urbanism (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994).

—Dal Schindell

Art

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

For the Christian all of life is meant to glorify God. This fact has been used both to encourage and to discourage the use of art by Christians. Historically, of course, Christianity (and religion in general) has provided the most important motivation and sources for the development of art.

The Church and Art

After the conversion of Constantine in 312, the church became the primary patron of the arts, especially in the building and decorating of churches. During the Middle Ages, in addition to architecture, drama, sculpture, music and painting were all developed vigorously for purposes of worship and instruction. Painting in particular was stimulated by an important change in the church’s liturgy. In the thirteenth century the priest began to face the congregation as he performed the Eucharist. This necessitated moving the table forward from the back wall of the sanctuary, thus leaving an empty space that soon was filled with beautiful altar pieces. Drama as we know it today likewise had its birth in medieval morality plays that acted out various parts of the gospel for the people, who were mostly unable to read Scripture for themselves. In the case of music it is difficult to imagine any form of Christian life and worship in which this does not play a central role (see Music, Christian). As we will see, music goes back to the biblical period, but it was given special impetus by the medieval Gregorian chants and the Reformation chorales.

The desire to glorify God with the whole of one’s life also served to discourage the development of certain kinds of art. At the Reformation, for example, John Calvin was convinced that the use of images (in both painting and sculpture) had begun to distract people from hearing the truth of God’s Word and tended to become idolatrous. As a result the Reformed tradition has often focused on the verbal arts of music and drama, rather than the visual arts, as safer vehicles for communicating the gospel. Meanwhile the Catholic tradition, with its emphasis on the visual drama of the Eucharist and its sacramental view of reality, has continued to place a high value on the visual arts.

As society gradually became more secular and the influence of the church and Christianity declined, the connection between art and Christianity was lost. By the end of the nineteenth century most leading artists prided themselves on their independence, not only from Christianity but from any mythological framework. Art became a medium for the expression of a personal vision rather than the means of communicating common values. And since most artists were raised without any Christian influence, what they expressed was not only antagonistic to Christianity but often alarming to Christians.

It is not surprising that at the beginning of the twentieth century Christians looked at the arts more as a field for evangelism than as an ally in expressing and living out their faith. Becoming an artist was not considered to be a viable option for the serious Christian, and those Christians who did manage to go to art schools encountered an environment that was not encouraging to their faith. The result is that outside of music (mostly classical or Christian) and an occasional drama, Christians do not typically give much thought to the arts in their everyday life.

Biblical Perspectives on Art

In support of this negative attitude, Christians typically point out how little emphasis the Bible gives to the arts. The Old Testament appears to forbid the making of graven images, and the New Testament obviously has more important things on its mind.

Like the Reformation, the Old Testament seems clearly to favor music and poetry over the visual arts. Beauty was surely included when God judged the work of creation to be very good, but at the Fall the devil was able to use this very beauty to tempt Adam and Eve to doubt God’s word (Genesis 3:6). The prohibition against graven images in the Ten Commandments probably had more to do with the temptation to idolatry than with the fear of images as such. In support of this view, notice the careful and detailed instructions given for building the tabernacle and temple as places where beauty is brought into the service of worship (Exodus 31). In this respect God’s people seemed almost profligate in their use of art. The temple used materials and motifs from all over the ancient world, and Psalms and Proverbs actually embody poetic forms to praise Israel’s God that were used elsewhere in the ancient Near East. So while nothing, not even beauty, should be allowed to share the honor due God, all the works of human hands (and hearts) could be employed to promote that honor.

In the New Testament Paul’s reaction to the classical beauty and paganism of Athens is perfectly consistent with this reading of things (Acts 17). When he rose to speak on Mars Hill, he could easily see the splendid frieze of the Parthenon (known to us as the “Elgin Marbles” in the British Museum); there too was the Temple of the Wingless Victory and the vast statue of Athena Promachus. Like the prophets before him, “his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols” (Acts 17:16 RSV). Was this his only reaction to such splendor? That Paul was no philistine is clear from his quoting no fewer than two Greek poets in that same Mars Hill sermon. No, he was not insensitive to beauty, but he saw that art taken out of the service of God could become a snare and that God’s kingdom mattered more than humankind’s achievement—even in the realm of beauty. The error of pagan artists was not their view of art but their view of God, though the former showed the latter as surely as water flows downward.

Likewise the thronelike altar to Zeus on the acropolis of Pergamum moved God to say through the apostle John to the church at Pergamum, “I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is” (Rev. 2:13 RSV). So John could rightly urge: “Little children, keep yourself from idols” (1 John 5:21). It would be as much a mistake to read all of this as an absolute denunciation of art as it would be to see Christ’s statement about hating one’s father and mother (Luke 14:26) as a denunciation of the family. Rather, we are seeing a biblical vision of a higher order of things in which both family and art should find their right and lovely place—an order in which all things find their relation to God, who in Christ is calling out a people for his name.

But like Ezekiel and Isaiah, the New Testament not only contains warnings about the false use of imagination but draws on imagery throughout the Bible and puts it in the service of its view of the last things in the book of Revelation. In our concentration on the literal meaning of that book, we often overlook the more immediate emotional impact of these images.

Art in Everyday Life

All of this suggests that the use of the arts in our ordinary life should not be treated lightly. On the one hand, we need to understand the ways in which beauty and aesthetic forms generally move us. Beauty can seduce us to evil, as David learned, but ugliness can also tempt us to turn away from human need. So we cannot ignore the working of art and music in our lives, even if they have not figured prominently in our Christian conversation and training. Popular music, movies and television are important parts of the modern environment in which aesthetic forms are put in the service of worldviews that may conflict with or sometimes support Christian values. If we believe that all of life is to be brought under the lordship of Christ, we must learn to develop a Christian discernment in our use of contemporary media, for one way or another it will influence us.

On the other hand, we can positively seek to make even ordinary events of our lives into vehicles for honoring Christ. If God has given particular talents in the arts, these need to be developed and put in God’s service—whether in the church or in the larger world of culture. But even if we do not feel a particular call or interest in the fine arts, we can still seek to make our lives into vehicles for God’s own beauty. As well as our treating people with dignity and respect, this involves making our homes places where family and visitors can relax and know something of the peace and loveliness that God’s reconciling grace has brought into our lives. The biblical record clearly implies that salvation will have a visual and aesthetic dimension as the Holy Spirit manifests God’s grace throughout the fabric of our lives together—in our meals, conversations around the fire and the flowers we place around.

Art and Spirituality: Glimmers of the Heavenly Kingdom

Art and beauty are important not only as nice additions to our lives but because there is a close relationship between the experience of these things and our worship of God, that is, between art and spirituality. While our chief calling is to love God with all we are, art can train our sensitivity to people’s pain and joy, both of which Scripture mandates. It can move us to a more profound praise of God and a deeper understanding of God’s work in our lives, as our experience of a Bach chorale or a lovely Communion service testifies. Exposure to and involvement with great art make us better able to feel the heights and depths of human experience and so to become agents of God’s love in a broken world. For all these reasons it is no accident that the connection between art and worship has been so strong throughout the history of God’s people.

There is another reason why art should play a central role in our lives as Christians. The imagery of the book of Revelation pictures the heavenly kingdom in terms of a great chorus or, better still, a great opera in which God and the redeemed from all the ages are involved. Rev. 5:11-14 and Rev. 6:9-10 picture people from every tongue and nation gathered around God’s throne singing (and shouting) praise to God for the Lamb that was slain. It is no accident that the culmination of all history is described in terms of a great religious drama filled with both music and visual imagery. All of this gives us ample grounds for featuring arts prominently in our present lives. In fact, we might be justified in seeing all we do as a kind of grand rehearsal for that heavenly chorus. If the forms of art and music will honor God throughout all eternity, they can certainly be used now to point people to the source of all that is good and beautiful. Our goal should be to write over the whole of our lives the words that J. S. Bach put over each of his chorales: soli Deo gloria—“to the glory of God.”

» See also: Architecture, Urban

» See also: Beauty

» See also: Imagination

» See also: Music

» See also: Music, Christian

» See also: Vision

» See also: Worship

References and Resources

D. Apostolos-Cappadona, ed., Art, Creativity and the Sacred (New York: Crossroad, 1984); J. S. Begbie, Voicing Creation’s Praise (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991); J. Dillenberger, Style and Content in Christian Art (New York: Abingdon, 1965); F. Gaebelein, The Christian, the Arts and Truth (Portland, Ore.: Multmomah, 1985); H. Rookmaaker, The Creative Gift: Essays on Art and the Christian Life (Weschester, Ill.: Cornerstone Books, 1981); E. Schaeffer, The Art of Life (Wheaton, Ill.: Good News Publishing, 1987).

—William Dyrness

Authority, Church

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Authority is a major issue in the church today, as it is in society at large. Although the older generation tends to accept and respect authority in most spheres of life, members of the dominant baby-boom generation have constantly questioned it in their private and public lives. In place of standards and institutions they prefer to assemble their own values from a range of sources or replace those in authority with people who have similar views to themselves. This is partly why public life is presently in such turmoil. There is less deference toward those in authority in the institutions of government, law and education and increasingly in science and medicine. The same is true in religion, both at the denominational level and in the local church.

This distrust of authority is even more pronounced among the “buster” generation. Though the younger members of this group, teenagers, have often rebelled for a time against various forms of authority, among those who are older in this group is a more nuanced approach. They believe in a more egalitarian, participatory view of authority. For them authority has to be earned, and this has more to do with who a person is than with the position the person holds or what he or she has achieved. If this group encounters problems with authority, it is less likely to confront it or seek to change it directly. Its members will tend to sidestep it or sometimes create new structures for doing what they feel is important.

In an important book on the subject, sociologist Richard Sennett describes the fear of authority that many people have, often because they have been deceived by it too often. The main difficulty today is that we want to believe in strong figures, but we are not sure about their legitimacy. What complicates matters is that often in rejecting illegitimate authority, we remain tied to it in some way: we substitute complaining for doing something about it, allow our view of authority to be negatively defined by it or entertain illusions about life without authority. Two illegitimate forms that authority often takes are paternalism, the authority of false love, in which some make others dependent on them for meeting their needs, and autonomy, authority without love, in which some operate without recourse to others but in fact exercise disguised power over them. We need to renounce these false forms of authority, not only by disengaging from their power over us but also by refusing to define ourselves in terms of being their victims. The question then is to understand, respond to and practice authority in ways that are legitimate.

The Meaning and Types of Authority

The word authority is frequently misused or misunderstood. In common speech it is often identified with authoritarian. The latter refers to the illegitimate use of authority involving coercion or lack of justification. Some simply identify authority with the exercise of power, but they overlook the fact that authority is granted to people—through the traditions of a society, the casting of a vote or giving of voluntary allegiance—not just claimed or seized. Authority is a characteristic not just of the person exercising it but of those upon or with whom it is being exercised. It implies some degree of trust between the two that it will be duly accepted and responsibly used. In a quite genuine sense authority is entrusted by followers to leaders and held in trust by leaders for followers.

Discussions of the different types of authority owe much to the seminal writings of the sociologist Max Weber. Authority is generally classified according to three types.

Traditional authority. This is accorded to people or structures by the conventions, laws and accepted procedures of a society or organization. Such is the case with the authority that parents have over their children, for they are entrusted with this by the society or extended family. In time this is transferred to children as they grow up to adulthood. In the church this is primarily the kind of authority that the pope has in the Roman Catholic Church.

Rational authority. This is accorded people or structures by reasoned agreement. In the wider society this happens in the political arena through the ballet box or in a voluntary association through elections held at an annual meeting. In some denominations moderators are chosen as a result of the considered vote of a general assembly or council, and in some church polities senior pastors are called as a result of the careful deliberations of a selection committee.

Charismatic authority. This is accorded to certain key figures because of the beneficial influence they have or impressive results they achieve. A positive example of this in American society is Billy Graham, who is revered as a national, not merely religious, figure. In many newer congregations and denominations leadership emerges and is recognized on charismatic grounds, as, for example, with John Wimber in the Vineyard movement.

These three types of authority are all what sociologists call ideal types; that is, they are ways of analyzing authority rather than exact descriptions of actual figures or structures. The present pope, for example, also has a degree of charismatic authority and for those persuaded by the logic of his encyclicals, rational authority as well. In time, all of these types of authority tend to become institutionalized or routinized, as with the decision by Billy Graham to pass over his evangelistic association to his son Franklin.

A Biblical Approach to Authority

The early church was interested in the way power was interpreted and communicated, including the issue of authority, though it was not a major preoccupation for the early Christians. Paul, for example, really uses the word authority only in connection with one local church where he happened to be under challenge (2 Cor. 10:8; 2 Cor. 13:10; see in a different sense 1 Cor. 9:4-18; 2 Cor. 11:7-10; 2 Thes. 3:9). Occasionally, however, issues did arise concerning what kind of power in the church was legitimate, how this was practiced and discerned, and who exercised it. The chief authority was, of course, God. Acknowledgment of God and obedience to God were paramount for every believer and congregation, and this took precedence over everything else. This does not settle the issue of authority, however, for while divine authority is sometimes opposed to all human authority (as the apostles said with regard to political leaders, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God”—Acts 4:19), it is mostly mediated through human figures (even unbelieving rulers if they act rightly, since a ruler “is God’s servant to do you good”; Romans 13:4). This is also the case in the church. The basic Protestant principle that each individual (or each congregation) owes basic allegiance to God should not be defined to mean that they can ignore all other forms of authority. The basic issue, then, is when, how and by whom does divine authority come to us through other people?

The best place to begin in deciding this is to look at the person of Christ, who is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). Christ at one and the same time exercises the Father’s authority (John 5:19, 36; John 10:36-38), yet Christ also is an authority for those who believe in him. Like the Father Jesus does not exercise authority in a coercive way. Although the church has sometimes forced people to become Christians or do what it wants, this is not the way Jesus operates (Romans 15:7, Galatians 6:1). He desires our full-hearted assent and love. It is similar with the Holy Spirit, who operates with the consent of the minds and wills of the people of God, not, as in pagan worship, in ways that compel people to say or do something over which they have no control (1 Cor. 12:1-3; 1 Cor. 14:26-28). In other words, though divine authority is forceful, it is not forced on people. The basic reason for this is that it is based on love, which courts and woos rather than compels, and is based on truth, which seeks to convince and persuade rather than dogmatically insist on its acceptance. This is the way the gospel came to us, and we received it. It was God’s love, Christ’s sacrifice and the Holy Spirit’s drawing us that led us to embrace the gospel and give ourselves to it.

In the church this divine authority is mediated through all the members, but through some more than others. Whenever God speaks through any person in the church or works through some action they perform, that word and action have authority, as also does the person through whom they come. Sometimes it is a particular group in the church who represents the mind and character of Christ in a fuller way than others, though no group ever represents it entirely. Sometimes particular individuals in the church will demonstrate over a long period of time that much of what they say and do is reflective of God’s nature and purposes, but God always remains operative through coworkers and other people in the congregation. This is why giving authority to just one person or to a group in the congregation is wrong. Paul is a good example here, for even though he brought the gospel to the churches, they should not listen to him—not even to an angel—if he departs from that original message (Galatians 1:8-9). In other words, his authority is derived from God and obtains only so long as he is faithful to God’s message. In another place, even though Paul is confident how a disciplinary case should be handled, he does not decide the issue himself but insists that the whole church come together to face the issue and deal with it (1 Cor. 5:1-5). At the root, authority resides in the whole congregation: in this respect the early churches were a precursor of a democratic attitude toward politics, with the exception that they were to come to a common mind on important matters, not to make decisions by a majority vote (2 Cor. 13:11).

False ways of exerting authority come before us in the New Testament. These include people boasting about their preeminence, dazzling others with eloquence, or manipulating and controlling the church (2 Cor. 10:12; 2 Cor. 11:5-6, 16-19; compare 2 Cor. 1:24). Another instance is people using authority to tear down good work God has done rather than to further build on it (2 Cor. 10:8; 2 Cor. 13:9). It is only those seeking to disrupt that good work whose arguments and actions ought to be destroyed (2 Cor. 10:4). Genuine authority uses the language of persuasion (1 Cor. 14:6) rather than command, as Paul himself does on almost every occasion (for a rare exception see 1 Cor. 14:37), and rests upon love rather than a desire to control (Philemon 1:8). Genuine authority also works with, rather than lords over, people (2 Cor. 1:24) and comes to them primarily with “a gentle spirit” (1 Cor. 4:21), only in extreme circumstances with a stern word. None of this means that the authority exercised is weak or lacking in power: lacking in the exercise of worldly power, yes, but of divine power, no (2 Cor. 10:1-3).

This approach to authority is normative for us today. All too often it is the world’s view of authority, and way of practicing it, that rules in the church. It has been vested in the hands of one person or a small group rather than in the whole congregation within which certain individuals and groups have considerable respect and influence. In relation to people in the church it has had more to do with controlling and submission than with equipping and empowerment. It has operated most often according to a chain of command and prior decision rather than through argument and persuasion in search of the mind of the Spirit. Where this is the case, it is time things changed, not only because from a biblical point of view it is wrong but because current changes taking place in society make it unacceptable. Not only among the young but in the business world as well, echoes of biblical insights into authority are reappearing as credibility, not formal power, becomes the centerpiece of leadership and as collaborative approaches to leadership take the place of solo performers.

» See also: Church Conflict

» See also: Church Discipline

» See also: Equipping

» See also: Leadership, Church

» See also: Love

» See also: Organization

» See also: Power

» See also: Service, Workplace

» See also: Structures

References and Resources

T. Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Wiley, 1964); R. Banks, “Church Order and Government,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, D. G. Reid (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992) 131-37; R. Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early Churches in Their Cultural Setting (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994); E. Best, Paul and His Converts (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988); H. Doohan, Leadership in Paul (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1984); R. A. Heifetz, Leadership Without Easy Answers (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1994); R. Sennett, Authority (New York: Vintage, 1980); H. Von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries (London: A. & C. Black, 1969).

—Robert Banks

Automobile

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Along with the clock, the automobile has had a more profound effect on modern life than any other invention. Its impact is arguably greater than that of any idea or movement during the last century. Most people are aware of its benefits; that is why the automobile remains so popular. Increasing concern has been expressed about its social costs through road deaths, pollution and urban sprawl. Studies have also been undertaken of its, sometimes deleterious, psychological effects on drivers. But little attention has been paid, especially in Christian circles, to its impact on individual attitudes and behavior, our sense of time and place, our significant relationships and our contact with the poor and needy.

Spread of the Automobile

The first gasoline-powered horseless carriage was sold in France in 1887. Sales followed in other countries, including the United States in 1896, soon thereafter. By 1910 almost half a million cars were on the road in America. In Europe cars tended to remain a sign of social status. North America became the leading automobile culture. Registration had already begun in 1901, and by 1902 the American Automobile Association (AAA) was launched. The decisive factor in the democratization of the car was the introduction from 1908 onward of the Ford Model T. Other giant car manufacturers, such as General Motors, rapidly emerged. Within two decades over half the families in America owned cars. In other countries this took longer, and everywhere the process was slowed by the Great Depression.

But during the thirties the automobile remained the major unifying force in America. By the end of the decade public preference for it was resulting in the attrition of public transportation, which was a harbinger of the future. Though World War II curtailed the use of the automobile, at its end the car-propelled exodus to the suburbs, modestly begun twenty years before, received a massive impetus. Spurred by the example of the autobahns in Germany, in 1956 Congress passed the ambitious Interstate Highway Act. By the late seventies interstate highways were largely in place. By then two-car, and then three-car or more, families became the norm. Traffic density increased despite more roads, insurance costs soared, and road deaths continued to mount. During this whole period in turn the home, job, shopping, leisure and church all became automobilized. Increasingly these revolved around the automobile as it played a key role in determining where suburbs, workplaces, malls, entertainment centers and churches were located. People also based their decisions on where to reside, earn a living, shop, play and meet for worship on the basis of the automobile.

Advantages of the Automobile

In the early days the car was seen to have many advantages. It was cleaner than the horse, eliminating the problem of great quantities of manure and urine that were daily deposited on streets (2.5 million and 65,000 tons respectively in New York City). Despite all the initial concerns about speed, automobiles were also considered safer. They were not only more reliable but more convenient than horses and horse-drawn public transportation. As well they opened up the benefits of the countryside and seashore to harried city dwellers. In particular they offered greater flexibility and choice, were held to keep the family together and could cover increasingly larger distances in shorter time.

Automobiles are still largely valued for the same reasons, even if there is now more realism attached to their ownership. There are other reasons people appreciate them so much. They enable many to live away from suburbs and city in more pleasant surroundings. They open up new opportunities for study or work. Indeed, as the idea of the mobile office complete with telephone, fax machine, word processor and printer catches on, a growing number of people now work out of their cars. The automobile turns the whole city into a huge mall and enables people to call on a large number of services and enjoy a diverse range of leisure opportunities.

Significance of the Automobile

People have always valued the automobile apart from these practical advantages. Many of the reasons touch on deep chords in the human psyche. The car is often a symbol of status and wealth, a way of informing others of our place on the social and economic scale. It is a symbol of individual freedom and independence, one of the reasons car pools are so difficult to get off the ground. The car is a symbol of identity; for men of masculinity, an expression of our actual or fanciful self-image. It is a symbol of adulthood and citizenship, since it is in having a car rather than gaining the vote that a young person becomes a full participant in modern society. It is also a symbol of reward and punishment, for being grounded is the ultimate punishment for a teenager, and having your car repossessed is the ultimate deprivation for an adult.

The automobile is also an embodiment of personal priorities and dreams, as advertisements and movies constantly remind us. It is a place where we can play out many of our fantasies about exercising power, confronting danger and overcoming fear. The car ushers us into a private, climate-controlled, technological world that increases our withdrawal from the environment as well as from neighborliness and community: children especially become conditioned to this from an early age. At the national level the automobile is a barometer of economic well-being and progress—as the saying goes, “When Detroit sneezes, the country catches a cold.” With the spread and merger of the largest automobile manufacturers and the advent of the “world car,” the automobile has become a key indicator of the globalization of business. Keeping supply lines of fuel open can be a major—in the case of the Gulf War perhaps the major—cause of war.

Disadvantages of the Automobile

In view of the ambiguous role of the car, it is not surprising that already by the late 1920s some people were beginning to have second thoughts about it. The automobile seemed to be dividing the family more than uniting it, congesting cities as much as decentralizing them, generating regulations as well as increasing freedom and downgrading public transportation instead of complementing it. The American humorist Will Rogers once remarked, “Good luck, Mr. Ford. It will take us a hundred years to tell whether you helped or hurt us. But one thing is certain: you didn’t leave us where you found us.” Serious criticism of the car surfaced again through Ralph Nader and others during the fifties. Increasingly psychologists and others noticed the strange effect upon people of getting behind the wheel. Drivers tend to become one with their machine, an extension of it. As David Engwicht says, “Metamorphosis takes place as the driver is transformed from homo-sapiens to homo-machine; both hearts of steel united in their drive for efficiency, speed, and power. The driver becomes the driven” (p. 118). How else do we explain the greater than usual competitiveness, rudeness and carelessness so many otherwise equable people exhibit (see Commuting)?

During the last decades of the twentieth century, the emergence of the Green movement has resulted in other protests. A photographic exhibition from West Germany entitled Automobile Nightmare visually documented the century-old impact of the car on many aspects of modern life. The evocative captions and text accompanying various collections of photographs told the story: “from life in the streets to danger to life,” “cutting up the land and killing off the forests,” “the escape from weekday traffic jams to weekend traffic jams,” “from pretty roads to superhighways,” “smelling the gas instead of the flowers,” “animal slaughter and human sacrifice,” “paving over the city,” “the new forest of concrete posts and traffic signs,” “the long commute to distant suburbs,” “where have all the front gardens gone?” “pedestrians last,” “give us our daily car.” One of the key victims of the automobile is the experience of local neighborhood. Since people drive to and from their homes, they do not see, greet or talk with each other much anymore; since they go greater distances to shop and relax, the corner store disappears, and the neighborhood park empties, so removing the chief hubs of local neighborhood life; since residents are somewhere else during the day, crime increases as houses become easy pickings for burglars. Even where people stay at home, as traffic density on streets increases, the number and quality of relationships people have with others on the block dramatically decline.

The high social cost of the automobile has now begun to register on middle-class citizens. (1) The automobile is the largest cause of smog. In most places the average car puts into the air each year the equivalent of its weight in pollutants. Automobile emissions are wasting the forests of Europe, are degrading marine life in the Atlantic coastal areas and are the major contributor to the overall greenhouse effect. An estimated loss of between $2 billion and $4 billion affects four of the main cash crops in the United States. (2) Automobiles kill and maim forty times as many people per miles traveled as do planes and buses and eighty times as many as travel on trains. The number of people killed by the automobile worldwide per year is somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000, and in Europe and North America alone there are more than 3,000,000 injuries annually. It is estimated that 30,000 people die in the United States each year from the carcinogenic gases that rise from the automobile excreta. (3) Through the building of roads, parking lots, garages, median strips and gas stations, at least one-third of the land area in major cities is now given over to the car. In some places, for example Los Angeles, this rises to over one-half. (4) Freeways, once so full of promise, now move during rush hours at the pace of a bicycle or, in some cities, at little more than walking pace. The car discriminates against the old, the infirm, the handicapped, the poor—all those who cannot afford to buy one or who are frightened to cross busy roads. Automobiles and roadside vans are increasing congestion in major national parks to urban proportions and threatening their delicate ecological balance.

Sanctification of the Automobile

Most serious thinking about the automobile assumes that it is a morally neutral object that is sometimes used by individuals or manufacturers in adverse or destructive ways. The basic task is to reduce its moral ill effects. On an individual basis, this involves educating drivers to have different attitudes and improved skills and punishing intentional or drink-driven abuse of the car. At the institutional level, it involves compelling manufacturers to produce safer and cleaner cars and pressuring urban planners and federal agencies to provide better and ecofriendly roads. Very little thinking has focused on the morally ambiguous character of the automobile itself, on its inherent shadow side. All significant technological inventions have this two-sided character and possess an inbuilt capacity to do both good and harm. An example is this: given their speed, it was inevitable that cars would kill animals crossing roads. There may be ways in which this can be lessened, but there is no way it can be prevented.

We must seek to make the automobile more a servant than a master, more an instrument than an idol. Rather than our allowing it to captivate us, we need to bring our attitudes and use of it fully captive to Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). Instead of conforming to its demands and possibilities, we need to be “transformed by the renewing” of our attitudes toward it (Romans 12:2). We need to work out ways of loving our neighbor and caring for the creation in and through our automobiles. What does this mean in practice? It involves more than driving safely in a way that conserves energy, more than using our cars to get people to and from church, to visit the old or needy and to service worthy causes. For most people, it involves less than giving up the car altogether. There are times—as for over ten years in our own family—when it is right to go without a car. For some people this may even be a kind of prophetic calling.

Our basic starting point is this. We are not the owners of our automobiles but stewards of them. They are one of several ways of getting around granted us by God. As such, they are a gift from God for our own benefit and for the benefit of others. From this we may extract some practical guidelines: (1) Since we are able to walk, use bicycles (the most energy-efficient form of transportation) and take public transportation, we should use the car only when it is more appropriate to do so. Speed and convenience are not the only issues here. Other considerations are fitness, tension levels, enjoying company and opportunity to reflect or pray. (2) We should buy cars that will be more economical in use of gas and other basic materials, most appropriate for the number of people traveling and least damaging to the human and created environment. (3) Given that cars absorb approximately a quarter of people’s weekly or annual budget (it now costs around fifty cents a mile to travel by car, which is more expensive than by taxi or airplane), we should purchase and use cars that will result in as little drain on our financial resources as possible. (4) Combine journeys to different locations in the same or adjacent areas so that one longer trip takes the place of several shorter ones, and choose places to live, work, shop, relax and worship that require the minimum of car use.

Here are some more radical ways of understanding and utilizing the automobile. (5) Where possible we should lessen rush hour frustrations and increase community by car-pooling to work, as well as explore ways of car-pooling to shops and church. (6) Examine whether it is really necessary to have more than one car in the household, or consider the possibility of sharing a car with a fellow resident or friend so that financial costs are shared. (7) If the opportunity arises, consider replacing commuting with telecommuting by working some or most of the time at home. (8) Fast occasionally from the car, perhaps one workday each week or one day each weekend or month, breaking our dependence on it and supporting public transportation, on which the poor and needy are dependent.

Congregations also have a contribution to make here. They can give instruction on the responsible Christian use of the car, encourage car-pooling of members, provide congregational cars or buses where multiple staffs or needy members are involved and decentralize larger churches into regional ones so that people have less distances to travel. Those who work in transportation-related occupations have other things to offer. They can keep up the pressure for manufacturers to provide vehicles powered by alternative sources of energy, encourage more effective rapid transportation systems, give inducements to firms that reward employees for car-pooling or leaving the car at home, develop computerized transportation controls to improve efficiency and safety, experiment with dial-a-ride vans and buses in local areas or to busy destinations.

Putting the car in its proper place ultimately requires a combination of individual, group and institutional responses to an incredibly complex but increasingly urgent area of modern life. Difficult though it may be, we must make the effort. In this respect we should “not be conformed to this world,” as for the most part we are, “but transformed through the renewing of [our] minds” (Romans 12:2 NRSV). If we were to follow through on this, then one day we might begin to see a reflection of the idyllic urban situation pictured in the book of Revelation. In the “holy” and “faithful” city, “once again old men and women, so old that they use canes when they walk, will be sitting in the city squares. And the streets will again be full of boys and girls playing” (Zech. 8:3-5 GNB).

» See also: Commuting

» See also: Ecology

» See also: Mobility

» See also: Technology

References and Resources

T. Bendixson, Instead of Cars (London: Temple Smith, 1974); M. L. Berger, The Devil Wagon in God’s Country: The Automobile and Social Change in Rural America (Hamden, Conn.: Archon, 1979); D. Engwicht, Reclaiming Our Cities and Towns: Better Living with Less Traffic (Philadelphia: New Society, 1993); J. J. Flink, The Car Culture (Boston: MIT Press, 1975); D. Lewis and L. Goldstein, eds., The Automobile and American Culture (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1983); J. McInnes, The New Pilgrims (Sydney: Albatross, 1980); Organization for Economic and Cultural Development, The Automobile and the Environment (Boston: MIT Press, 1978); A. J. Walter, “Addicted to Mobility: The Morality of the Motor Car,” Third Way, 21 January 1985, 21-23.

—Robert Banks

Backpacking

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Backpacking is carrying the necessities of food and shelter from one place to another. In some form this has always been a human necessity: the first men and women had no choice but to carry their few belongings when they traveled. Much that we call progress consists in our development of ways of avoiding such work. Through taming animals (beasts of burden), building boats, inventing the wheel, then (more recently) harnessing the energy of fossil fuels, we have nearly escaped the necessity of carrying our own burdens.

Ironically, it is only as the need for backpacking bas vanished that its attractiveness as a recreation has emerged. As a popular recreation, backpacking is only a few decades old (though the roots of modern backpacking go back as far as nineteenth-century romanticism in both Europe and America).

What is the point of backpacking? Certainly one of the most obvious reasons for the popularity of the activity is that it is the only means of access into the few remaining wilderness areas. The value of wilderness (which, in the words of the U.S. Wilderness Act of 1964, is a region where "man is a visitor and does not remain") has also increased significantly in recent times. Both the popularity of backpacking and the new value placed on wilderness - the places where most North American backpacking takes place - can be traced to a disillusionment with, and a reaction against, the alienating consequences of modern (and increasingly urban) civilization.

From a biblical viewpoint, the appeal of backpacking can easily be understood. We were made for relationship: with creation, with each other and with our Creator. One need only look at rush hour on a modern city highway (with thousands of speeding cars, most carrying one person) to realize how profoundly our preferred modern transportation technology has distanced us from each other and (most obviously) from the sounds, scents and textures of creation. Less obvious, but just as important, is the way in which the ease of modern transportation distances us from our own bodies, which were made to be used (a fact that the proliferation of exercise and fitness centers makes plain).

The overall thrust of modern technology is to make things easy for us, to remove from us the created limitations of space and time. On the most profound level, then, backpacking - and the respectful experience of creation that it enables - is an attempt to recover the fact that we are
creatures and are made for relationship.

Backpacking requires that we strip down what is needed for living to the bare necessities of food, water and shelter. It reminds us that we are finite, limited and that we depend ultimately on God and the Creator's gifts for our life. It also opens for us the inexhaustible sensual richness of the created world. Motorized travel limits our appreciation of creation almost entirely to the visual. But in backpacking all the senses are awakened. Thus it restores our relationship not only with creation but with our physical body.

Some also feel that the solitude and vulnerability that backpacking invites make them more open to the Creator. Indeed, many who have turned their backs on all organized religion find wilderness backpacking an intensely spiritual experience. The importance of wilderness sojourns in the Bible - whether of the lsraelites, David, Elijah or Jesus underlines the spiritual importance of that recovery of the value of solitude, creation and physical work. That value is caught in the significance of words like pilgrim,journey and sojourn, words which are deepened in their meaning by the ancient experience of backpacking.

Modern equipment - formfitting packs, good rain gear, lightweight stoves and waterproof tents - can take some of the hardship and danger out of backpacking. (Though another danger is that the fascination with equipment turns backpacking into another excuse for being a consumer.) Persons - and families - who are new to the activity might be wise to make their first trip with someone who has more experience.

» See also: Camping

» See also: Creation

» See also: Ecology

» See also: Leisure

» See also: Recreation

» See also: Sabbath

» See also: Traveling

References and Resources

S. P. Bratton, Christianity, Wilderness and Wildlife; The Original Desert Solitaire (Scranton, Penn.: University of Scranton Press, 1993); H. Manning, Backpacking: One Step at a Time (New York: Vintage Books, 1986); R. Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind (3rd ed.; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982).

— Loren Wilkinson

Baptism

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

As one of the two sacraments ordained by Jesus, baptism has a direct relationship to the theology and spirituality of daily life because (1) it takes a simple everyday experience—washing, bathing or cleaning—and elevates it to a special means of grace, thus giving us a lens through which we can see God’s love for us; (2) it brings meaning by symbolizing and certifying that we are not alone but are truly members of the people of God, God’s true laity; (3) as a special means of grace, baptism introduces us to the realm of the Spirit by which we are empowered to live extraordinary lives in ordinary situations. This article will consider the confusing testimony of the church on the matter, the examples of Jesus and John, a Christian understanding of baptism, the vexed question of its administration and, finally, the significance of baptism with the Holy Spirit.

One Baptism or Three?

There is one baptism (Ephes. 4:5), but you would never guess as much from the way Christians talk about it. For the Catholic, it was his baptism as an infant that brought him into the church and made him a Christian. For the Baptist, her baptism was by immersion, administered after profession of faith. For the Pentecostal, baptism was in or by the Holy Spirit, normally accompanied by the gift of tongues: this Spirit baptism eclipses all else. All three are saying something important. All three are stressing an important aspect of Christian baptism.

Churches in the Catholic tradition see baptism as the way of gaining membership in the people of God. Just as you entered the old covenant people of Israel by circumcision, so you enter the new covenant people of God by baptism (Acts 2:40-41; Galatians 3:27-29). This noble view, strong on God’s act of incorporation, is weak on response. If we think of it as the only strand in Christian initiation, it degenerates into magic.

Churches in the Baptist tradition see baptism as a seal on the profession of faith, and that is clearly the emphasis in Acts 16:31-33. The church is the company of believers. This view is strong on response, but very individualistic. It makes human commitment almost more significant than divine initiative. Moreover it is very cerebral: it makes little room for those too young or too handicapped to make a decisive response.

Churches in the Pentecostal tradition see baptism very differently. The church is not so much a historical entity (which may well be apostate), not a company of believers (which may mean little more than intellectual assent). No. Reception of the life-giving Spirit of God is the authentic mark of the church. Baptism with the Holy Spirit is the only baptism worth having (Romans 8:9). Important though this emphasis undoubtedly is, it too is deficient. Cut off from historical continuity it can be, and often is, very divisive. Cut off from any serious emphasis on the content of the faith, it can easily go off the rails in doctrine or morals. There is such a thing as church history and Christian doctrine. The Spirit of God, the Word of God and the people of God need to walk hand in hand.

These different strands belong together. We find them all in Acts, where baptism is sometimes seen as the agency of salvation (Acts 2:38), sometimes as the seal of faith (Acts 16:31-33) and sometimes as the sovereign anointing of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-48). The Catholics are right to see baptism as the objective mark of God’s great rescue achieved on Calvary, to which we can make no contribution or addition. The Baptists are right to see in baptism a personal response, in repentance and faith, to the grace of God. The Pentecostals are right to see baptism as the way we are ushered into the world of the Spirit. Baptism is as deep and broad as the salvation of which it is the sacrament.

What Can We Learn from the Baptism of John?

John’s baptizing caused an immense stir. It was a mark of repentance. No pedigree, no good deeds, could bring one into the coming kingdom of God: the only path lay through the baptismal waters of repentance. And that was very humbling.

Moreover, the baptism of John pointed ahead to the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit that Jesus, the Messiah, would bring. It was also a very public and a very humiliating act. Never before had Jews been baptized: baptism was one of the initiation ceremonies for Gentiles joining the people of God.

And finally, the baptism of John was decisive. A person either went through the waters of God’s judgment in the Jordan or else would have to face it in stark reality later on. In all these ways, John’s baptism, a landmark in Judaism, was an advertisement of the main feature: Christian baptism.

What Can We Learn from the Baptism of Jesus?

In his baptism Jesus identified with sinners, something which even John the Baptist found scandalous (Matthew 3:14). It was an anticipation of Calvary, when his cross was to be his baptism—in blood (Luke 12:50). We cannot enter with Jesus into the unspeakable agonies of bearing the world’s sin, but we can and should share in other aspects of his baptism.

The baptism of Jesus was an assurance of sonship (Matthew 3:17). So it is with the Christian, adopted into the family of God (Romans 8:15-16). It was a commissioning for costly service. The voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism, “You are my Son; in you I am well pleased,” was a combination of two significant Old Testament texts (Psalm 2:7; Isaiah 42:1). Jesus, the Son of God, is also the Servant of God. Those servant songs in Isaiah, culminating in Isaiah 53, sketch the path of ministry and suffering. For the Christian, ministry and suffering are also inescapable: baptism points inexorably to that calling.

Christian baptism embraces us in the threefold baptism of Jesus—the baptism of repentance in the Jordan, the baptism of rescue on the cross and the baptism of power in the Holy Spirit. In our own baptism we see these same three realities. It calls us to repentance. It shows us where pardon is to be had. And it offers us the power of the Holy Spirit.

How Are We to Understand Christian Baptism?

In the light of these precedents of John and Jesus, how are we to understand Christian baptism? It is no optional extra: Jesus solemnly enjoined it upon us at the climax of his life on earth (Matthew 28:18-20).

1. Christian baptism embodies God’s challenge to repentance and faith. It cannot be conducted without some expression of both. Baptism says to us, You are unclean. You need washing. I can do that for you. But you must change your ways. It takes us to the heart of the gospel.

2. Christian baptism offers us the blessings of the new covenant. God approaches us in utterly unmerited grace. We respond in repentance and faith. And baptism signs over to us the blessings of the new covenant: forgiveness, adoption, servanthood, the Holy Spirit, the new birth, justification and the promise of life after death.

3. Christian baptism plunges us into the death and resurrection of Jesus. We are brought to the point of death to the old life, which had little room for God, and the dawning of new life as the Holy Spirit enters our hearts. This dying and rising life is the essence of Christianity. It is what we are called to—and empowered for. It has a profound impact on the way we behave. So baptism is the gateway to a complete revolution in morals and lifestyle, even though we shall never achieve perfection in this life. It embodies our aim to live out the life of Christ in our own daily circumstances.

4. Christian baptism initiates us into the worldwide church. It is the adoption certificate into the family of God. It is the mark of belonging, the badge of membership. That may not always be obvious in traditionally Christian lands. But if your background is in Judaism or Islam, your baptism is the Rubicon. It is the essential dividing line.

5. Christian baptism appoints us to work for the kingdom of God. It is God’s appointing for service in this world. For baptism is indeed a sign of the kingdom. It shows that we have surrendered to our King, and it is the uniform we wear as we go about the King’s business. Through our baptism, then, we are commissioned to engage in active ministry for Christ wherever we find ourselves—in our homes, neighborhoods, workplaces, leisure activities and cities.

6. Christian baptism does something! This New Testament emphasis is often overlooked by Protestants, many of whom prefer to think it symbolizes something. But the New Testament uses some strongly instrumental language about baptism. It is through baptism that we enter the “name” of the Trinity (Matthew 28:19) and thus are saved (1 Peter 3:21), regenerated (John 3:5), united with Christ in his death and resurrection (Romans 6:3-8; Col. 2:12) and incorporated into his body (1 Cor. 12:13). To be sure, several of these references mention the Holy Spirit (the divine agency) or faith (the human agency), but there is an undeniably instrumental flavor about the language used by the biblical writers. This should not surprise us. Justification, regeneration, incorporation into Christ, baptism—these are all different images of the way God makes us his own.

Baptism, then, is an efficacious sign of the new life. But of course it is not unconditionally efficacious, any more than a wedding ring is! It was not efficacious with Simon Magus (Acts 8:13, 21-23) nor with some at Corinth (1 Cor. 10:1-6). But it is intended to bring about what it symbolizes. It is a palpable mark of belonging, like the wedding ring or the adoption certificate. Luther grasped this clearly. When he was tempted to doubt his own faith, he recalled the standing emblem of God’s faithfulness marked upon him as an infant. He cried out in confidence, Baptizatus sum, “I have been baptized,” realizing that God’s faithfulness was even more important than his faith.

How Was Baptism Administered?

Whether the early Christians sprinkled or immersed candidates for baptism is not a matter of supreme importance. They insisted on baptizing in water in the name of the Trinity, but the amount of water is nowhere specified. It is not a matter that should divide Christians. Sometimes a river was at hand, and they would doubtless immerse. Sometimes it would take place in a home, like that of the Philippian jailer, where immersion was not possible. One of the early murals in the Catacombs shows John the Baptist and Jesus standing waist deep in the Jordan with John pouring water over the head of Jesus: both methods are depicted!

But does not the word baptizō mean “immerse”? Not necessarily: it can mean “wash” (Luke 11:38). The early Christians seem to have been very relaxed about the mode of baptism. The very early Didache says, “Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if thou hast not running water, baptize in other water. And if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Didache 7:1).

Who Received Baptism?

Adult believers certainly received baptism, and they are primary in any theological reflection about baptism. But probably children, wives and slaves in the household were also baptized when the head of the household professed faith (Acts 16:31, 33). Children were sacramentally admitted to the Old Testament church (Genesis 17); whole families of proselytes, including children and slaves, were baptized into the Jewish faith. The attitude of acceptance that Jesus displayed to tiny children would have helped (Mark 10:13-16). Infant baptism does emphasize the objectivity of the gospel: what Christ did for us at Calvary is marked upon us, whether we choose to respond to it or not. And it emphasizes the initiative of God, reaching out to us before we ever think of reaching out to him. But it is a practice open to gross abuse if it does not take place in the context of faith. It should not be administered indiscriminately, but only with careful teaching of the obligations it calls for and the blessings it offers. And it requires personal reaffirmation on behalf of the candidate when he or she is confirmed.

Believer’s baptism stresses that baptism is the Christian badge of belonging, not a social ceremony for the very young. It gives a clear, datable time of commitment. It produces far less in the way of fallout than infant baptism does, and it is a powerful evangelistic occasion. My prayer is that Baptists and pedobaptists may grow in mutual understanding of the strength of the other’s position and respect, rather than criticize, one another.

Can You Repeat Baptism?

No. Baptism is as unrepeatable as justification or adoption, of which it is the sacrament. The early Christians were clear about this. There is an ambiguous longing for rebaptism today. People very often feel that their baptism as an infant was deficient. There was too little faith around, too little water, too little feeling, too little chance for public confession of faith. The desire to do it again, and do it properly, often springs from the modern cult of feelings. But baptism cannot be done again, any more than birth can. It is ever to be remembered but never to be repeated. Baptism may be reaffirmed. It may even be reenacted: “If you are not already baptized, I baptize you . . .” But it cannot be repeated.

What Is Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

There are seven references to baptism with the Holy Spirit in the New Testament: Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; Acts 11:15-16; 1 Cor. 12:13. The first six of these draw the distinction between John the Baptist’s baptism which was looking forward to Jesus and the baptism Jesus would himself give “in” (or “with” or “by”) the Holy Spirit. These six point forward, then, to Christian initiation. It is the same with the seventh, where Paul reminds the Corinthian charismatics and noncharismatics alike that they had all been baptized by one Spirit into the one body. So none of the New Testament references points to a second and more profound experience. That is not for a moment to deny that such subsequent experiences may and do occur. Sometimes they are the most momentous spiritual experiences in our lives. But it simply causes confusion to call them baptism. As we have seen, the Pentecostals are right about the importance of having the Spirit to come and flood your life; they are wrong to call that experience “baptism in the Holy Spirit” in contrast to “baptism in water.” The Bible never speaks of it that way.

Although there are not many references to baptism in the New Testament, it was clearly critically important to early Christians as the sacrament of initiation. It sealed for them their unrepeatable incorporation into Christ. It pointed them to the dying and rising life that Christians are called to live. It joined them to brothers and sisters throughout the world. And it released in them the power of the Holy Spirit so long as they claimed in faith the gift God so generously offered them.

» See also: Communion

» See also: Membership, Church

» See also: Sacraments

» See also: Spiritual Growth

References and Resources

P. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962); D. Bridge and D. Phypers, Waters That Divide: The Baptism Debate (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977); G. W. Bromiley, Children of Promise (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979); M. Green and R. P. Stevens, New Testament Spirituality (Guildford, U.K.: Eagle, 1994); P. K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979); L. H. Stookey, Baptism: Christ’s Act in the Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1982); W. Ward, “Baptism in Theological Perspective,” Review and Expositor 65, no. 1 (1968).

—Michael Green

Beauty

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Often when we’re standing before a breathtaking sunset or after we’ve heard the final notes of a great symphony, the word beautiful springs naturally to our lips. What exactly do we mean by this, and what is the place of beauty in our lives as Christians? Some would argue that our discipleship should be difficult and we should not seek ease or beauty, while others believe that beauty is a snare that can lead us away from God (see Art). Yet most Christians sense in their hearts that beauty—especially seen in creation—is somehow a gift from God, and that we should enjoy this gift in ways that honor God. Where did our ideas of beauty come from, and how can we think about this in God-honoring ways?

The Earliest Ideas of Beauty

Most of our ideas about beauty, at least in Europe and America, have been formed under the influence of Greek philosophy. In the field called aesthetics beauty was, at least before the eighteenth century, the dominant idea, more central even than consideration of what we call today art. As this was first expressed in the work of Plato (especially in his dialogue Philebus), beauty is a property of particular objects—specifically ordered in a balanced way with an internal unity—that can be known by the mind. In Plato’s view this order is a reflection of a reality existing independently of our knowledge, whether or not the order is precisely comprehensible. Plotinus, a follower of Plato, included a spiritual dimension in beauty, defining it as that which “irradiates symmetry rather than symmetry itself” (Enneads, 7) and so moves us. This added the important idea that beauty involves the whole of the object or event and so cannot be defined only by reference to particular qualities.

Modern ideas of beauty did not come to expression until the eighteenth century. There, as a result of the empiricism of John Locke, beauty was described not as something inherent in the object but as an experience of the observer. Since it was understood as a subjective (rather than objective) quality, the way was open to include ideas like “sublime” (that which arouses amazement or even horror). Beauty no longer played the central role in aesthetics, and it took its place alongside other aesthetic qualities. Art objects that were successful were no longer required to be beautiful in any traditional sense but could move viewers by their ugliness or simply the power of their imagery. It is this development in what we call modern art that leaves many Christians (and many non-Christians for that matter) puzzled and unsure about the role of art and beauty in their lives.

A Biblical Approach to Beauty

What does beauty mean in the Bible? Can we find there some help in sorting out this modern difficulty? In the Old Testament there are as many as seven different word groups that refer to events and objects that are beautiful or splendid. What strikes one at once is that these words almost never refer to separate experiences that we might call “aesthetic experiences” in the modern sense. Rather, various facets of Israel’s life are termed beautiful. In people and nations beauty often is associated with what is honorable or what sparks admiration: “Babylon [is] the jewel [beauty] of kingdoms” (Isaiah 13:19 RSV). There is a word for splendor that is used of the beautiful robes of the priests (Exodus 28:2) and is associated with the pomp and display of the king (Esther 1:4) or even with God’s acts of deliverance (Isaiah 63:12). This beauty God strips from his people during the exile (Psalm 78:61), though it will characterize them again in the last days (Jeremiah 33:9).

Other words refer to “delight” or “desire” and speak of the attraction of beauty and often the greed or lust that beautiful things can inspire in us, just as Achan coveted gold (Joshua 7:21). Or beauty can be simply what is fitting, in the sense of suitable to the situation. For example, a word for beauty describes an old man’s gray head (Proverbs 16:31) and a young man’s strength (Proverbs 20:29). In this sense praise “suits” the righteous (Psalm 33:1), the feet of the evangelist are “lovely” (Isaiah 52:7), words spoken appropriately are “seemly” or “lovely” (Proverbs 16:24), as is bread eaten in secret (Proverbs 9:17). This last reference underlines the fact that aesthetics and ethical qualities are inevitably interrelated; the Bible knows nothing of beauty that is not integrated into the larger purposes of God for his people.

This integration of beauty into the whole of life and its (ultimately) moral purposes is seen clearly in the virtual absence of the idea of ugliness from the Bible. The nearest equivalent is the notion of a blemish or defect, which can be physical or moral (see Pollution). A blemish is what keeps anything from being what God intended it to be. This integration of the aesthetic, the ethical and the religious can be seen most clearly in the application of words related to beauty to God’s presence in Zion or Jerusalem (Psalm 50:2), the place or experience of worship (Psalm 93:5; compare “Holiness is the beauty of thy house” NEB), and especially to God’s people when in the last days they dwell with him and reflect his character (Isaiah 44:23; compare RSV and Isaiah 46:13; Psalm 16:11; Rev. 21:24). These last verses imply that the very process of redemption, focusing on the death and resurrection of Jesus, has as a part of its purpose a restoration of the integrity of the created order wherein it will again be characterized by beauty and wholeness.

So while we are not encouraged to seek beauty for its own sake, it is clear from Scripture that obedience to God and God’s Word leads to a life which is meant to display beauty as well as goodness. Good works (the Greek word used in the New Testament can also mean “beautiful works”) are to characterize our lives so that people will glorify the Father who is in heaven (Matthew 5:16). It is in this context that we may understand Paul’s advice to the Philippians: “If anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things” (Phil. 4:8).

A Christian Perspective on Beauty

This biblical material gives us a perspective in which we can understand modern subjective notions of beauty. We might put this in terms of three comments.

First, it is clear that God’s purposes for the Christian embrace the entirety of our existence. Just as our lives should show the righteousness of God’s character, they also ought to reflect God’s beauty. Our brief study makes it clear that this is meant to be in and through our ordinary world of work and play. While experiences of art in concert halls and museums may play a part in our “training in righteousness,” their impact is to be felt in how we dress, the way we decorate our home (see Adornment), even (or especially) in how we treat one another from day to day (see Love). As Calvin Seerveld says, for example, in his treatment of the calling of beauticians: “Not every person can be ‘beautiful’—whatever that means; but everyone has the capacity, even duty, to be groomed, and that includes aesthetic enhancement as well as hygienic care” (p. 28). All of these dimensions of life can certainly be characterized as lovely or beautiful if they are done in sensitive and God-honoring ways, because God made the world to show his glory and redemption, and we are to retrieve some of that splendor.

Second, the Bible makes it clear that beauty, for the believer, focuses ultimately on our experiences of corporate worship and especially on our life with God. It is for this reason that Christians through the centuries have built beautiful buildings (see Church Buildings), painted altarpieces and composed chorales (see Music, Christian) both as expressions of their faith and as symbols of God’s own glory. Paul’s advice about making our worship orderly (and decent) when placed in the larger biblical context implies that our church and community life ought to reflect what the Bible calls the “beauty of holiness.”

And third, we must remember that our life together, even as believers, is still “defective.” As John puts this in his letter to the early church, though we are already God’s children, it does not yet appear what we shall be. We only know we will be like God (1 John 3:2). For this reason we are not surprised at the ugliness that our sin causes, though we are often made to suffer because of it. But at the same time we can take the moments of joy and beauty that God gives us as an anticipation of what life will be like when God wipes away every tear from our eyes. It is for this reason that beauty, while not as important to the Christian as faith, hope or love, can be a bearer of all these gifts and thus help draw people to worship the Lord.

References and Resources

M. Beardsley, Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1958); W. Dyrness, “Aesthetics in the Old Testament: Beauty in Context,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28 (December 1985) 421-32; T. Howard, Splendor in the Ordinary (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale, 1976); H. R. Rookmaaker, The Creative Gift: Essays on Art and the Christian Life (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1981); E. Schaeffer, Hidden Art (London: Norfolk Press, 1971); C. Seerveld, “Beauty and the Human Body: Reflections on Cosmetology,” Christianity Today 15 (11 September 1961) 27-28.

—William Dyrness

Birth

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

To attend a birth is to be awakened with unimaginable wonder as you begin to rediscover the world with your child. Following conception and pregnancy, birth is the definitive moment that a new life enters fully into the family and community to be blessed and named. It is a precarious passage we have all at one time navigated and may revisit in the agony and ecstasy of birthing our own children. Metaphorically, labor represents a form of “redemptive suffering” as a mother creatively brings a child into light and love, a transition analogous to the salvation and new identity claimed in spiritual “rebirth.” The physiological processes of labor and delivery can be described in terms of the four elements common to the understanding of the natural world by the biblical ancients: the cosmos of water and fire (experienced through labor), (with delivery to) air and earth.

The Wonder of the Elements

During earthquakes, volcanoes, floods and forest fires and no less during a birth, we feel the power and mystery of the elements—their exhilaration and danger. The elements were believed by the ancients to be the essential energy forces that sustained the world. Water, fire, air and earth were seen as vital components of the human body. The maintenance of health was a matter of keeping a balance between them.

The human mind expands in the attempt to overwrite chaos with order by classifying, categorizing and defining the ineffable. Wonder always outgrows our organizing principles and is the essential element we bring to the mysterious and natural event of birth. According to Albert Einstein, experiencing awe “is at the center of true religiousness” (Konner, p. 383). It is wonder, says Oswald Chambers, “that keeps you an eternal child.” Our faith and wonder can be reawakened when we become parents.

While birth is a normal physiological process of which we have only a superficial understanding, it is painful and incurs risks to both mother and child. Mortality, although rare today, has been well documented over the course of history. Isaiah 43:1-2 reassures us at this time: “Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine. When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze.”

Traditionally cloistered in the privacy of a tent or home and attended by sisters, mothers and midwives, birth is now charted with the technological assistance of modern medicine in hospitals and, more recently, well-equipped birthing centers that offer more family-oriented care. Home deliveries and licensing of midwives have created unfortunate divisions between health care workers but are motivating necessary changes. Controversies arise when the physician’s imperative to intervene on behalf of the unborn child conflicts with a mother’s right to be autonomous in an experience that she wishes to be as positive, private and natural as possible.

Waters of Passage

Water symbolically shares many features with amniotic fluid in the labor process. The fetus swims in a fluid-filled sac that acts as a protective cushion and assists the fetal lungs in their development. When the water “breaks” and the salty fluid gushes or dribbles, there is marked point of no return, a boundary between pregnancy and birth. Literally “the bath is over” and “it’s time to get out!” Although labor pains may not have begun, the breaching of the baby’s sterile environment signals that birth needs to be imminent. Rivers and streams represent boundaries between worlds and countries, the inexorable flowing of time, and are conduits for passage and communication (Isaiah 26:17). Because the fetus drinks and excretes (primarily water) into the amniotic fluid, the characteristics of this bath water communicate important details about the baby’s health. Through examining the fluid for clarity and color, the presence of bile, prematurely passed bowel movements and infection, fetal illness can be detected. Genetic integrity is determined by examining sloughed skin cells present in the amniotic fluid, sampled by an ultrasound-guided abdominal needle.

When the attending physician, in an attempt to initiate or accelerate labor, breaks the waters or enters the womb and sac during cesarean section, it is not unlike a baptismal spring that douses through all layers of emotional protection. It washes the image anew and allows the doctor to see this birth as if it were the first.

With courage and humility, physicians attend a delivery struggling in the currents, weighing all the odds, and waiting with Hypocrites’ words echoing all the way back from the fifth century b.c.: “One must assist nature in effecting the cure. Life is short and the art long. The right time is an instant, the treatment precarious and the crisis grievous.”

The physician strives to achieve balance between being overly impatient, taking the child too soon from the mother, or being indecisive with the resultant danger of allowing the mother to become exhausted or the child to be asphyxiated. Above all, physicians need to be attentive to the patient, tuning their ears to the cries of the laboring mother. As one can be trained to listen only for the oboe out of the whole orchestra, so one may need to strain to hear the voice of the patient in the thin reed of her crying. Tears are shed not just in response to pain but in frustration, helplessness and suffering, sending out a message and cleansing the mind.

Fiery Birth Force

Labor is a baptism not only of water but by fire. The fury and energy of labor is intense and transformative. The rhythmic contracting of the uterus is like the relentless pounding of the surf against the rocks as a storm breaks. The birth force rises, swells as a great wave, peaks and recedes—the tempo ever quickening. Pain can be overwhelming but is mercifully interspaced with pauses of quiet and rest. The intermittent relaxations of the uterus allows blood to perfuse the placenta again. It may be a brief, intense laboring, or it may be a marathon of physical and mental exertion lasting days. Essential is the support of others who focus the mother in purposeful concentration on her own breathing. The perception of distress and pain can be diminished by the neurochemical effects of relaxation.

Physiologically, pain and heat usually warn us of impending danger or harm. Although unpleasant, these sensations have vital protective value. Most, however, would agree hours that turn into days seem to serve little purpose. A woman languishing in prolonged labor tires in her breathing and cannot expect that the mind will forever be master over the body so wrung in pain. Fortunately, modern medicine offers analgesics that are increasingly safer to both mother and child while miraculously maintaining consciousness—humanizing what has been for millennia a time of torturous pain or in the last century “twilight sleep.”

Paul Harvey says, “A father is a person who is forced to endure childbirth without an anesthetic.” Only recently have fathers been welcomed or persuaded to participate in labor support and observe the birth of their children. Having attended prenatal classes, he is equipped to rub the mother’s back and salve her dry mouth, help her focus on breathing and at the pushing stage cheer and encourage her. Even his nervous jokes offer needed levity. Being a warrior and advocate for his wife can mean ensuring the highest care and the clearest communication of her wishes and expectations. The physical presence and touch of her husband can be of inestimable comfort at this time of extremis. In reminding her of the anticipated reward, his vision and optimism can transform her suffering beyond pain into parenthood. Some mothers prefer alternative or additional persons to support them, and some fathers prefer to have the option of leaving the room at any time they feel the need. Very few husbands faint, and most report the event as highly traumatic but worthwhile as they sense the full mystery of their child’s entrance and share those often precious first moments. He has renewed respect for his wife’s strength and is more understanding about her wishes for future children. Inclusion of husbands acknowledges the renewed priority of fathering and exemplifies how men have been liberated to enter into what has historically been a woman’s world.

In some cultures a man may be so sympathetic toward his wife that he can develop an enlarged abdomen during pregnancy (pseudocyesis) and retire to bed while his wife is squatting in labor in the fields. Without experiencing firsthand the tangible bodily metamorphosis during pregnancy, the father has fewer cues with which to anticipate his imminent fatherhood. These cultural idiosyncrasies may impart preparatory wisdom not only to fathers but to modern medicine.

Archaeological evidence of women birthing seated or squatting, even in biblical times (Job 3:11-12, “knees to receive me”), has proven mechanical advantages that are noteworthy considering the increasing rates of interventions such as cesarean section, the use of forceps and episiotomy since the reclining position was adopted as a convenience for physicians. When the mother is seated upright, her pelvic outlet diameter is maximally widened, and the path the baby takes is a smooth “C” shape. Conversely, the inverted “S” course taken in the reclining position often causes the baby’s head to become obstructed against the pubic bone, particularly when the baby starts its journey “posteriorly,” in a more awkward back dive rather than front dive. Gravity in the preferred upright position is solicited as an accomplice. The deliveries a physician dreams of attending are the kind that can occur spontaneously in the dark under a chair. Perhaps physicians can show their versatility and in humility bend down with a flashlight, at least until it is clear that their services are necessary.

In all fairness, the rising rate of intervention is multifactorial. Several generations of medical assistance may have affected the hereditary ability of women to birth naturally. Women who were obstetrically disadvantaged never survived, and neither did their babies. Bad genes died out. Better nutrition, larger babies and the socially encouraged attractiveness of slight women may not be conducive to natural childbirth. Complicating a physician’s judgment is the threat of lawyers who attempt to blame every inexplicable tragedy on a physician’s reluctance to intervene early enough.

Midwives are advocates for self-control in labor and have restored confidence in the body’s resources. Working in a spirit of teamwork like the disparate members of the body of Christ, we should be able to assist birthing women in unity with one another. Most seasoned midwives are aware of their limitations and choose to practice within the hospital setting where vital equipment is available within seconds to minutes in those critical situations when a baby is asphyxiated or a mother is bleeding. Birthing in the private, familiar atmosphere of one’s home with the “guarantee of an intact perineum” is not worth the price of life or health. Nurses, physicians and mid-wives alike need to relinquish disparaging condemnation and join together in the common goal of bringing children into the world in greatest safety, with least intervention and greatest respect to the laboring mother and family. At the root of mistrust is a kernel of truth: technological medicine has lost its humanity. The compassionate physician, who waiting at the bedside centuries ago, unable to do anything but observe, predict, wait and comfort had more respect than the technological wizardry that has immunized whole populations, treated most infections successfully and, through surgery, rescued mothers and babes from death. The current use of epidural and spinal anesthetics allow both parents to participate fully awake in the joyful event of a cesarean delivery of their child. However, the postoperative pain and recovery is an odyssey that requires additional support and compassion transcending technology’s limitations.

Pain intensifies to a state of suffering when it seems to serve no purpose and in that sense has no meaning. Rachel sacrificially died in childbirth (Genesis 35:16-17), naming her surviving child “Son of My Trouble.” Redemptively, his father renamed him “Son of My Right Hand.” Paul reminds us, “We know that the whole of creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth. . . . We . . . groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Romans 8:22).

Labor pain is naturally one of the most tangible examples of how pain and suffering are translated into creative efforts. As birth tears through a woman cruciform in labor, so we pass in life and in death through a tunnel to light, love and reconciliation. We make an heroic exit through our wounds—birthing not only child, but mother and father, sister and brother. Jesus’ birth has been recalled poetically by R. Paul Stevens:

Remember another watery invasion

incising this peaceless world

with indomitable love.

A child’s cry exegetes Father,

earthed world, birthed maker

glorified flesh. (unpublished, December 1988)

Birth is the supreme effort of a mother to bring a child through water and fire to air and earth. Spiritual rebirth, although natural and intended, is no less miraculous.

Rebirth to Air and Earth

Birth is that moment when the baby enters air and is infused with the breath of life, now belonging fully in blood and body to earth and in spirit to sky. Birth is an awesome mountaintop experience—where heaven and earth meet, symbolizing our communion with God as we are reborn into the divine family because Immanuel (“God with us”) was born into humanity. The child’s first gutsy cry recalls the image of God breathing into red clay our very life (Genesis 2:7). Sometimes when breathing does not occur spontaneously, medical efforts of resuscitation make the child centered in the calm eye of a hurricane of activity. These evocations of breathing are epitomized by the Chinese character for “love”; literally a composite of breathing into one’s heart. “The breath of the Almighty . . . gives him understanding” (Job 32:8). The mind emerges from out of the waters; a babe’s breath is a warm miraculous mist, like a whale’s surfacing, anticipated and celebrated.

Reverence for life is steeped in acknowledgment of the source of our blood and breath: rebirth also involves testimony of the source of our inspiration, direction, life and joy (John 3:3). At the transition of birth, oxygen will now be derived from the baby’s lungs. Through a series of detours, with vessels constricting and opening, blood shared between the baby and placenta is channeled away from the cord and toward the inflating lungs. As the pulsations cease in the three-vesseled cord, it can be clamped and cut painlessly like fingernails or hair. Once a lifeline, this cord of three strands is not easily broken (Eccles. 4:12).

The placenta or afterbirth is the incredible organ that until now has been hidden like the fruitfulness of earth. During pregnancy it allows the fetal and maternal circulation to interface across a selectively permeable membrane. The placenta actively pumps antibodies into the fetal bloodstream, renews fetal blood with oxygen and nutrients, and takes away wastes and carbon dioxide, functioning for the fetus as lungs, kidneys, intestines and immune system. In rebirth, as in birth, we take on new responsibilities, and there is a full actualization of all our potentials that have lain in wait.

Blood and earth share a rich rust color that is the result of the common element of iron. In the red blood cells it is the iron held in hemoglobin that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues for use as fuel. The fetal blood circulation contains many “detours” where mixing of used (venous) blood and fresh (arterial) blood occurs. There is less clear distinction between the spent blue blood and the renewed red blood in the fetus as one melds into the other. Soon after birth different paths of circulation are established; the new order of the bloodstream distinguishes clearly between the soiled and the pure. Similarly in rebirth the conscience is awakened and begins actively closing doors on old habits and opening new patterns of flow and relatedness. For example, grounded as we are in our earthiness and granted a renewed sense of the wonder of creation, we may find a new respect for the elements of air and water and the cleansing and healing of the earth (see Stewardship; Ecology).

Throughout the world red has been traditionally used as a sacred color symbolizing mysterious life energy. Bodies were buried in the fetal position in Paleolithic graves, and funeral furnishings were reddened with ocher for a closer resemblance to the womb from which the dead could be born again. Blood has been inextricably linked with healing through the sacrificial blood of atonement shed on Hebraic altars or by shamans cross-culturally. Bloodletting practices were popular in medicine throughout the ages. The life-giving blood of the mother is a hope marked monthly at menstruation. Jesus’ blood given to humankind is remembered at the Eucharist. Rituals are steeped in blood and celebrate the numinous in the ordinary, the hope inherent in death as in life.

The description of the foundling in Ezekiel 16 is a metaphor of the newly birthed and abandoned Jerusalem—cold, wet, bloody and crying. The description suggests that claimed newborns were treated ritualistically much as they are now, usually bathed, dried, rubbed with salt (with antibacterial properties now targeted around the cord stump and as ointment in eyes) and swaddled in comfort, like the enclosing womb left so recently. Even in the early moments the baby receives consolation by nursing away the anxieties of the new world on the breast, an intimate, interpersonal event (see Breast-feeding). Newborns across the planet are welcomed, blessed and named, brought blinking into the light to be beheld and to behold the world. They are also introduced into, and from the start nourished by, the community of the church, especially where they receive strong spiritual and relational sustenance and guidance (see Membership; Godparenting).

The news of a new baby’s arrival travels in great expanding waves through newsprint, phone calls, faxes and e-mail, and across neighbor’s fences passing from person to person in songs of praise. “On the day you were born gravity’s strong pull held you to the earth with the promise” that you belong here with a measurement to boast and the “sun sent up towering flames” to celebrate your arrival in light from dawn till dusk (Frasier, pp. 9, 11).

The seal of the human spirit is wonder, no less apparent on a newborn’s wrinkled face. The human infant for the first few months is unfathomable eyes and ears—actively receptive at this, the dawn of awe. The newborn’s mind has a fine sense of novelty of pattern, favoring symmetry and even beauty. A splash of red on a tie, a shadow on the ceiling or the sound of rain may evoke rapt attention. Newborns within one to two weeks will recognize their parents’ voices. Like a child newly born who has heard parents’ voices long before having seen them, so too in rebirth we have often heard God’s whisperings before the divine Presence is fully and most personally revealed. Often it is the pain and light of fire that brings revelation, a sense of being carried through the waters of affliction.

For some people that sense of birthed wonder diminishes with time, becoming peripheral to everyday life. For some it becomes their central, moment by moment, reason for being—analytically as scientists, contemplatively as artists and worshipfully as children of God and parents of children.

If a child is to keep this inborn sense of wonder, he or she needs the companionship of at least one adult who can share it, rediscovering together the joy, excitement and mystery of the world we live in (Rachel Carson, quoted in Ward, p. 23).

One of the most reassuring concepts in rebirth, as illustrated metaphorically through the physical birth process, is that it is a revelation, refinement and redirection of what is already innate. It is an uncovering and releasing of our inherent good and wonderment despite our persisting shadows, perhaps even clearer now in the daylight. Salvation does not mean we become unrecognizable, perfect or pawnlike. Instead, we discover the source of our true identity with the Creator that began from conception. As part of the community of the church and in the intimacy of our immediate families, God reveals himself palpable as father and mother and Christ as brother. Though ultimately we will be in some way orphaned by our earthly families, this deprivation only draws us homeward, where we are claimed and healed by our Creator.

» See also: Breast-Feeding

» See also: Conception

» See also: Godparenting

» See also: Pregnancy

References and Resources

E. J. Cassell, The Nature of Suffering and the Goals of Medicine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991); P. Teilhard de Chardin, Hymn of the Universe (New York: Harper & Row, 1965); D. Fontana, The Secret Language of Symbols (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1993); D. Frasier, On the Day You Were Born (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1991); P. Harvey, in Promises to Parents calendar (Bloomington, Minn.: Garborg’s Heart and Home, 1990); M. Helewa, “Birth Positions: Historical, Mechanical and Clinical Considerations,” Journal of the Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Canada, May 1992, 47-54; M. Hoffman and J. Ray, Song of the Earth (London: Orion, 1995); M. Konner, “The Tangled Wing” in R. Reynolds and J. Stone, On Doctoring (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991); A. S. Lyons, Medicine: An Illustrated History (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1978); J. M. Ward, Motherhood: A Gift of Love (Hong Kong: Running Press, 1991).

—Carol Anderson

Birthdays

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

“This is the day which the Lord has made; Let us rejoice and be glad in it” (Psalm 118:24 NASB). The day, and the annual anniversary of the day, on which any person is born calls for a celebration. The Bible proclaims that everything God has made is good, which includes you! God’s view of you is true and unchanging. You are a unique, unrepeatable creation; you are understood fully and beloved. This good news is important to remember on your birthday and every day.

A birthday celebration provides a special time to appreciate the unique gifts each family member or friend brings into our lives. Before making specific plans, think about your purpose. As you remember age, hobbies and talents, consider what would best suit the individual you are wishing to honor.

In many families the birthday person selects the menu for the celebration meal. Traditionally, a favorite kind of cake with an appropriate number of candles is the highlight of the party. When the cake appears, it signals the start of the “Birthday Song.” The second verse is not as familiar but is an excellent addition to family traditions: “We love you, we do; We love you, we do; We love you, dear _________; We love you, we do.” This simple verse provides an opportunity for family members to verbalize the words “I love you.” Cards, gifts and various expressions of caring attention help to make it a special day.

Looking Back

“And we know that all that happens to us is working for our good if we love God and are fitting into his plans” (Romans 8:28 LB). At a family dinner retell the story of your child’s birth. When and where did it happen? What was the weather like? Describe the joy! Everyone who remembers joins in the telling, filling in special details.

As a way to reflect on the verse from Romans, let an older birthday person share important decisions that became turning points, changing his or her life. What are the special memories from the year or years? Others may want to speak of activities and events from the past that caused the friendship to grow.

Experiencing something together builds relationships. This is a time to share positive developments that have been observed in your loved one. Simple words of affirmation will mean so much. Bring out the baby books, slides, movies, home videos and scrapbooks that help to retell the birthday person’s life story. Be sure and take a birthday picture!

Looking Ahead

“In everything you do, put God first, and he will direct you and crown your efforts with success” (Proverbs 3:6 LB). Encourage the guest of honor to share goals, hopes and dreams for the coming year. Thankful for benefits received, joyfully dedicate all of the days ahead to the service and worship of God.

In conclusion, offer a prayer asking God’s blessing on your loved one. Invite everyone present to place a hand on the honoree. To bless someone is to address God in prayer, calling for mercy, assistance, happiness and protection. This simple ritual is a powerful way to affirm a life and for family and friends to declare their faith in God.

» See also: Aging

» See also: Blessing

» See also: Family History

» See also: Gift-Giving

References and Resources

G. Gaither and S. Dobson, Let’s Make a Memory (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983); S. W. Shenk, Why Not Celebrate! (Intercourse, Penn.: Good Books, 1987).

—Martha Zimmerman

Blessing

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

In recent times the word blessing has gone out of favor. For many outside the church, the word does not seem congruent in a secular world; luck is the preferred alternative. The word still turns up occasionally in certain conventional responses, such as "What a blessing!" "Well, bless me!" or, after someone has done a good deed or just sneezed, "Bless you." Even the parting "God bless" retains some general currency, but it often is little more than a kindly farewell. Greeting card messages about having a "blessed Christmas" echo language that for many has only a nostalgic ring.

Even believers who regard the word as having real meaning rarely use it. They look for other ways of saying something similar. Those who continue to use the word tend to be older, more conservative or charismatic Christians, some of whom use it quite habitually.

Blessing in the Bible and Beyond

Blessing is a central theme in the Bible, second only to its emphasis on deliverance. These two great themes speak of the main ways God relates to the world - through dramatic intervention into it and through regular participation within it. Hebrew and Greek words for blessing are associated with other terms, such as presence, peace, success. At its root, a blessing refers to God's friendly approach to those who are open to receiving divine generosity. When a blessing is given, either by God to us or by us in God's name to one another, there is a specific recognition of the person being addressed and a recognition that this person is directly affected by the content of the blessing. While blessing is similar to thanking, it goes further in the direction of appreciation by acknowledging the character of the one blessed and therefore strengthening the bond between them.

As any concordance demonstrates, the biblical passages containing the word blessing are too numerous to list, but the following questions and answers summarize what is central to them.

What is a blessing? Blessings include such things as the gift and enhancement of life, fertility and other forms of tangible reward, the experience of salvation through Christ and the deepening growth of the believing community.

Who blesses? ln the Bible blessings are conveyed mostly by God, either directly or by request, occasionally by Christ but also by human beings, such as priests and then increasingly any of God's people.

Who is blessed? Those blessed are especially the chosen people (including children and all human beings through the people of God - even those who revile and curse the chosen ones) and food and drink (both good gifts of God).

How does a blessing come? It can be conveyed in either a conventional or a fresh way, by either word or action, and can occur in a wide variety of settings, private and public, alone or with others.

When is a blessing given? Blessings are conveyed on various occasions, but they notably come at the beginning of someone's lifework or reign, at the conclusion of public worship, at the exchange of greetings or farewells, during a wedding and just before dying.

Over the next few centuries of the early church and beyond, additional forms of blessing developed: for example, rituals for blessing people at different stages in their lives, the blessing of various objects and activities in the church building and the blessing of key ventures, objects, seasons and anniversaries in the wider community. The chief innovation here, somewhat doubtful in view of the biblical focus, was the blessing of inanimate objects other than food and drink. Ceremonies involving blessings also became more elaborate, and the conveying of blessings increasingly fell into clerical hands.

Blessing in Church and Daily Life

Although even Christians use the word blessing less today, we still experience it and should give expression to it in various ways. For example, we should joyfully acknowledge and value God for choosing us to become sons and daughters of the kingdom, for redeeming us in Christ and justifying us despite our sinfulness and unworthiness and for promising us both personal and cosmic transformation in the last days. But life is full of other kindly actions on God's part, large and small, surprising and regular. We should be aware of these and regularly remind others of them. God is generous day after day, year after year, making good things available to those open to receiving them.

We can bless others as well as God. We should do this when others show us special kindly actions reminiscent of the ones God directly showers upon us. At such a time we can respond by passing on some blessing to them on God's behalf or by giving them some tangible evidence of our appreciation for them, a blessing or gesture that will evoke a response in them similar to the one their action has evoked in us. We have a deeper obligation to do this to those whom God has placed in greatest proximity to us, for example, members of our immediate family, long-standing friends, members of our communal church group and close colleagues.

We do not have to wait on a priest or clergyperson to pass on these blessings to others. Under the leading of God's Spirit, any of God's people can perform this function in church or outside it. Likewise the blessing over bread and wine connected with the Lord's Supper (see Communion) can be conducted by any respected member, couple or family in the congregation. This is also true of the blessing that concludes a Christian gathering, for this is only a corporate version of
the common blessing by Christians of one another at the end of any significant time they are in each other's company and, as such, is a clear reminder of the close continuity between what happens in church and ordinary life.

Using the word blessing itself is not essential to the giving of one. It is not a magical term whose absence causes God to withhold divine favor. Often the content and manner of the blessing speaks for itself. At other times synonyms can be used, as in the Bible, where the word is part of a wider language field. The word happy, frequently used in modern translations of Jesus' blessings, or beatitudes, in the Sermon on the Mount, is not a good alternative. It focuses too much on the subjective well-being of the believer rather than the objective endorsement of God. A New Testament scholar wrestling with the best translation of the word in the Sermon on the Mount concluded that the English term closest in meaning and spirit to it was Congratulations! This was an excellent choice.

There is something for unbelievers in this whole phenomenon too. In sharing news about God with them, we should be careful to do so in a way that comes to them as a blessing rather than as a duty or demand. This will be helped if we associate the special blessings of the gospel with the wider blessings God showers on all people day after day, of which they are occasionally aware. After all, the good news is essentially an invitation, and although this entails repentance, people
should realize that accepting it is something for which congratulations are in order. Fortunately, even those who reject the word blessing because of its religious associations are themselves sometimes looking for the gracious reality of which the word speaks. For it is a fact that most people, whatever their religious convictions or lack of them, deep down long to be blessed. This desire is basic to who we are as human beings and. as such, is implanted in us all by God.

» See also: Blessing-Family

» See also: Farewell

» See also: Fellowship

» See also: Greeting

» See also: Ministry

» See also: Pleasure

» See also: Worship

References and Resources

R. Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1982); G. Vann, The Divine Pity: A Study in the Social Implications of the Beatitudes (London: Collins, 1945); C. Westermann, Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978).

— Robert Banks

Blessing, Family

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Blessing is one of the most powerful ways human beings can express love, especially in a family context. Indeed it is conspicuous when absent because children hunger for the approval and goodwill of their parents, parents long to be blessed by their children and spouses need to nourish each other in the covenant relationship. To give a blessing is to use speaking in a powerful way to express positive goodwill toward, to bestow favor upon and to offer some benefit to another person. Blessing can be given without words through a gift or action, but such material blessings have greatest meaning when accompanied by words. Take the situation of the parent who “blesses” her child by giving multiple presents but never verbalizes her love, respect and goodwill. Blessing is more than, though not less than, affirmation. In this article the older meanings of bless as “consecrate” or “sanctify by a religious rite” will not be explored though, as we shall see, blessing is a holy relational ministry that takes us to the very heart of God.

Blessing in any context, but especially in the family, is good for three reasons. First, it is one of the fundamental ways God relates to the world. God relates through dramatic intervention (deliverance) and through regular positive participation in it (blessing; see Blessing). Second, blessing is an expression of one’s person at a very deep level so that through words or actions an individual communicates presence, peace and goodwill to another. The words are fraught with unavoidable consequences. When an Israelite pronounced a blessing, he or she did not merely offer good wishes for the future. Rather, the soul was offered and something happened (Pedersen, 1:200; compare Genesis 48:15). For example, Isaac could not recall the blessing he gave to Jacob, even though it was accomplished by deception, because Isaac had put himself into it. To withdraw his blessing would be to destroy himself, and he intuitively understood the hand of God in it all (Genesis 27:27-40; see Promising). Third, to bless and be blessed is a fundamental need of every human being, created as we are for love and to love.

Family Blessings in the Bible and Beyond

In biblical times, and in all older cultures, blessing the children was something expected; it was often attended with certain rites and ceremonies. French Canadian fathers used to bring in the New Year with their hands of blessing on their children. Israelite fathers were expected to give their blessing to their children before their own death (Genesis 27:4). This was not a fully egalitarian act. These blessings often involved appointing the future leadership of the family or tribe (the first-born male usually took over) and passing on the inheritance (again the first-born male would get twice as much as the others). Occasionally the birthright could be sold, as was the case when Esau exchanged his family leadership for a bowl of stew (Genesis 25:29-34).

Parental blessing was like an unwritten last will and testament. Job was conspicuously different from other ancients in this matter, for he gave his daughters an inheritance along with his sons (Job 42:15). Normally women were provided for through the bride price and dowry, a system repugnant to most modern Western people but containing more social security than is normally understood. Blessing the children in ancient times was, however, not merely a legal and financial act. It was a ministry that involved speaking a prayer for health, abundance, protection and peace (Genesis 27:28-29). Sometimes the father would speak prophetically about the future of each child, as Jacob did in Genesis 49. Remarkably, the author of Hebrews selects this very last act of Jacob’s blessing his children as his supreme act of faith (Hebrews 11:21). For parents, blessing our children is an act of faith in which we trust them to God, pray for God’s blessing upon them, discern God’s unique gift to them (including talents and spiritual gifts) and release them to fulfill God’s purpose in their lives. There is an important principle involved in this ancient and almost universal practice.

The Importance of Family Blessings

From the earliest age children crave the approval and favor of their parents and will do almost anything to get it. The less-favored son Esau pathetically tried time and again to get his parents’ blessing (especially his mother’s) by marrying women he thought they might approve of, only to find out the wives brought more bitterness to them (Genesis 26:34-35). Paradoxically, the parents who withhold affirmation from their children because they fear making the children proud may assist in producing pride and self-centeredness as the children try to prove themselves. Bless children, and they will grow up with good self-esteem and will experience freedom from organizing their life around the need for approval. They may gain a measure of humility and will be more free to think about others.

Blessing a child’s marriage is another crucial ministry of parents, since the freedom to leave one’s father and mother (something both husband and wife must do) is partly, though not totally, facilitated by the parents’ letting go. This blessing includes support, goodwill and expressed love; it means that the parents will never undermine the marriage even if, at an earlier stage in the relationship, they feared the choice was not a good one. As with forgiveness, and sometimes because of it, the parents will put the past in the past when they bless. The parents’ blessing frees not just the children but paradoxically frees the parents to release their children to form a new family unit while still remaining connected to the parents in a revised way. When this is not done, the parents may still be bound to their children even though the children want nothing to do with them. The parents may cling to their married children in a codependent way, a phenomenon that usually leads to a tragic emotional triangle of husband, wife and in-laws.

In healthy families, blessings of children and marriages are not part of a one-time, deathbed drama but are something woven into the warp and woof of everyday life. Daily expressions of appreciation, with or without the actual word bless and not always tied to performance at school or around the house, reinforce that people are valuable for themselves, not just for what they do. Parents who only reward excellent achievement at school are contributing to drivenness and workaholism.

When Blessing Is Hard

When parents are not able to bless their children regularly, it is often for reasons that signal the need for growth in the parents themselves. God gives children to parents to help the parents to grow up! Perhaps the parents were not affirmed, never had their parents’ approval for their marriage or did not choose a career acceptable to their parents. Much deeper than these factors is the possibility that the parents do not themselves enjoy a profound acceptance with God.

Paul speaks to this in Ephes. 6:1-4. Parents are not to exasperate their children; this is exactly what they do when they make demands without blessing, requiring performance without acceptance and approval. Instead, Paul says, parents are to raise their children “in the training [nurture] and instruction [admonition] of the Lord” (Ephes. 6:4). This is commonly misunderstood to mean that parents are to deliver Christian education to their children. In fact, it speaks about the context in which both parents and children grow—while they both experience the nurture and instruction of the Lord.

Have the parents experienced the unconditional love of Jesus? Do they know existentially that there is nothing they can do to make the Lord stop loving them? Are they aware of the Lord’s instruction, discipline and nurture in their lives in such a way that even the parents have limits and are held accountable? Do they delight in the Lord’s approval and the certainty that they have a future with promise? We give what we get. If parents did not get such blessing from their parents, they must seek it from the Lord. If children cannot get such blessing from their earthly parents, they must find it with their heavenly Parent. If parents do not receive the blessing from their children, they too must find this in their relationship with God. Fortunate are those who experience such compensatory blessings from God through parents and children in the Lord as part of their involvement in a familial small group or house church in the congregation.

Not only do children need blessings from parents, but parents need their children’s blessing. Husbands and wives need blessing from each other, as do brothers and sisters and members of the extended family. The wife of noble character described in Proverbs 31 receives an invaluable gift: “Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her” (Proverbs 31:28). Such blessing cannot be contrived or demanded. When it is, it is no blessing at all since it does not come from the heart. The words fall to the ground. But when a blessing is freely given, it nourishes the soul. Few children and few spouses understand the power at their disposal to nurture their closest neighbors in life.

» See also: Affirming

» See also: Blessing

» See also: Family

» See also: Gift-Giving

» See also: Promising

» See also: Speaking

» See also: Will, Last

Resources and References

J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture, 4 vols. (London: Oxford University Press, 1963); M. H. Robins, Promising, Intending and Moral Autonomy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); L. B. Smedes, “The Power of Promising,” Christianity Today 27 (January 21, 1983) 16-19; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, trans. M. Kohl (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964).

—R. Paul Stevens

Body

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

God is the author and creator of our bodies. The well-known passage in the first chapter of Genesis powerfully portrays the creation of man and woman in the Maker’s own image. Bearing that image, they are living persons, clothed in all the intricacies of the body: organs, blood, muscles, flesh, bones and body language. The body is integral to being human. Even the simplest of tasks requires numerous and complex bodily systems to be working: circulatory, auditory, muscular, nervous, glandular, sensory, kinesthetic and respiratory.

And God Breathed: Spirit and Body

God is the most superb craftsperson, as Psalm 139 so aptly describes, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. . . . I was woven together in the depths of the earth” (Psalm 139:13, 15). Who but God could weave this body-spirit? The body has been woven by a proficient artist, and the finest architect or biologist cannot duplicate what God has created. The metaphor of a weaving vividly captures the body’s connection with the spirit. In weaving, the warp threads run vertically, and the weft threads run horizontally. Both are needed: they can be spoken of as separate, yet the weaving can only “be” a weaving if the warp and weft are both there.

God breathed into man and woman the breath of life; bones and flesh became enlivened with spirit. The creation story tells us that God made us from the dust of the ground, the humus of the earth, and breathed life into our very bones: “God breathed in the nostrils the breath of life, and the human became a nephesh [soul]” (Genesis 2:7; translation mine). The passage does not say that the human was supplied with a soul as some other attachment to the body, but that by the breath of God, the human became a living body-soul, a living human being. The body (weft) connected with spirit (warp) makes us human.

Breath is a physical reminder to us that we were “inspired” into being by God. The Hebrew understanding of the breath is closely associated both with the soul and with human desire. The psalmist proclaims, “Let everything that breathes praise the Lord!” (Psalm 150:6 NRSV).

The Body in the Old Testament

Old Testament anthropology in general reveals a close relationship between the soul and body. The Hebrews regarded the person as a totality: body can be spirit, and spirit can be body. Though they could differentiate between various aspects of a person, the Hebrews believed that human beings operate as integrated, connected and embodied people. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the interchangeable Hebrew terminology for the words heart, breath, soul, flesh, bones and so on. We see a language that is bodily and gutsy, one in which the flesh can cry out or long (Psalm 84:2; Psalm 63:1), bellies can grieve (Psalm 31:9), bowels groan (Jeremiah 31:20) and bones can proclaim, rejoice and tremble (Psalm 35:10; Psalm 51:8; Jeremiah 23:9). Body parts are constantly used to express the innermost yearnings, the heartfelt prayer to God.

Given this, it is understandable that Jewish prayer was expressed through bodily gestures and postures. In the Old Testament we find crouching movements of lament (Psalm 44:25), bowing and kneeling (Psalm 5:7; Psalm 95:6), acts of falling prostrate (Daniel 8:17-18), lifted hands (Psalm 63:4) and jubilant leaps of celebration (2 Samuel 6:14-16, 21). Inward grace was made visible through physicality—theology was transformed to doxology.

The Body in the New Testament

Physicality is the same in the New Testament. Lifting hands was encouraged by Paul (1 Tim. 2:8); kneeling was demonstrated by Jesus (Matthew 26:39; Luke 22:41); and dance was used to celebrate the return of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-31). God came to bring salvation not only to the soul but to the whole person. The word for salvation itself, sōsō, is sometimes rendered “save” and sometimes “heal.” Both senses show that God is concerned with the physical dimension.

The highest affirmation of the physical is in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. As the Gospel of John says, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14 RSV). God became a living body and made a home among us: living, breathing, eating, celebrating and mourning with women, men and children. God became known through human flesh, breathing and pulsing with all the limitations and capabilities we have, miracle and mystery twined together. Jesus fulfilled his earthly vocation through his body: walking among the poor, kneeling in prayer, eating with sinners, washing feet, healing the sick. Jesus’ hands became a living extension of the heart of God; his bodily touch was central to loving and transforming people while on earth.

Christianity’s regard for the body is stated so well by C. S. Lewis: “Christianity is almost the only one of the great religions which thoroughly approves of the body—which believes that matter is good, that God himself once took on a human body, that some kind of body is going to be given to us even in Heaven and is going to be an essential part of our happiness, our beauty, and our energy” (Lewis, p. 91). The centrality of the incarnation and resurrection affirms the body as part of God’s intentional design, not only for our creation but also for our recreation. We are our bodies, and if God can honor the body enough to be revealed through it and to redeem us in flesh, we need to take the body seriously.

The Body in Everyday Life

Our bodies are very much like breath—so much a part of us we don’t recognize them unless they are distressed or ill. Our bodies remind us of a paradox: they are filled with wonder but have limitations. They are also fragile: Paul reminds us that “we have this treasure [God’s power] in clay jars” (2 Cor. 4:7 NRSV). Bones, like clay, can be broken and cracked. Bodies succumb to everyday annoyances of colds, stress, fatigue and disease. Bodies are not perfect but can be a spiritual reminder of the One who created and will transform us.

Our bodies are also the place of delight. They enable us to feel the wind on our faces, the warmth of a hug, the joy of moving. Many of us experienced this far more when we were children, in the days when we were not as self-conscious about “body image.” Children engage physically in their world, rejoicing that they can skip, run and hop to a dance of their own. Arms reach, knees bend, legs climb, torsos slide, and bodies swing with sheer joy as children play. But it does not take long for them to “learn” that being a bodily being has more to do with appearance than how one engages in the world. The emphasis on body image stresses the split between body and heart, relegating the body to a shell or container. In contrast, many of the subjects taken up in this volume are bodily activities that can be expressive of true spirituality: eating, sleeping, washing, walking, adornment, dressing and sexuality.

It is not surprising that as adults we find it difficult to put body, soul, mind and heart in balance. At times we emphasize the body to the point of neglecting the heart. Physical exercise and toning can never ultimately bring about toning of the spiritual life, and neglect of the body can wreak havoc with the wholeness that God intended for us. We divide ourselves as if we were two separate organisms, each unaffected by the other. Western culture is bombarded with images from the media that reveal a fragmented attitude toward the body. This has seeped into core attitudes toward the body, self-concept and relating to each other and God. These dualistic attitudes are nothing new and have been an ongoing theme in Western culture for centuries.

Western philosophy was loosely built upon this dualism. In classical Greek thought the body was equated with irrationality and viewed as an obstacle to seeking the higher attributes of truth and beauty. Plato refers to the body as a prison of the soul, defiling it and inhibiting its ability to know the divine. Such thinking affected the fathers of the early church. Scripture was eventually read through “dualistic world view glasses” (Walsh and Middleton, p. 109). This leaves little room for the human being to feel at home with his or her body or for embracing the reality that our bodies are a gift from God through which we can fulfill our God-given vocation.

In contrast, the biblical realities of creation, incarnation, redemption and resurrection affirm that we were masterfully designed as complete and complex creatures—the physical and spiritual intertwined. The biblical concept of the body celebrates this interconnection. We honor God and ourselves when we affirm the goodness and wholesomeness of God’s work in us.

» See also: Adornment

» See also: Breast-Feeding

» See also: Circumcision

» See also: Healing

» See also: Health

» See also: Jogging

» See also: Menstruation

» See also: Sickness

» See also: Walking

» See also: Washing

References and Resources

P. Brand and P. Yancey, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987); J. W. Cooper, Body, Soul & Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989); C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1943); C. S. Schroeder, Embodied Prayer: Harmonizing Body and Soul (Liguori, Mo.: Triumph Books, 1994; portions quoted here with permission); B. J. Walsh and J. R. Middleton, The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian World View (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1984); D. Willard, “Spiritual Life: The Body’s Fulfillment,” chap. 6 in The Spirit of the Disciplines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988).

—Celeste S. Schroeder

Boredom

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Charlie Chaplin’s film Modern Times expounds the dilemma of boredom in the workplace: routine, meaningless, repetitious, mindless work that results in fatigue. Such boredom at work has not been alleviated by increased technology or by the introduction of the information society—a cultural shift that may have escalated the problem by overloading people with information. Not even a challenging career can guarantee freedom from boredom. Executives reach the top and, with nowhere else to go, ask, “What is it all for?” Culturally North America is “bored to death,” “bored stiff,” “bored to tears,” “bored silly” and even “bored out of one’s skull.” Surveys indicate that up to half of North Americans are either temporarily or permanently bored (Klapp, p. 20), a trend that is all the more disturbing for a society that is saturated with fun industries. Perhaps that is part of the problem. Being “amused to death,” to quote Neil Postman’s penetrating analysis, does not seem to offer anything more than a cultural placebo. Klapp (p. 30) suggests the analogy of aspirin: frequent usage means not the absence but the presence of extreme pain. “Bored? How could you be bored when there is so much to do?” the exasperated father shouts at his teenagers. And for the Christian hardly any more damning comment can be made at the conclusion of a worship service than “It was boring.”

Though this article will focus on boredom at work, we will explore boredom as a social and cultural problem that affects everything from relationships to church life. People are bored with their marriage partners, bored with school, bored with sex, bored with work, bored with television, bored with church, bored with prayer, even bored with the thought of going to heaven. A Catholic philosopher once said, “Heaven did not seem to me worth going to.” While among the French aristocracy boredom was once considered to be the lot of being a courtier, it is now the privilege of the common person. Popular culture, high culture, literature, music and philosophy all witness to it. Indeed boredom is not merely a personal problem; it is systemic to the culture, incarnated in the icons, norms and communication patterns of everyday life. It is also one of the most pressing questions for the theologian today, perhaps overshadowing guilt and finitude (Dean).

Types of Boredom

The church has traditionally named boredom—under the Latin title acedia—as one of the seven deadly sins. Frederick Buechner describes it as a voluntary form of death. Boredom is an absence of feeling, emotional flatness, passivity to life, lack of interest in anything. All these states are covered by the French word ennui, which was used in England before the word bore was invented in the eighteenth century and its derivative boredom a few decades later.

Some boredom (we could call it basic boredom) is surely not sinful: to lapse into daydreaming at the concert because one is not engaged with the music at that moment is harmless, possibly even a sign of health since leisure requires the freedom to move in and out of consciousness. Some boredom theorists argue that there is a holy boredom implicit in life in this world because nothing in this age can fill the God-shaped vacuum in our souls. This inspired boredom keeps reminding us, as C. S. Lewis once said, that if we find nothing in this world that completely satisfies us, it is a powerful suggestion that we were made for another life, another world—for heaven.

But boredom that is alienating from God and destructive of human relationships becomes, as Buechner suggested, a form of voluntary suicide. It is an oversimplification to say, as some do, that this is the boredom we choose over against the boredom that overcomes us. This terrible boredom is part of the human predicament. As Blaise Pascal said, “Man is so unhappy that he would be bored even if he had no cause for boredom, by the very nature of his temperament.” Not only is this boredom endemic to fallen human nature, it is now embodied in the cultural forms and institutions of society, part of the principalities and powers that shape our life in this world and that must be overcome by cultural stewardship and spiritual warfare. Boredom is both a personal and a systemic problem.

Since medieval times two deadly sins were almost always considered together: boredom and sloth. Sloth is the inability to fulfill one’s religious duties or secular responsibilities. In addition, sloth is the inability to enjoy leisure (who thinks of this as sloth today?). In other words, sloth is the rejection of interest in both work and leisure. Paradoxically, workaholism (see Drivenness) is a form of moral sloth, since it involves the neglect of certain basic duties. But boredom is the rejection of interest in life itself, being emotionally flat, passionless. It is, as Byron said, “that awful yawn which sleep cannot abate.” How are sloth and acedia related? For Kierkegaard sloth was not the source of boredom. Boredom itself was the root of all evil. In contrast, Richard Baxter, in his Puritan exposition of sloth and idleness, considered sloth the source of most other sins, citing, for example, the idleness of David watching Bathsheba bathe when he should have been out at war; sloth in this case led to lust, adultery, lying and murder. With great wisdom the church has always considered sloth and acedia together as capital sins (caput from “head,” which is the source of other sins; Healy, p. 17). In reality they are interdependent, each influencing the other and feeding on the other.

Many Puritans did not have an adequate doctrine of leisure; neither have we. But Baxter made a substantial contribution to thinking and acting Christianly by understanding both sloth and boredom as sins against our calling: “Suffer not your fancies to run after sensual, vain delights; for these will make you weary of your callings” (p. 382). He could have just as easily said, “When nothing interests you at all, ask whether you are responding to the call of God in your life.” Every person (and not just ministers and missionaries) is called of God to live purposefully for God and the common good. Sloth and boredom are vocational sins, living as though one had not been summoned by God to a holy purpose (Ephes. 4:1). It is an immensely challenging, venturesome, interesting vocation. Kierkegaard did not use vocational language but witnessed to the same truth in relation to acedia: we are summoned by God to live wholeheartedly and joyfully for God. Acedia for Kierkegaard was the “despairing refusal to be oneself.”

Overcoming Boredom

How then does one agree to be oneself? Final healing will come with the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the body, and the new heaven and the new earth. But substantial healing of boredom in this life is a matter both of receiving grace and harmonizing our lifestyle to the purpose and call of God. We can approach this by asking what is the opposite of boredom—joy? playfulness? passion? contentment? If joy, then we are dealing with the fruit of the Spirit. If playfulness, we are dealing with an inspired freedom from the compulsion to produce. If passion, we are dealing with that internal energy that comes from simultaneously getting the heart of God and willing one thing. If contentment, we are dealing with the grace that is “learned” (Phil. 4:12) through constant thanksgiving. Like many spiritual maladies, boredom is not healed by attacking the problem directly; it is healed by the expulsive power of the infilling and liberating love of Christ, a greater passion.

Turn boredom into prayerful waiting. As mentioned above, boredom serves as a symptom of something in our inscapes, our soul life. It is a sign that life in this world will not fully satisfy. While waiting can be boring, it can be made contemplative. It can be transformed into an active questioning of God (as it was for Job), longing for insight and meaning, waiting for God. Both the bored preacher of Ecclesiastes and the psalmist looked to God, the preacher by considering the question of meaning beyond the framework of this age—“under the sun”—and the psalmist by hearing the Word of God: “My soul is weary with sorrow [boredom?]; strengthen me according to your word” (Psalm 119:28). Waiting for God is not like waiting for Godot in Samuel Beckett’s play by that name. Godot never comes; God does. But as Job found out, waiting for God is a holy war in which, like Abraham, Jacob and Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, we refuse to take boredom (in this case) as God’s last word.

Gain an eternal perspective by keeping sabbath. Most Christian moralists equate boredom with idleness and recommend work as its cure. It is true that retirees (and others) engaging in an orgy of leisure need the balance of purposeful work, whether volunteer or remunerated. Where a choice of jobs exists, we should choose those that best fit our motives, personality and talents (see Vocational Guidance). But boredom is not simply an absence of activity. One can be busy and bored at the same time, even in Christian service. Contrary to the advice of many well-meaning Christian leaders, and most parents, the answer is not simply to work harder. Most bored people need to work less and learn how to keep sabbath, which is God’s deepest provision for a restless spirit. The world offers work and leisure (with no sabbath); the Bible offers work and sabbath (with some leisure). I am making the unpopular proposal that we probably need less leisure than we are told we need (by those who market leisure) and more sabbath.

Develop a contemplative lifestyle. Get into the meaning of what you are doing. Attend to people, things and situations in a more complete way that includes their aesthetic and spiritual meaning. Michael Raposa describes it this way:

For example, having become bored with all the useful things that I can do with a given object, I may suddenly begin to contemplate its aesthetic qualities. Bored with the conversation at a party or meeting, I may suddenly become playfully enthralled with people’s voices and with the sounds of their accents. Having grown weary with carefully observing an object for some specific purpose, I may suddenly begin to “see” it in a new way. And, having become bored with someone that I love, I may suddenly fall in love with that person all over again, but not simply “again,” because here something new has been added to that love and to the relationship. (p. 87)

Become aware of the systemic nature of the problem. Our society trivializes leisure, reduces entertainment to a consumer item and offers placebo solutions. Being titillated with the latest soap opera, fashion, concert or hit song can only divert us for a moment. As Orrin Klapp says, “Without significance, variety is not the spice of life. It can be as dull as monotony when it has nothing to say—becomes noiselike” (p. 81). Especially information about which we can do nothing (like the news) adds to boredom and learned helplessness (p. 89). Some Christians must work in the leisure and advertising worlds as cultural stewards, bringing depth and hope into the media and entertainment. All of us must do spiritual battling, discerning, praying, exorcising, interceding. As a practical (though unpopular) measure, we must reduce the amount of stimulation we receive, control the information overload and see that we choose leisure that edifies.

Boredom, in the end, is not so much subdued as it is expelled by recovering our passion for God, what some people call “being centered.” Boredom is not so much a sin as a symptom of sin, a sign that our fundamental relationship with God, life and ourselves has been broken. In Romans 1 the fundamental sin is failure to reverence God or give thanks to him (Romans 1:21). From this fundamental sin come all the sins to which God gives people up (Romans 1:24, 26, 28), including futility (Romans 1:21), which is close to boredom. The human predicament, as Kierke-gaard said, is a failure to be our (true) selves—creatures in love with God and therefore in love with life. Pascal, out of his own struggle, claimed the answer to boredom lies in an act of faith, or rather a visitation of grace: “Happiness is neither outside us nor inside us; it is in God, both outside and inside us.”

» See also: Entertainment

» See also: Imagination

» See also: Leisure

» See also: Play

» See also: Volunteer Work

» See also: Waiting

» See also: Work

References and Resources

R. Baxter, The Practical Works of Richard Baxter, vol. 1 (Ligonier, Penn.: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1990); M. Csikszentmihalyi and R. E. Robinson, The Art of Seeing: An Interpretation of the Aesthetic Encounter (Malibu, Calif.: J. Paul Getty Museum and Getty Center for Education in the Arts, 1990); W. Dean, “Theology and Boredom,” Religion in Life 47 (Spring 1978) 109-18; H. Fairlie, The Seven Deadly Sins Today (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979); S. D. Healy, Boredom, Self and Culture (Cranbury, N.J.: Associate University Presses, 1984); O. E. Klapp, Overload and Boredom (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1986); D. W. McCullough, “Anything but Boredom,” Christianity Today 35 (August 19, 1991) 30-32; N. Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (New York: Viking, 1985); M. L. Raposa, “Boredom and the Religious Imagination,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 53 (March 1985) 75-79.

—R. Paul Stevens

Breast-Feeding

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Usually a newborn babe is brought to the breast as soon after birth as possible. For the infant it is their first experience of eating and drinking, and for the mother it is a privilege to provide sustenance for which there is no chemical or immunologic substitute. Breast milk is a vital, natural resource available in almost unlimited supply, provided demand feeding is encouraged. Breast-feeding is the most cost-effective and health-promoting activity mothers can undertake during their children’s early years of life. Through this intimate, everyday act bonding is solidified, forming the essential foundation for relational and family health. Early feeding patterns that respect the child’s needs require parental altruism and stamina. Suckling at the breast is the beginning of a trusting and nurturing relationship, forming the primal context in which we understand God’s constancy and love: “Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God” (Psalm 22:9-10).

As an exclusive dyad, mother and child together weave a new cord to replace the one that was severed at birth. Fathers and siblings contribute their own colorful threads, which become more significant as the infant gradually leaves the breast to explore the world independently at longer intervals. Parenting is a lifelong task that seeks to balance dichotomous needs—drawing together and pulling apart, offering nourishment and protection as well as affirming independence.

There are only two lasting bequests we can hope to give our children. One of these is roots; the other, wings (Carter, in Hodgson, p. 82). Breast-feeding secures the first, making the second procurable. With well-established self-esteem and secure spiritual identity, we have the freedom to climb, putting our feet in high places where the wind invites our wings (Psalm 18:33).

Breast-Feeding as Affection

Bonding is not an instantaneous event, but a gradual process of claiming each other and establishing understanding, love and loyalty. Bodily contact—the skin-to-skin exploration of the scent of babe and mother’s milk—is vital for animals in recognizing each other and no less so for humans. Unique among mammals, the human mother and child nurse within distance of the eye’s focal range. Like marsupials, human offspring are born “prematurely,” that is, almost a year before they can eat or move independently. The almost continuous contact required during early months of breast-feeding can be regarded as a continuation of gestation. In the delivery room the breast helps to bridge the abrupt change of worlds. Arriving cold and wet into blinking brightness, the babe can be soothed against the warm breast. Breast-feeding accomplishes not only nutrition but vital communication of caring and affection through touch. Institutionalized infants who are seldom held fail to thrive despite seemingly adequate nutrition, indicating that as we hold babies we feed their souls. There are volunteers who visit neonatal hospital units specifically to hug needy babies. “The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms” (Deut. 33:27).

Touch starts as a reflex, a little fist grasping around your finger and the instinct to draw the child to your breast. It becomes a healing language we all understand, smoothing the furrows in our hearts. Softening the ripples of anxiety, a mother’s hand traces over her newborn’s face, wrinkled and covered in greasy vernix—the ointment acquired in the womb. Common sense tells us that what we crave as infants, what is the source of our earliest sensations, is a need that continues throughout our lives, be it the healing touch of a physician, the handshake of a brother or the embrace of spouse or child.

Nutrition and Immunity

Parenting, like breast-feeding, involves not only protection but a translation of nutrients and information from the world to the child. Parents actively select enriching experiences and assist their children in defining emotions and in guiding responses. Interpreted and refined by the parent, nourishment and immunity are presented in an easily digestible or understandable form.

In keeping with the baby’s needs, breast milk is differentiated. “Foremilk,” received when the infant begins to suckle, is dilute and thirst quenching. For the reward of a hungry baby’s persistent suckling there is the richer “hindmilk.” In contrast to consistently composed formula, breast milk prevents excessive caloric intake; if the baby is simply thirsty he can stop with the foremilk. The advantages of less readily digestible formula is that its use prolongs the interval between feedings. This may be convenient for the mother, but it ignores the infant’s need for apt milk and frequent interaction. Breast milk is easily digested, leaving soft stool without an offensive odor. Likewise regurgitated breast milk is not unpleasant like formula vomitus. Diapering and laundry duties have a sweeter air about them when the infant is breast-fed.

Breast milk is ordered to human neurological growth. One of the most species-specific characteristic of human milk is the unique biochemical composition that assists the cerebral cortex to double in size in the first postnatal year. The breast also synthesizes neural chemicals that resemble placental hormones thought to influence sexual development and gender formulation. No doubt at this time we have only an infantile understanding of all that breast milk contains.

During pregnancy and through breast milk, a mother confers to her child the wisdom of her years, an immunologic heritage. The memory of countless victories fought against viruses and bacteria are passed on as antibody artillery and houndlike white blood cells that have been programmed to act on a specific scent of a past offender. Vaccines impart immunity by presenting a harmless invader that has the same scent as its dangerous cousin, arming the immune system for future attacks. Breast-fed babies have documented healthier, more allergy-free childhoods. In addition, some forms of cancer and diabetes are rarer in children who have been breast-fed as infants, presumably through immune-mediated protection. The Scriptures, analogous to breast milk, not only nourish our souls, bodies and minds but also provide us with armor and arms (Ephes. 6:17).

Indications and Support for Breast-Feeding

In the Third World, where illiteracy is significant, as in the growing poverty-stricken areas in North America, the cost, the possible contamination and the complexities of accurately measuring and mixing concentrated or powdered infant formulas make breast-feeding the only safe alternative. Unfortunately, formula companies adeptly market their products by providing free samples to hospitals and doctors’ offices. By distributing these gifts, the medical profession communicates the fallacy that “formula feeding is as good as breast-feeding.” The suggestion of supplementation undermines the confidence of the nursing mother and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The breast acts by a supply-demand quotient. As the mother removes the baby from her breast to the bottle, the breast responds to decreased stimulation by producing less milk. Bottle feeding both causes and “cures” the apparent lack of milk, replacing nature with technology. To increase lactation one needs only to allow increased nursing time.

Breast-feeding need not be discontinued in situations of maternal or infant illness. Even in cases of infections of breast or gastrointestinal tract, breastmilk continues to provide vital immunological resources and rehydration fluid with antidiarrheal properties. Care must be taken with regard to medication usage during breast-feeding. Chemicals in the mother’s bloodstream, including alcohol and nicotine, appear in breast milk and are absorbed from the baby’s intestines. Because an infant’s immature liver and kidneys have difficulty metabolizing and eliminating chemicals and because few medications have been formally tested in pregnant women, nursing mothers or infants, few reassurances can be given with certainty.

In recognition of the outstanding benefits of breast-feeding, the Canadian Paediatric Society recommends that infants be exclusively breast-fed for four to six months and weaned during the second year. The World Health Organization and the United Nations International Children’s Education Fund (UNICEF) have outlined specific directives to be incorporated into hospital maternity care in order to assist mothers in their attempts to breast-feed. La Leche League International began in 1956 as a pioneering group of mothers who had the courage to breast-feed despite widespread formula use and prior to the discovery of the immunological properties of breast milk. Today it provides a network of experienced mothers who assist with the practicalities of breast-feeding in almost every community.

Vital to the success of breast-feeding is the proper positioning of the baby and breast and the principle of feeding at the request of the baby (on demand) to encourage adequate milk supply. The baby can be weighed before and after feeding to reassure the mother of adequate milk ingestion. Documenting the progression of the baby’s weight gain is important especially after the anticipated weight loss in the early weeks. We are challenged by the mid-eighteenth-century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s words “Would you restore all to their primal duties, begin with the mothers; the results will surprise you.”

Bottles, Laughter and Time

A mother with a babe at the breast appears as a closed circle—two people existing only for each other. This dependency is celebrated at satisfying reunions after even brief separations are felt in swelling breasts, a hungry tummy or anxious wondering. Mother and child yearn for another, not unlike God’s zeal for us or our thirst for him (Psalm 42:1-2). This circle opens, allowing a father to burp, bathe and change the newborn and a sibling to bring a diaper or toy, sing a song or sit for a story while Mother nurses. As weeks pass into months and breast-feeding is well established, the father and siblings can experience the satisfaction of giving a bottle on a daily basis. This creates an opportunity for a mother to occasionally exit without being anxious that the infant’s needs cannot be met by another caregiver. Ideally a small amount of expressed breast milk in a bottle, given daily in the evening, will not appreciably alter milk supply, especially if it is part of the routine. Later if the mother chooses to work outside the home, the infant will already be familiar with the bottle and will have fewer adjustments to make. The mother can still nurse in the morning and after work, maintaining her unique identity with the child despite the presence of secondary caregivers. Later, as the baby becomes interested in family foods, exploring tastes and fingerpainting with textures, family members participate by holding the spoon or offering the spoon to the child.

If “mommy” means primarily comfort, “daddy” means predictable fun. Laughter becomes as tangible as food passed between father to child. Sounds and words become invested with personal meaning even from birth, and little jokes are carried across the decades. “My little sparrow” became a term of endearment for a newborn who almost died from birth asphyxia; this reminded the new father that if God knows even when a sparrow falls, then his children are worth even more to him, so much that even our hairs are numbered (Matthew 10:29-31). During feeding parents can observe their children, drinking in their beauty—the unique curve of their ears and the pattern of hairs on their head.

Time is also a food that passes reciprocally between parent and child, persisting long after weaning in the form of reading aloud and jointly engaging in activities like running errands, walking, making crafts, building projects, cooking, learning computer skills, playing sports and gardening. Breast-feeding may involve extra time, but it means time with the baby and less time mixing formula and sterilizing bottles. All the positive interactions that occur with breast-feeding occur also with bottle feeding, provided the bottle is not propped up and the baby left alone. Breast-feeding is not a guarantee of good mothering, nor does bottle feeding rule it out.

The Case of Adoption

Adoptive mothers with sufficient motivation and support can breast-feed. Knowing the baby’s approximate due date, the receiving mother can actually induce lactation, even if she has never been pregnant or nursed a child before. If she faithfully expresses her breasts several times a day with a hand-held pump for two to six weeks before the baby’s arrival, her breasts will respond by producing milk, although perhaps only in small quantities. When the baby arrives, the adoptive mother can use a nursing supplementer—a small tube taped to the breast that adds formula by gravity while the baby is nursing. The breast still receives stimulation and is encouraged to make more milk while the child receives additional nourishment. Thus it is possible for an adopting mother to experience the intimacy and naturalness of breast-feeding, which may compensate her in some way for the missed experiences of pregnancy and birth.

Whether the birth mother breast-feeds in those early days of hospital recovery is a highly personal decision. As discussed in Miscarriage, completing the recognition of what she is about to lose may assist her in grieving, even though the intimacy of breast-feeding may reawaken ambivalence about her decision that must be legally finalized soon after birth. “Can a mother forget the baby at her breast, and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands” (Isaiah 49:15-16). “Her gift is of inestimable worth; her secret genetic talents are passed on to the child, and the child falls like a star into the arms of longing parents. “Praise the Lord. . . . Who is like the Lord our God? . . . He settles the barren woman in her home as the happy mother of children” (Psalm 113:1, 9).

For the adoptive parents who carry the torch of life onward, it is a task of claiming, naming, and protecting the flame. By comforting, nourishing and investing all of themselves they complete the love that others began. “Nothing is precious save what is yourself in others and others in yourself” (Teilhard de Chardin, p. 62). Spiritual and emotional nurturing establishes a heredity that is eternal—not transient like the legacy of DNA (see Conception), which alters or is lost as a branch of a genealogy comes to an infertile end. In welcoming and attending to the needs of children it is as if we are ministering to Christ himself (Mark 9:37).

Breast-Feeding as Pleasure

Cross-culturally there are remarkably different attitudes toward the breasts’ function and value—nutritively and sexually. It is a curious commentary on our own society that we tolerate all degrees of explicitness in our literature and mass media with regard to sex and violence, but the natural act of breast-feeding is taboo. There is a whole generation of women who as children never observed their own mothers nursing and consequently have invested their breasts with exclusively sexual value. Without the necessary modeling they find themselves embarrassed with even the thought of breast-feeding and often are unable to overcome their modesty even in private settings.

Nursing mothers need to be sensitive to the potential embarrassment of observers. Discretion can be the better part of valor. It may be easier and less offensive to others in the room to retire to a private place to get the baby started and possibly return with a lightweight blanket draped over a shoulder to conceal what might embarrass someone. Many mothers can nurse successfully with no one even surmising what is happening.

Although breast-feeding can be initially painful, over time and with proper latching of the baby breast-feeding becomes a pleasurable experience. This is mediated by two hormones. Oxytocin is released during the “letdown” or milk-ejection reflex and is experienced as a “pulling sensation” as the milk ducts contract. The “supply-demand” hormone prolactin is released in proportion to the duration of suckling. These hormones facilitate a meditative focus that for mothers who are usually whirling dervishes provides the necessary calm to hold their little one close in rapture.

Breast-Feeding as Service

Breast-feeding is an act of service as the mother respects and responds to the baby’s needs, putting aside her own agenda and enduring discomforts, interruptions, inconveniences and sleep deprivation. What is natural may not be uncomplicated or effortless. Despite all the sentimental expectations one may have of the breast-feeding experience, there can be many hurdles to overcome as mother and babe settle into the early weeks and months. Until the nipples become tougher and desensitized, breast-feeding may be initially uncomfortable. Excess milk leaking out of both breasts during feeding or spontaneously at night may require breast pads. The initial engorgement of the breasts that occurs in the early days as the milk comes in can be uncomfortable and presents a hard, stiff surface, making it difficult for the baby to latch successfully. After expressing by hand, the pressure is relieved and the breast softens. With time the breasts settle down and produce milk only at designated feeding times without the exaggerated responses of the early weeks. Time and maturity also dampen the oscillations of parental reactions, reflecting God’s constancy with us.

Many circumstances can make breast-feeding difficult to initiate. Operative deliveries, separation of mothers and babies during hospital confinements and overzealous supplementation with formula have been identified as major obstacles to well-established breast-feeding. Although babies will instinctively turn toward a breast, latch and suckle, successful feeding depends on appropriate positioning. To maintain the baby’s body and head toward the breast often requires supporting the baby on a pillow and using a hand to guide the baby’s head and shoulders. Breast-feeding is a learned skill, and solutions to problems that have been gleaned over generations are passed on through the “doulas” of La Leche League and lactation consultants.

Infants instinctively know when to stop, and they should be allowed to feed as long as they wish. Babies will spontaneously let go of the breast when satisfied. The first breast should be emptied before offering the second to prevent milk stasis and infections. In addition, if the babe exclusively drinks the thin, sugary “foremilk” by being switched prematurely to the other breast, colicky gas and hunger pains can be exacerbated. Routine supplementation is unnecessary, and especially in the early weeks it takes away from the infant’s time on the breast, resulting in decreased milk production. Also, early supplementation and use of pacifiers can result in “nipple confusion.” Infants use quite distinctive techniques to suckle on a breast versus an artificial nipple.

Early frequent feeding at the request of the baby is exhausting but essential for establishing the milk supply, if breast-feeding is to be successful. Usually a harmonious routine evolves over the first few months.

Adhering to a strict schedule by day, then forcing a baby to “make it through the night” resembles military training under spartan conditions of deprivation. There is no medical or psychological rationale for parent-controlled feeding. It is unethical for newborns to wait in hunger while the mother looks at the clock to determine if it is time for feeding. These infants cry but are unheard, their stomachs distending with swallowed air, their emotions utterly confused. Failing to meet the moment-by-moment needs of infants undermines the foundation of their trust in the world.

Consider God as he comforts and satisfies his children: “For you will nurse and be satisfied at her comforting breasts; you will drink deeply and delight in her overflowing abundance . . . be carried on her arm and dandled on her knees. As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you” (Isaiah 66:11-13).

The rhythm of “hunger-crying-response-satiety” reinforces the child’s confidence about his bodily sensations and the just and predictable world. Militant, rigid feeding schedules are a harbinger of the eating disorders that plague North American women. Anorexia nervosa is a life-threatening illness that occurs when a young woman denies sensations of hunger and derives masochistic pleasure from the control inherent in fasting.

The rigors of breast-feeding are not to be underestimated. Responding to a newborn’s needs results in sleep deprivation and exhaustion. As months pass, however, it is possible by feeding at more frequent intervals during the day that nighttime feeding will lessen. Ideally the baby should be in a nearby but separate room so that mothers do not inadvertently respond to every little noise. Making the clear distinction between day and night feedings can be accomplished by keeping lights low, voices quiet and saving play and talk for daytime. If night feedings draw a very minimal response, the nocturnal creature will change shifts, adjusting his activity pattern to match that of the family. Sudden prolongations between-feeding intervals in the early months are unwise. As in weaning, gradual changes are the least traumatic for everybody.

Weaning: Taking Wing from the Breast

Weaning is a milestone in the child’s development, an achievement of independence and the differentiation of self from mother. It is a transition that should be made in gradual steps to avoid not only engorged breasts, but inconsolable babies, and it should not be perceived as a time of punishment. It can be very satisfying if it progresses at the pace of the slowest member of the pair. Often children lose interest in the breast before a mother is ready to wean. Sometimes children are still very attached to the breast, relying on specific nursing times for reassurance, more so than for nutrition. Often a thumb or a soft toy becomes a more easily acquired source of comfort. It is possible to allow a toddler to breast-feed discreetly, as they are at an age when they can understand the need to wait for an appropriate time and place. Alternate forms of attention through interacting in play, reading or sharing chores should gradually replace the time spent feeding. “Instant availability without continuous presence is probably the best role a mother can play” (Bailey).

Breast-feeding is not incompatible with pregnancy. The birth of an additional child does not necessarily mean abrupt weaning is indicated. Nursing two children at once is possible and egalitarian, defusing sibling rivalry. Usually the older child needs very little attention at the breast; perhaps the option to nurse is enough. Holding on to our children longer than necessary can thwart their growth, just as can prematurely pushing them out into the world before they have the necessary confidence and skills.

When considering the motivations for weaning, one needs to examine societal pressures and the need for time away as a couple. In 1 Samuel, Hannah sensitively considers the needs of her toddler when she stays back from the temple, delaying the fulfillment of her promise because he is not yet ready to wean. Pediatrician William Sears states, “Early weaning is an unfortunate practice in western society. We are accustomed to thinking of breast-feeding in terms of months and not years. I have a little sign in my office which says early weaning is not recommended for babies” (La Leche, 250). We can experience God in “the ever-present now” as his love permeates daily life, flowing from breast and spoon, through laughing mouths, sparkling eyes just learning to read and in the taste of a child’s tears kissed into oblivion.

Strengthened and equipped by adequate nurturing, our children are released into the world to feed each other with the fruits of their daily work, sharing monetary wealth and the gifts of health and education with the nations of the world (Isaiah 58:10-11). As breast-feeding is a paradigm for the spiritual rooting of our identity and the nourishment we receive in God’s family and by Scripture, so weaning is analogous to being launched by the strength of our own wings, lifted by love, to explore and enrich the world.

» See also: Birth

» See also: Parenting

» See also: Pregnancy

References and Resources

L. Bailey in Promises for Parents calendar (Bloomington, Minn.: Garborg’s Heart and Home, 1990); B. T. Brazelton, What Every Baby Knows (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1987); P. Teilhard de Chardin, Hymn of the Universe (New York: Harper & Row, 1965); H. Hodgson, When You Love a Child (Minneapolis: Deaconess Press, 1992); La Leche League International, The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding, 5th ed. (New Market, Ont.: La Leche League International, 1991); V. H. Livingstone, “Protecting Breastfeeding: Family Physician’s Role,” Canadian Family Physician 38 (August 1992) 1871-76; V. H. Livingstone, “Too Much of a Good Thing: Maternal and Infant Hyperlactation Syndromes,” Canadian Family Physician 42 (1996) 89-99; J. M. Vickerstaff-Joneja, “Breast Milk: A Vital Defense Against Infection,” Canadian Family Physician 38 (August 1992) 1849-55.

—Carol Anderson

Business Ethics

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Business is often compared to a poker game. Both, it is argued, require nondisclosure and distrust in order to succeed, with only the naive showing their true intentions. Mark Twain’s observation that “an ethical man is a Christian holding four aces” reflects a notion still in vogue today—that ethics and competitive environments like business or winner-takes-all games rarely mix.

A Separate Business Ethic?

The poker metaphor serves to legitimize business behavior that would be considered immoral in the personal realm—bluffing, deception and contributing to another’s harm. All of these behaviors are justified in the name of their “real world” contexts.

Advocates of dual morality, that is, applying one set of ethics in the marketplace and another in the home and church, expect employees to lay aside personal values and to focus solely on generating corporate profits. Everything possible, except perhaps breaking the law, must be done to enhance the bottom line. Subordinates have no right to interject personal values, such as environmental protection, fairness to fellow workers or contempt for dishonest sales techniques, into corporate matters. A century ago businessman Dan Drew, founder of Drew Seminary, smartly summed up this philosophy: “Sentiment is all right up in the part of the city where your home is. But downtown, no. Down there the dog that snaps the quickest gets the bone. I never took any stock in a man who mixed up business with anything else” (quoted in Steiner and Steiner, p. 333).

A soul mate of Drew was oil baron John D. Rockefeller. Influenced by his devout Baptist mother, he developed on the one hand a strong personal religious ethic. His shrewd father taught him on the other hand to win at any cost in business, once boasting, “I cheat my boys every chance I get. I want to make them sharp.” Rockefeller resolved this contradiction by compartmentalizing his life into two separate realms. Ruthless in business, he gave kickbacks to railroads, violently suppressed labor unrest and bribed competitors’ employees to give him inside information. However, in his personal life he donated nearly half a billion dollars to a countless variety of worthy causes. One writer concludes that “Rockefeller was a conscientious Christian who struggled to end the livelihood of his every rival” (Steiner and Steiner, p. 27).

Such a segmented ethical system is inherently unchristian because it ignores the twin doctrines of creation and sovereignty. The apostle Paul argues that no realm of life is beyond the lordship of Christ. Indeed, all things were created “through him, “in him” and “for him.” His authority sustains the created order, extending over “thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers” (Col. 1:16 KJV).

As such, Christ has power over all beings and institutions. No human activity—including the practice of business—falls outside of his lordship. To argue otherwise is to denigrate his authority. The sacred-secular split embodied by Drew and Rockefeller must be rejected because Christian ethics cannot be relegated to part-time status, applied only on evenings and weekends. On the contrary, Martin Luther correctly asserted that Christian vocation is best expressed in life’s most common experiences.

It must also be noted that business is no mere poker game but a major social institution. To compare it to a game is to trivialize its importance. Further, not all of its so-called players understand the unwritten dog-eat-dog rules. Many, including immigrants, family members, the elderly and the young, do not have their guards up and are easy prey. Finally, to argue that employees must turn off their consciences when they enter their workstations is to ignore the lessons of Nuremberg and My Lai (Konrad, pp. 195-97).

God’s Character and Human Nature

How then should Christians, having rejected dual morality, behave in the workplace? Simply put, we are called to imitate God. But what does this mean? Three divine characteristics repeatedly emphasized in Scripture are holiness, justice and love. Of course, such imitation is easier said than done. Despite our noblest intentions, we regularly exaggerate, break promises and hide our errors. Why? We do so because we are sinners whose moral grip is weak and whose moral vision is clouded. This is particularly problematic in the hothouse of the marketplace where financial stakes are high, career destinies are decided and the temptation to rationalize is strong.

Even as sinners, however, we generally aspire for wholeness and regret when we fall short. Our consciences, though less reliable than originally designed, are still operative. Personal redemption and the guidance of the Holy Spirit also contribute significantly to our efforts.

Holiness in Business

During the Middle Ages holiness was construed to mean separation from ordinary life in order to pursue otherworldly contemplation. Hence business—perhaps the most fleshy of all human enterprises— was viewed as being “dirty,” even antithetical to holiness. Fortunately, this is not an accurate definition of biblical holiness.

Holiness has three primary attributes: zeal for God, purity and accountability. The first attribute, zeal for God, requires that all human concerns—material goods, career goals and personal relationships—be considered of secondary importance. As Jesus observed, only one master can be primary (Matthew 6:24). Does this mean that God is opposed to business success? No, the crucial point is that holiness is fundamentally about priorities. As long as business is a means of honoring God rather than an end in itself, the concept of holiness is not violated. What holiness prevents is making business, or any other human activity, an idol.

The second attribute of holiness is purity. Ethical purity reflects God’s moral perfection and separation from anything impure. Jesus beckons his followers to “be perfect . . . as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48), and Paul encourages believers to be “holy and blameless” (Ephes. 5:27). In business such purity means being morally different from one’s peers. This includes, but is by no means limited to, purity in communication (not skewing financial reports, not manipulating contract language and not using innuendo to undercut others) and purity in sexuality (not making lewd comments, not engaging in flirting and not participating in sexual discrimination).

The third attribute of holiness is accountability. Scripture abounds with illustrations of righteousness being rewarded and of sin being punished. The analogy may be rough, but accountability is not solely a theological concept. It is an economic principle as well. For while the market neither credits righteousness nor sanctions sin per se, it does tend to reward companies that keep promises and are honest while punishing enterprises that regularly miss deadlines and produce substandard products.

Many false perceptions of holiness exist. J. I. Packer writes, “Partial views abound. Any lifestyle based on these half-truths ends up looking grotesque rather than glorious; one-sided human development always does” (p. 163). Three such misguided views of holiness are legalism, judgmentalism and withdrawal. Legalism reduces holiness to rule keeping. Like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, legalistic managers tend to be procedurally rigid, emphasizing policies and petty rules over employee welfare. Judgmentalists justify themselves by pointing out even greater moral lapses in others, having long memories of subordinates’ errors. Ironically, they are doomed to lives of hypocrisy because of their inability to measure up to their own standards. Finally, those who define holiness as withdrawal from society are guilty of confusing moral separation, which Scripture endorses, and physical separation, which it generally does not. Judging from the company Jesus and Paul kept, they would feel quite comfortable mingling with today’s stockbrokers, IRS agents and sales representatives.

Justice in Business

On his conversion to Judaism, entertainer Sammy Davis Jr. commented, “Christianity preaches love your neighbor while Judaism preaches justice. I think that justice is the big thing we need.” Fortunately, he was only partially correct. Christianity also emphasizes justice. Four key concepts are procedural rights, substantive rights, meritorious justice and contractual justice.

Procedural rights focus on fair processes. Scripture requires a decision-maker to be impartial, having neither preexisting biases nor any conflict of interests. Nepotism is a classic violation of this principle. Another example occurs when a corporate board member fails to disclose her personal financial interest in another company with which the board is negotiating. Procedural justice also mandates that adequate evidence be marshaled and that each person affected by a decision be afforded the opportunity to tell his or her side of the story. Thus, auditors must be thorough and able to authenticate all findings. In like manner, supervisors should hesitate before dismissing employees for theft, disloyalty or incompetence solely on the word of a coworker or circumstantial information. In the New Testament both Jesus and Stephen were denied such simple due process (Matthew 26:60; Acts 6:13).

Substantive rights are ones such as the right to own property, to physical safety, to prompt payment for work completed and to be told the truth. Hence employees must steal neither time nor material, because such behavior violates their employer’s property rights. Likewise, employers must neither deceive nor discriminate against their employees, because this would infringe on their right to be told the truth and to be treated with dignity. When parties fail to respect substantive rights, the government is often called in to remedy the harm (Romans 13:1-7).

Meritorious justice links the concepts of cause and effect. Good choices (for example, working hard or selecting trustworthy business partners) bring success, while bad choices (for example, hiring a mediocre manager or expanding too rapidly) produce failure. Merit earns its own rewards. Proverbs concurs: “He who works his land will have abundant food, but the one who chases fantasies will have his fill of poverty” (Proverbs 28:19). Similarly, Jesus states, “With the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Matthew 7:2), and Paul advises: “A man reaps what he sows” (Galatians 6:7).

Contractual justice recognizes that individuals may agree to take on additional duties vis-à-vis each other. This may be as simple as a seller and buyer transferring title to a house or as sophisticated as the merging of two multinational corporations. Each party’s performance is conditioned on the performance of the other. Examples of such expanded duties include business partners who agree to divide their earnings. By contrast, neighbors assume no such obligations. Likewise, while employers pay their workers and retain the right to bring disciplinary action against them for poor performance, friends possess no such rights. The difference is that contractual justice permits the creation of additional duties. Similarly, God’s covenant with Israel extended extraordinary rights to Abraham’s progeny but also imposed additional responsibilities. Compliance was rewarded by peace and prosperity; breaches were met with severe sanctions (Leviticus 26:3-39).

As central as justice is to the core of Christian ethics, it must, however, never be separated from holiness and love. Isolated, it becomes harsh, permitting no second chances for those who fail. None of us cherishes working for a company that fires staff for minor breaches of corporate policy or that reacts in knee-jerk fashion with a lawsuit for every noncompliance by a supplier or dealer. Of course, the problem is not with justice or holiness, but with us. We stumble over their high standards due to our moral imperfections (Romans 7:1-25). A third characteristic—love—is therefore vital to complete our picture of Christian business ethics.

Love in Business

Many consider love to be the apex of Christian ethics. Paul identified it as the greatest human virtue, and Martin Luther thought it best described the essence of God’s character (Bloesch, p. 42). Jesus ranks love for God first and love for neighbor second. It is important to note that his definition includes both holiness (making God our highest priority) and justice (always taking the interests of others into account).

Love’s primary contribution to the holiness-justice-love mix is its emphasis on relationships. By way of example, imagine an embezzler who now regrets what she has done. While holiness causes her to feel unclean and justice creates a fear of getting caught, love produces a sense of grief over the harm caused to others. Breaching relationships causes such pain.

While it is tempting to define love as a “soft” virtue, concluding that it has no place in the rough and tumble of the marketplace, we need only note that business history is littered with companies ruined by fractured relationships. Indeed, commercial ventures depend more upon cooperation than competition. To be successful, partners must get along with each other; supervisors must engender loyalty among their subordinates; and suppliers must be brought into a supportive network.

Love has three primary characteristics: empathy, mercy and self-sacrifice. Empathy is the capacity to celebrate others’ joys and shoulder their burdens, that is, to sincerely feel what others feel. Of course, it would strain credibility to argue that modern capitalism operates primarily on the basis of empathetic love. Backs are scratched to mutual advantage, and perhaps achieving reciprocal respect is the best that can be expected. Christian empathy goes far beyond this, however, encouraging corporate executives to demonstrate concern for the less fortunate, to take personal interest in the fate of deathly ill associates and to sympathize with sales staff who miss quotas due to unexpected personal problems.

Mercy is empathy with legs. It takes the initiative in forgiving, redeeming and healing. Christian mercy seeks reconciliation, even to the extent of loving one’s enemy (Matthew 5:38-44). Other ethical systems refuse to go so far. Aristotle and Confucius, for example, taught that the duty to love is conditioned on the other person’s response. The Christian position demands much more, requiring us to live not according to the golden rule but beyond it (Bloesch, p. 33).

Self-sacrifice means that love willingly sacrifices the very rights that justice bestows. For example, an employee motivated by love may voluntarily relinquish her office in order to accommodate a disabled peer. Or a spouse may consent to move so that his wife’s career is enhanced. Saint Francis of Assisi was so sacrificial in giving his clothes to the poor that his disciples had difficulty keeping him dressed. Sacrificial love frightens us because it appears to be a blank check with no limits. While soldiers who jump on hand grenades to save the lives of their comrades and Jesus’ sacrificial death are admired, business leaders understandably balk at such extreme vulnerability.

Are there any limits to such love? Clergyman Joseph Fletcher, author of Situation Ethics, thinks not. He contends that love is Christianity’s sole ethical principle and that holiness concepts (for example, zeal for the truth, ethical purity and concern for right and wrong) are to be cast aside when they impede love. Fletcher’s approach provides minimal guidance as to what actions should be taken in a morally unclear situation. Does love really provide moral cover for falsifying a document in order to protect a fellow worker? Does an executive’s concern for shareholder wealth and employee job security justify his bribing government officials? For Fletcher, “altruistic sinning” is the order of the day. This emasculated definition of love not only ignores holiness but flouts justice as well. What good are the rights of property ownership and due process if they can be willy-nilly disregarded in the name of love? Justice prohibits such behavior by providing a base line set of rights—dignity being primary—that can neither be given or taken away in the name of love.

Love places limits upon itself. Is it really loving to lie for a peer who is using drugs? Serving as a doormat in such situations may actually cause more long-term harm to the person being “helped.” King David’s slavish devotion to his son Absalom resulted in a selfish, and ultimately self-destructive, personality (2 Samuel 15). Biblical self-love calls us to love our neighbor as ourselves (Luke 10:27). The ethical rule of thumb regarding self-love is an inverted golden rule: if we would feel ethically uncomfortable asking another to do a particular act, then we ought not consent to do it for others. Christian self-love does not condone abuse or servility. Rather, incorporating the concepts of holiness, justice and love, it produces healthy reciprocal relationships.

Holiness, Justice and Love in Business

A balanced view requires that holiness, justice and love be respected equally. Without holiness, love degenerates into permissiveness. Nearly anything can be justified in the name of love—defamation, price fixing, industrial espionage. Conversely, holiness without love produces unforgiving perfectionism. Who would want to work for a supervisor who embodies such an ethic? But holy love produces the highest and purest form of integrity and compassion.

Likewise, love without justice lapses into favoritism and a short-term perspective. Imagine an employee being given a day off with full compensation without regard to the perception of partiality by other staff. Justice without love is equally unacceptable. To twist the facts of the prior example, what do we think of supervisors who always go by the book, never acknowledging exceptional individual circumstances? Such a harsh approach leaves us feeling cold. Only when combined do justice and love form “tough love,” a disciplined balancing of long-term interests.

Finally, holiness without justice drifts toward withdrawal from the marketplace and a privatized form of religion. Conversely, justice without holiness results in an amoral form of procedural fairness that lacks moral substance. Decision-makers become absorbed in procedural details (for example, time lines, required signatures, waivers) and fail to focus on the deeper rights and duties involved. Only through holy justice can ethical integrity and procedural justice both be ensured.

The ultimate goal is to produce practitioners who imitate God’s holy, just, loving character in the marketplace. This is the true character of biblical business ethics.

» See also: Accountability, Workplace

» See also: Compromise

» See also: Integrity

» See also: Justice

» See also: Love

» See also: Negotiating

» See also: Power, Workplace

» See also: Principalities and Powers

» See also: Profit

» See also: Success

References and Resources

T. Beauchamp and N. Bowie, Ethical Theory and Business, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1993); D. Bloesch, Freedom for Obedience: Evangelical Ethics for Contemporary Times (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987); R. Chewning, Biblical Principles and Business, vols. 1-4 (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1989); R. Chewning, J. Eby and S. Roels, Business Through the Eyes of Faith (New York: Harper & Row, 1990); J. F. Fletcher, Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966); A. Hill, Just Business: Christian Ethics in the Marketplace (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997); A. Hill, “Colossians, Philemon and the Practice of Business,” Crux 30, no. 2 (1994) 27-34; A. Konrad, “Business Managers and Moral Sanctuaries,” Journal of Business Ethics, 1 (1982): 195-200; J. Packer, Rediscovering Holiness (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant, 1992); L. Smedes, Mere Morality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983); G. Steiner and J. Steiner, Business, Government and Society (New York: Random House, 1983); J. Stott, Christian Counter-Culture: The Message of the Sermon on the Mount (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1978); O. Williams and J. Houck, Full Value: Cases in Christian Business Ethics (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978).

—Alexander D. Hill

Calling/Vocation

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

The English word vocation comes from the Latin vocatio, which means “calling”; they are the same thing, though this is not obvious to the people who use these words. Experiencing and living by a calling provides a fundamental orientation to everyday life. But most of the world today has strayed from this and defines calling as a self-chosen career, usually a professional one that involves keeping appropriate standards and norms.

The fact that many people speak of their jobs as their “vocation” while pastors and missionaries speak of “being called” shows how inadequately we have grasped the universal call of God to every Christian. As Os Guinness says, calling means that our lives are so lived as a summons of Christ that the expression of our personalities and the exercise of our spiritual gifts and natural talents are given direction and power precisely because they are not done for themselves, our families, our businesses or even humankind but for the Lord, who will hold us accountable for them. A calling in Scripture is neither limited to nor equated with work. Moreover, a calling is to someone, not to something or somewhere. This last statement is sublimely significant but missed in this postvocational world.

Misunderstanding Calling

There are many indications that we are living in a postvocational world, one which views human beings as determining their own occupations and roles. Some difficulties arise from a secular approach, others from a distorted religious understanding.

Secular misunderstanding. In the secular mindset, a calling has been reduced to the occupation a person chooses. But “choosing a vocation” is a misnomer. To speak of a calling invites the question “By whom?” It is certainly not oneself! In line with this, vocational guidance has been reduced to career selection. As a secular perversion of calling, careerism invites people to seek financial success, security, access to power and privilege, and the guarantee of leisure, satisfaction and prestige (Donahue, p. 318). Some young people despair of finding a career and wrongly assume they lack a vocation. When people retire or become unemployed, they think they have lost their vocation.

One consequence of reducing a calling to an occupation is that work and ministry easily become professionalized, introducing a dangerous distortion. Without a deep sense of calling many people drift into a toxic mix of drivenness expressed in workaholism and the compulsive pursuit of leisure, a debilitating substitute for the freedom of the called life and the experience of sabbath. But if the secular world has missed the meaning of a calling, the people best positioned to teach it seem also to have misunderstood it.

Ecclesiastical misunderstanding. In most churches the average Christian has a job or profession, which he or she chooses. The minister, however, has a calling. The professional ministry has been elevated as the vocation of vocations and the primary work to which a person should give evidence of a call. Martin Luther was eloquent on the tragic results of this two-level view of vocation, stemming as it did from medieval monasticism, though now extending into modern Christianity:

Monastic vows rest on the false assumption that there is a special calling, a vocation, to which superior Christians are invited to observe the counsels of perfection while ordinary Christians fulfil only the commands; but there simply is no special religious vocation since the call of God comes to each at the common tasks. (Bainton, p. 156)

As we will see, this profound misunderstanding is partly responsible for the widespread difficulty of relating Sunday to Monday and translating Christian faith into everyday activities. Unfortunately the Reformation introduced another distortion.

Reformational misunderstanding. Following the Protestant Reformation, a calling became equated exclusively with the personal experience of the providence of God placing us in a “station,” or “calling,” where we were to serve God as ministers. Called people live in harmony with their gifts and talents, discerning circumstances and accepting their personalities and life situations as God’s “call.” The Reformers did not universally teach this.

On the basis of 1 Cor. 7:17 (“Each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him”), Luther opposed the prevailing idea that in order to serve God fully, a person should leave his or her previous way of life and become a member of the priesthood or of a religious order (Kolden, pp. 382-90). This is the one place where Paul, or any other New Testament writer, seems to use call language for the “place in life” or “station” we occupy (for example, slave, free, married, single, etc.). It is complicated by the fact that in 1 Cor. 7:17 Paul speaks of the situation as that “to which God has called him” and in 1 Cor. 7:20 of “the situation which he was in when God called him.” Though such life situations get taken up in God’s call and are transformed by it, the call of God comes to us in these situations (1 Cor. 7:20) and is much more than occupation, marital status or social position. Although Paul comes very close to seeing the setting in which one is called as calling itself, he never quite makes that jump. At most, calling refers to the circumstances in which the calling took place. This does not mean that a person is locked forever in a particular situation: “Rather, Paul means that by calling a person within a given situation, that situation itself is taken up in the call and thus sanctified to him or her” (Fee, 309-10).

This Reformational overemphasis on staying where God has placed us has led to reducing mission, suspecting charismatic gifts and, ironically, downplaying nonclerical ministry. But there is a half-truth in this distortion. The purpose of God is revealed in our personality and life path. Elizabeth O’Connor says, “We ask to know the will of God without guessing that his will is written into our very beings” (O’Connor, pp. 14-15).

Reasons for the Loss of Vocation

Several factors have converged to produce the contemporary postvocational society. First, medieval monasticism, based ultimately on Greek dualism, contributed a two-level approach to Christian living: the ordinary way (in society) and the spiritual way (in the monastery or priesthood). This distinction is now thoroughly embedded in all strands of Christianity, including evangelical Protestantism.

Second, the Protestant Reformation, in part because it was a reaction, failed to liberate the laity fully. In medieval monasticism Christians elected a superior religious life by embracing the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience. Against this, Luther and the Reformers restored the central place of the Ten Commandments as God’s direction for the whole of life and exalted the civic vocation of the ordinary Christian: “true Christianity” is now located in the everyday life and work of the layperson. “The real ‘saint’ is the ‘secular saint’—not the one who withdraws from society” (Bockmuehl, p. 30). Luther said his milkmaid was potentially more holy than the monks on pilgrimage. The emphasis on a “secret” call taught by John Calvin, however, produced a ministerial elite, and the long-term result was the reestablishment of an unbiblical clergy-lay distinction. The Protestant preacher replaced the priest.

Third, in one sense Martin Luther’s famous “Here I stand” speech expressed the emerging individualism of the Western world, an individualism antithetical to the corporate nature of calling. It is primarily in North America that Calvin’s fears of the lawlessness of the “believers’ churches” were realized, namely, that people would claim to be “guided by God” (for example, in adulterous relationships or immoral business deals) even though the path led to a transgression of God’s commandments (Bock-muehl, p. 33). In contrast, biblical vocation involves mutual accountability, membership within the people of God and ethical living for the common good.

Fourth, with the increasing secularization of Western society, a biblical perspective on work was lost. Work is commonly regarded as a curse from which we should seek deliverance or an idol through which we should find ultimate satisfaction.

Fifth, consumerism, the compulsive pursuit of leisure, the loss of sabbath, the alienation of workers from management typified in the complex union movement and increasing organizational complexity in society (Almen, p. 136) all have contributed to the loss of vocation. The Western world is now oriented toward individual self-fulfillment in the pursuit of career and profession. The recovery of biblical vocation is desperately needed.

Call Language in the Bible

Call (qara) language in the Old Testament is used primarily for the people of God who are summoned to participate in God’s grand purpose for the world. It is a call to salvation, a call to holiness and a call to service. In the New Testament it is the same. The word call (kaleō and klēsis) is used for the invitation to salvation through discipleship to Christ, the summons to a holy corporate and personal living and the call to serve. All Christians are called. All are called together. All are called for the totality of everyday life. What does biblical theology teach us about the meaning of being called?

The one and the three. In the Bible there is only one call of God that comes to God’s people, but there are three dimensions in that call: to belong, to be and to do.

First is the call to belong to God, to become persons who have their identity as children of God and members of the family of God (Hosea 11:1-2; Matthew 9:13; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32; Acts 2:39; Romans 1:6-7; Romans 8:28; Romans 9:24; 1 Cor. 1:24, 26; 1 Cor. 7:17, 20; Ephes. 1:18; Ephes. 4:1; Phil. 3:14; 1 Thes. 2:12; 1 Thes. 5:24; 2 Thes. 2:14; 1 Tim. 6:12). Second is the call to be God’s people who exist for the praise of his glory as we live out our true identity in all aspects of life in the church and world. This is expressed in holiness or sanctification (1 Cor. 1:9; 1 Cor. 7:15; Galatians 5:13; Ephes. 4:4; Col. 3:15; 1 Thes. 4:7; 2 Tim. 1:9). Third is the call to do God’s work, to enter into God’s service in both the church and the world. This involves gifts, talents, ministries, occupations, roles, work and mission (Exodus 19:6; Isaiah 41:2, 4; Isaiah 42:6; Matthew 4:21; Mark 3:13-14; Ephes. 4:1; 1 Peter 2:9-10). In this way Christian vocation fulfills the human vocation mandated in Genesis 1:27-28, a vocation also with three (parallel) parts: (1) the call to enjoy communion with God (belonging), a communion lost through sin; (2) the call to community building (being) and the mandate to build a family; and (3) the call to cocreativity (doing), through which humankind expresses stewardship of the earth and makes God’s world work.

Unfortunately, most discussions of the human vocation center on the third dimension exclusively. In reaction to this Christians normally focus on the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) without understanding that Christ’s work of salvation enables people to recover their full humanity and embrace the threefold creation mandate. A truncated understanding of vocation as merely relating to the Great Commission has resulted in the tragic loss of dignity to persons working in various so-called secular occupations. Thus teachers, lawyers, doctors and homemakers have been tacitly placed in a subordinate rank to pastors, evangelists and missionaries, these last being designated as ministers. The gospel involves us in serving God’s purposes in the world through civic, social, political, domestic and ecclesiastical roles. All three dimensions of the human vocation are fulfilled by the single command to love: loving God (belonging in communion), loving our neighbor (being a community builder) and loving God’s world (doing God’s work on earth).

The many and the few. In the Old Testament the people as a whole were called to fulfill Adam’s vocation in the context of being a chosen nation: (1) to belong to God as a chosen people and so to enjoy God; (2) to live as a covenant community in holiness, justice and mercy; and (3) to serve God’s purposes in the world through missionary outreach (Jonah) and winsome living (Zech. 8:23), thus being a “light for the Gentiles” (Isaiah 42:6) and a “kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:6). That is the call to the many. But within the people of God under the older covenant, some people were called individually to special roles of service as prophets, priests and kings: Moses (Exodus 3:4), Samuel (1 Samuel 3:10-14), David (1 Samuel 16), Isaiah (Isaiah 6), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:4-19), Ezekiel (Ezekiel 2), Amos (Amos 7:15). This is the call to a few for special anointed service.

Under the new covenant the call of God is both individual and corporate. Individually we are called to belong to God through adoption, live holy lives and serve God. The individual experience of the call of God means that each person is led by God and invited so to live, work and minister in the light of the wisdom and Spirit of God. While it may be appropriate to speak of one’s daily work or specific ministry initiatives as included in the calling, the New Testament does not normally do so! This individual call also has three dimensions, which Greg Ogden outlines in these terms: (1) we experience an inner oughtness; (2) it is bigger than ourselves; and (3) it brings great satisfaction and joy (p. 209). You have a sense that you were “born to this.”

Corporately, the call of God brings into existence a people that belongs to God (1 Peter 2:9-11) with members belonging to one another. Together we live a community life that bears witness to our true identity and serves God’s purposes of humanizing the world until Christ comes again. This call of God is comprehensive (Ephes. 4:1) and embraces work, service in the church, family life, civic and creational responsibilities, mission in the world and personal spirituality. The call of God engages us totally and not merely in the religious sector of our lives.

The general and the particular. The distinction between a general calling to salvation and discipleship and a particular calling to a specific context for discipleship was elaborated by the Puritans. William Perkins, the only Puritan author to describe callings in a systematic way, emphasized calling as “a certain kind of life ordained and imposed on man by God for the common good” (p. 46), though Perkins himself often spoke of callings as though they were simply occupations, some of which were not lawful callings. It seems Perkins fused the two ideas of duties and occupations. In time the Puritan movement lost this synthesis that reflects the biblical balance of calling to salvation expressed in the concrete everyday contexts of our life (family, nation, city, etc.).

In summary, God’s call is primarily soteriological rather than occupational—we are called more to someone (God) than to do something. Luther “extended the concept of divine call, vocation, to all worthy occupations” (Bainton, pp. 180-81), but he meant that the Christian is called to be a Christian in whatever situation he or she finds himself or herself, rather than equate vocation with occupation (Kolden, pp. 382-90). Further, there is no authority in the Bible for a special, secondary call from God as a prerequisite to enter the professional ministry. The call to leadership in the church comes from the church! While a special existential call may be given by God in some cases, the primary biblical basis upon which a person may enter pastoral leadership is character (a good reputation and ethical behavior) and God-given gifts of leadership (1 Tim. 3; 1 Peter 5:1-10). There is no status difference between leaders and people, so-called clergy and so-called laity, and only in some areas is there a functional one.

In the same way there is no need to be called through an existential experience to an occupation or other responsibilities in society. God gives motivation and gift; God arranges circumstances and guides. Through God’s leading, work, family, civil vocation and neighboring are encompassed in our total response to God’s saving and transforming call in Jesus. Misunderstanding on this point has been promoted by the overemphasis of 1 Cor. 7:17, mentioned previously. Focusing on this one text has had several side effects: (1) it minimizes the corporate, people-of-God aspect of vocation, (2) makes too much of the specific place one occupies in society as though the place itself were the calling, and (3) focuses on task, or doing, to the exclusion of being. Nevertheless, one should regard the various contexts of life—marriage and singleness, workplace, neighborhood, society—as taken up into the call of God and therefore expressed in terms of holiness and service rather than arenas chosen for personal self-fulfillment. Thus vocational guidance is not discerning our call but in the context of our call to discipleship discerning the guidance of God in our lives and learning how to live in every dimension in response to God’s call. (For an investigation of the process of making occupational and life decisions in light of the above, see Vocational Guidance.)

Living as Called People

Understanding and experiencing calling can bring a deep joy to everyday life. Paraphrasing Os Guinness, I note several fruits of living vocationally rather than simply yielding to careerism, occupationalism or professionalism. First, calling enables us to put work in its proper perspective—neither a curse nor an idol but taken up into God’s grand purpose. Second, it contributes to a deep sense of identity that is formed by whose we are rather than what we do. Third, it balances personal with public discipleship by keeping our Christian life from becoming either privatized or politicized. Fourth, it deals constructively with ambition by creating boundaries for human initiative so that we can offer sacrificial service without becoming fanatical or addicted. Fifth, it equips us to live with single-mindedness in the face of multiple needs, competing claims and diversions—the need is not the call. Sixth, it gives us a deep sense of integrity when living under secular pressures by inviting us to live in a counterculture and a countercommunity—the people of God—so we can never become “company people.” Seventh, it helps us make sense of the brevity of our lives, realizing that just as David “had served God’s purpose in his own generation, [and] fell asleep” (Acts 13:36), we can live a meaningful life even if our vision cannot be fully realized in one short lifetime. Eighth, the biblical approach to calling assures us that every believer is called into full-time ministry—there are no higher and lower forms of Christian discipleship.

» See also: Ambition

» See also: Career

» See also: Daydreaming

» See also: Ministry

» See also: Professions/Professionalism

» See also: Service

» See also: Success

» See also: Talents

» See also: Trades

» See also: Vocational Guidance

» See also: Work

References and Resources

L. T. Almen, “Vocation in a Post-vocational World,” Word and World 4, no. 2 (1984) 131-40; R. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978); K. Bockmuehl, “Recovering Vocation Today,” Crux 24, no. 3 (1988) 25-35; L. Coenen, “Call,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Exeter, U.K.: Paternoster, 1975) 1:271-76; J. A. Donahue, “Careerism and the Ethics of Autonomy: A Theological Response,” Horizons 15, no. 2 (1988) 316-33; W. Dumbrell, “Creation, Covenant and Work,” Crux 24, no. 3 (1988) 14-24; D. Falk, “A New Testament Theology of Calling with Reference to the ‘Call to the Ministry,’ ” M.C.S. thesis, Regent College, May 1990; G. D. Fee, First Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987); O. Guinness, “The Recovery of Vocation for Our Time” (unpublished audiotape); M. Kolden, “Luther on Vocation,” Word and World 3, no. 4 (Fall 1983) 382-90; P. Marshall, “Calling, Work and Rest,” Christian Faith and Practice in the Modern World, ed. M. A. Noll and D. F. Wells (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 199-217; E. O’Connor, Eighth Day of Creation: Gifts and Creativity (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1971); G. Ogden, The New Reformation: Returning the Ministry to the People of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990); W. Perkins, The Work of William Perkins (Appleford, U.K.: Sutton Courtenay, 1969); K. L. Schmidt, “καλε´ω” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965) 3:487-91.

—R. Paul Stevens

Camping

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Camping is the experience of moving from a familiar environment into a new one, usually simpler and almost always in the out-of-doors or wilderness. It is done for fun, rather than work, and is a form of play. As challenge, as exploration, as experimenting with new skills without the compulsion to make or produce something, camping is a renewing form of recreation and leisure. It is also one of many creative ways we put ourselves into a more receptive mode to hear, observe and respond to our God.

When children ask if they can sleep in the backyard on a summer’s night, they have taken a step toward untangling themselves from the complexities of their world and discovering a simpler way to live, even for a night. Camping gives us the opportunity to be around the “stuff” that our God has created. When we are immersed in God’s creation instead of our humanly made environment, we are confronted with “God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—[which] have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). Whether it is a family trip or a residential program, camping is an important vehicle to get away from it all, to challenge our abilities and to be more in tune with who God is and what God says.

Life on Life

There is more to relating to the physical environment than mere brawn. For the solo camper it provides opportunity for meditation and for developing self-control. Solo campers must confront themselves. But most commonly families and groups of people camp, thereby providing an opportunity to relate not only to God’s physical creation but also to God’s human creation in life-on-life experiences. Not only did God create us to live in and care for the created world, but God has also invited us into community (Genesis 1:27). It is difficult to role-play on a camping trip when we are reduced, as we usually are, to the bare essentials and cannot merely slip into our occupational lifestyles. Whether on a weekend retreat or fishing trip, a formal residential program or an informal weekend venture with a group of friends, campers usually return to their normal life refreshed with a new perspective, sometimes with a new perspective on themselves.

I once took a group of boys on a three-night camping trip around the Gulf Islands of British Columbia. When we left our base camp, we looked painfully awkward trying to maneuver the large voyager canoe as a team when we were not yet a team. In our struggle we learned a great deal about ourselves and one another as we paddled all day and arrived at the campsite in the pouring rain. No one wanted to help get a fire going to cook dinner, and we could not simply go to our favorite fast-food restaurant. We had to put our selfishness aside and look after each other. On the ocean by day and on the shore by night, we learned survival skills. We also learned how to work together as a team. And when we arrived back at camp three days later, our cooking had not improved very much, but we had! We also had wonderful stories to tell the others in the camp. In contrast to the highly competitive environment in which most live today, camping draws out cooperation and invites community.

Sometimes lifelong friendships result from camping together. Relationships are central at camp because our God is a relational God. Before anything else was, God was and is three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Therefore when we camp together, we enjoy a double divine context: creation, which declares the glory of God, and community, which declares the relational nature of God. Making friends often happens because we have allowed ourselves the leisure to be relaxed and open, a form of wasting time profitably.

The benefits of camping are numerous. Not only do we get a chance to work together and make friends, some which may prove to be lifelong, but there is time to observe God’s creation and see how it functions, to sit around the fire, to look at the stars and talk significantly about the One who created this earth. The order and sometimes the seeming chaos of God’s physical creation, the awesome power and unpredictability of the weather point us godward, inviting us to be creatures dependent on God’s provision and care rather than autonomous beings attempting to control everything. A camp environment is a great place to explore the teachings of Jesus and to discuss issues that really matter: Is there a God? What is the purpose and meaning to life? What is the future of our planet? What happens when we die? Both children and adults may entertain questions at camp that they have difficulty discussing at home.

Informal Learning

In addition to being a good place to ask questions, camp is a great place to seek answers, learn new skills and become a more mature person. All of this happens without a classroom, indeed partly because there is none! Informal learning is the kind that happens when we do not think that we are learning. It happens by repetition, mimicking the actions of others and solving problems, in contrast to more intentional methods of instruction. How to light a fire when it has just rained, how to make a meal for ten people when you have one pot, how to set up a tent and make a campsite comfortable, how to climb a steep slope when you need to be roped to others, how to paddle a canoe or sail a boat, how to put together a campfire skit are skills that are learned by doing them rather than by mastering manuals and doing simulations. Camping is an enriched learning environment for crucial life skills: cooperation, leadership, caring for God’s physical creation and caring for God’s human creation.

According to anthropologists, those things we have learned informally stay with us longest and are the hardest to change. This is certainly true of things learned informally outside of the camping context, including what we have learned about God both negatively and positively. Often people need to live in a temporary Christian community—which is what Christian camping offers—to change their negative attitudes about God and the Christian life. Tragically, many people have difficulty associating play, enjoyment and hilarious pleasure with the Christian faith. But the informal learning environment of camping can lead to a paradigm shift, a changed worldview and sometimes even a personal conversion.

When people have an exhilarating backpacking adventure in the mountains, get up in the middle of the night to go swimming under moonlight, race with the wind down a channel in a small sailboat, dress up for a hilarious skit, play a wide game that takes all day, they are learning all the time. Often their lives are transformed as they come to know God and experience the beginning of abundant life. And the process of transformation continues long after. It need not stop. The Christian faith is about joy, and camping is one way of entering into that joy. By the way, what are you doing this weekend? Let’s go camping!

» See also: Backpacking

» See also: Creation

» See also: Leisure

» See also: Play

» See also: Recreation

» See also: Simpler Lifestyle

» See also: Vacations

References and Resources

C. Nicoll, This Could Be Your Life Work, (Imageo, 1992), videocassette; H. Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus (New York: Crossroad, 1993); T. Slater, The New Camping Book (Sydney: Scripture Union Ministry Resource, 1990); T. Slater, The Temporary Community (Sutherland, N.S.W.: Albatross, 1984).

—Al McKay and R. Paul Stevens

Career

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

A career is an occupation for which people train and in which people expect to earn their living for most of their working years. It is part of one’s calling but must not be equated with vocation. A calling, or vocation, is the summons of God to live our whole lives for his glory; a career is part of that but not the whole. A job is work that is simple toil out of necessity. In one sense Joseph could think of himself as having the career of a shepherd (following in his father’s path), a job as a slave in Potiphar’s house (something he did for survival) and the vocation or calling of saving the lives of God’s family of promise and the Egyptians (Genesis 45:5).

In the modern Western world the idea of a career is profoundly challenged on several fronts: (1) The possibility of spending one’s whole life doing one kind of work has been eroded except perhaps for the professions. Even there, people make career changes within their profession or into other professions. (2) Often one trains for an occupation but must learn to transfer the skills to other occupations. In-service training and lifelong learning are replacing the idea of up-front education for a lifetime career. (3) The notion of stability and security implied in a career is increasingly threatened by the exponential change taking place in the modern world largely fueled by the technological revolution. Workers in the Western societies are scrambling to stay on top of this change.

In a penetrating reflection, Walter Kiechel III asks three questions about the emerging trend: “Can technology help make service jobs as productive as manufacturing jobs have been, in ways that are high-paying to the worker and enriching to society? How many Americans have the basic education and the flexibility to become technical workers or new-style service workers? How many of us are ready for the changes in the very nature of work that the emerging economy will bring with it?” (p. 52). His last question hints at the coming redefinition of work from repetitive task to intervention in a programmed process, a relocation of the workplace from factory/office to multiple locations including the home, a rescheduling of the workday from regular to adjustable hours and a rethinking of work life from dealing with tangibles to dealing with intangibles.

Change is something Christians should especially welcome because of their conviction of the sovereignty of God, the certainty of our identity as children of God (not just plumbers or university professors) and the biblical insight that Christians live at the intersection of the kingdom of God and fallen human society—always a place of ferment and change. Because Christians have a sense of vocation, they are able to encompass several career changes within the larger purpose of their lives to serve God and God’s purposes in the church and the world. The shift in modern society from producing products to offering services provides new career opportunities for Christians who are called to be servants (Matthew 20:26). The challenge to be a lifelong learner fits perfectly the vocation of being a disciple, for the education of a disciple never ends.

With the escalation of information and communication capabilities, and careers associated with them, the deeper questions of what we are communicating will surface. Over a century ago Henry David Thoreau wrote: “We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate.” Speaking to this, Kiechel asks, “Information for what purpose? Knowledge to serve what human aim or itch? Where’s the juice?” (p. 48). Followers of Christ will have many opportunities to bring meaning to the secular world as they take their place in so-called secular careers. Pastoral ministry may offer new opportunities to address the soul needs of human beings, though it is debatable whether in the strictest sense the ministry should ever be a career (see Financial Support; Tentmaking). With escalating stress levels, antistress professions (including counselors, therapists and exercise advisers) will take on a new importance. Christians will not be immune to the anxiety-producing dimensions of postmodern society, but they have resources to find rest within the pressures (Matthew 11:28).

As free time becomes more important than pay as the currency in negotiating lifestyle, Christians will need a theology and spirituality of leisure. Sabbath, the threefold rest of God, humankind and creation, is fundamental to gaining perspective on life, to discovering each day and each week why one is working and for whom, and to learning to approach our work as justified by faith rather than performance. Without a spirituality of careers, and sabbath in particular, we could miss the opportunities afforded by information technology and find ourselves deeply enslaved to our own technological creations. Our identities all too easily become attached exclusively to our careers when they should be founded more deeply (and with more freedom and personal health) on our God. Years ago Augustine said that if you want to know who people are, do not ask them what they do for a living. Ask them whom they love.

» See also: Ambition

» See also: Calling

» See also: Ministry

» See also: Service

» See also: Success

» See also: Vocational Guidance

References and Resources

J. A. Bernbaum and S. M. Steer, Why Work? Careers and Employment from a Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986); W. Diehl, Thank God It’s Monday (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); R. M. Grant, Early Christianity and Society (New York: Harper & Row, 1977); L. Hardy, The Fabric of This World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990); W. Kiechel III, “How We Will Work in the Year 2000,” Fortune 127, no. 10 (1993) 39-52; P. Marshall, “Calling, Work and Rest,” in Christian Faith and Practice in the Modern World, ed. M. Noll and D. Wells (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 199-217; R. Slocum, Ordinary Christians in a High-Tech World (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1986); R. P. Stevens, Disciplines of the Hungry Heart: Christian Living Seven Days a Week (Wheaton, Ill.: Harold Shaw, 1993); R. P. Stevens, Liberating the Laity (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1985).

—R. Paul Stevens

Chocolate

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

The mysterious and mystical theobromine (literally, “the food of the gods”), which is commonly called chocolate, is a substance deserving of thoughtful and tasteful theological analysis. As one of the primary motivators of human behavior (hunger, thirst, pain, pleasure, self-esteem, sexual desire and chocolate), it is a force deserving ontological, theological, historical, ethical and relational reflection.

Ontologically, chocolate raises profoundly disturbing questions: Does not chocolate offer natural revelation of the goodness of the Creator just as chilies disclose a divine sense of humor? Is the human born with an innate longing for chocolate? Does the notion of chocolate preclude the concept of free will? If chocolate is a foretaste of heaven, what does it mean that chocolate is freely available to all?

Theologically, the creation of chocolate demonstrates both the unity and the diversity of humanity. Wherever you taste it, in every country of the world, it is immediately recognizable. Other things, in every cuisine, are just food, but chocolate is chocolate. At the same time each country, or culture, makes its own distinctive chocolate: French chocolate has a bitter bouquet; Belgian, a whisper of hazelnut; Swiss, a hint of condensed milk; English, a slight burnt-sugar finish; American, an undertone of peanuts; Dutch, a silken waxy texture; Indian, a trace of spices; Japanese, a touch of soy; Russian, a rumor of cabbage. Yet wherever chocolate is made, chocolate is chocolate. And any month that contains the letter a, e, i, o or u is the proper time to share it with others.

Historically, the discovery of chocolate by the Mayans and Aztecs dates to the dawn of time. The drink they made from the beans of the cacao tree, called xocoatl, was the queen of nutrients, medications, aphrodisiacs and social lubricants. Hernán Cortés, the sixteenth-century Spaniard wrote, “One cup of this precious drink permits one to walk a whole day without taking nourishment.” Its introduction to Europe by the Spanish invaders in 1528 began the worldwide spread of cho-co-LAH-tay. By 1615 it was served at a royal wedding in France. By 1662 it was reported in England as chocolata (Stubbs), and in 1669 as jocolatte (Depys). By 1700 it had become an almost universal common denominator.

Ethically, chocolate is meant to be shared. Its essential purpose is the creation of community, of joint experiences of joy, of celebrating the goodness of creation. Chocolate is a primary means of strengthening the human will. Willpower is the ability to break a piece of chocolate into four pieces with your bare hands and then eat only one of them.

Relationally, chocolate has been widely touted as a substitute for love. Phenyl-ethlamine (its magical stimulant) is identical to the substance manufactured in the brain during infatuation, so the sweet stuff is nothing more than a counterfeit affection. Is chocolate only a self-medication for loneliness, or does the true chocolate lover sometimes substitute love and affection for the real joy of chocolate?

The central issues we face in confronting this essential substance of the life force, this elixir of existence, are, How shall we maintain the courage of our confections? How shall we live a life worthy of the glory of this good gift of God? and How shall we confront those who see chocolate as a symbol of wickedness and guilt? (I refer to all those desserts named “Chocolate Decadence” and “Chocolate Sin” and to those references to “devil’s food” that defame this means of healthful living, this virtuous vital force that can carry us through the light and dark, the bitter and the sweet of life.)

» See also: Addiction

» See also: Coffee Drinking

» See also: Eating

» See also: Sugar/Sugary

—David Augsburger

Chores

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Chores are responsibilities, generally of a manual and regular nature, that are basic to our everyday operating. The first biblical reference to such activities occurs in God’s injunction to “work . . . and take care of” the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:15). The word most commonly brings to mind household duties such as washing, cleaning, tidying, ironing and putting out the trash, as well as a wider set of tasks such as lawn mowing, shopping, running errands and, in rural areas, work around the farm. Sometimes we use the word in other settings, for example, the workplace or voluntary service, sports or cultural events, generally referring to unglamorous and repetitive activities.

Chores as Burden and Education

Often we feel that chores are a burden we could do without, an intrusion into other more important responsibilities. Few people actually like to do chores, though some find them easier than others and occasionally a person approaches them obsessively. Where do chores fit into the divine scheme of things, including our ministry? What should be our attitude toward them, and how should we undertake them? Should they be mainly assigned to certain people while those who have more important functions to perform are exempted?

According to common wisdom, at least until recently, household chores were also undertaken by children so that they could learn responsibility and contribute to the full life of the family. Increasingly, when people can afford it, someone is hired—often a person from a minority group and frequently a woman—to look after these. Chores in the workplace are mainly undertaken by juniors so that senior employees or employers themselves are set free for more significant tasks. In mixed company on the job, women are still often expected to make coffee or convey messages.

Generally Christians with important responsibilities view chores as mundane and as peripheral. That is, chores should be gotten out of the way as quickly as possible, or left in the hands of someone else, to fulfill the work of ministry. In this case, chores are done when there is nothing more significant on the agenda or when it is imperative they be completed. They should be left as long as possible and done as quickly as possible. In other words, chores are an unfortunate, or at best second-order, necessity. Rather than being part of the Way, they only get in the way. From a biblical and theological perspective, there is much to question in this view.

Chores as a Privilege and Service

We should view our chores as opportunities to cooperate with God in the divine work of caring for the world. God is active in providentially sustaining, preserving, ordering and otherwise blessing human life. Chores are part of the way we join hands with God in this divine enterprise and are instruments through which the world is maintained and benefited. Because of their repetitious, mundane and sometimes demanding character, chores are undoubtedly a labor and are not always particularly enjoyable. But they are also vehicles for the maintenance of life and the service of others.

Just as weeding is necessary for growing flowers or vegetables, cleaning house is essential for maintaining a healthy environment and exercising hospitality, and washing clothes is required for dressing presentably and interacting with others, so chores in general are integral to a range of central functions in life. They are not just a preliminary to these but an essential part of them. If the chores are not attended to, we cannot undertake these other activities. Chores are more than a prelude to engaging in ministry, they are an aspect of ministry itself.

Chores are often a more acceptable service to God than other tasks that appear more spiritual and onerous. According to Martin Luther, “it looks like a small thing when a maid cooks and cleans and does other housework. But because God’s command is there, even such a small work must be praised as a service of God far surpassing the holiness and asceticism of all monks and nuns.” According to William Tyndale this is even true of the most important tasks connected with the work of the kingdom: “If thou compare deed and deed, there is a difference betwixt washing of dishes and preaching of the Word of God: but as touching to please God, none at all.”

Chores are also a vital service to one’s fellow Christians, to the wider society and to the environment. Our household chores are a tangible way in which we show our care for others in the family. They are concrete expressions of our love for them and of our commitment to a common life. In this area, as the saying goes, “little things mean a lot.” They are far more the touchstone of our devotion and concern than the larger, often easier, expressions of love and commitment that we make in conjunction with anniversaries and birthdays.

As we offer our chores to God, view them as part of our service of Christ and undertake them in the Spirit, they become a school or spiritual discipline through which we are further shaped into the image of Christ. In other words, they are one of the key ways in which spiritual formation takes place. We do well to remember that Jesus was one who waited upon his disciples as a servant, so modeling to them the way they should be willing to perform even menial services for one another (John 13:1-17). As we do our chores, from time to time God will speak through them to us, so turning them into a parable of some aspect of the priorities, values and dynamics of the kingdom. This was why Jesus was able to illustrate his teaching with such menial and routine tasks as sweeping the floor, putting lamps on a stand or getting up in the middle of the night to deal with a caller in order to illuminate God’s ways of operating in the world.

Toward a Spirituality of Chores

I have already drawn attention to the way in which the Reformers perceived the connection between chores and the ongoing work of God. Their approach, as well as that of the early Puritans who succeeded them, has much to offer here, especially in view of more compartmentalized evangelical approaches to ministry and spirituality. In the writings of such people, we are reminded that God spends a good deal of time doing the spiritual equivalent of weeding, cleaning, washing, preparing, in our own lives and in the church so that the divine purposes may bloom and bear fruit in the world.

The Celtic tradition of spirituality likewise has much to offer. Consider the attitude to the routine but essential household chore of stirring to life the fire banked down the night before. Through the crooning of a simple prayer and the familiar gestures that accompany it, this everyday action is transfigured into a deeper significance.

I will kindle my fire this morning

In the presence of the holy angels of heaven.

God, kindle thou in my heart within

A flame of love to my neighbor,

To my foe, my friend, to my kindred all . . .

From the lowliest thing that liveth

To the name that is highest of all.

In this way a simple chore becomes a sacramental activity, a parable of all activities and relationships through the day. The extraordinary breaks through into the ordinary; the mundane is suffused with heaven.

» See also: Allowances

» See also: Boredom

» See also: Gardening

» See also: Values

» See also: Washing

References and Resources

D. Adam, The Edge of Glory: Modern Prayers in the Celtic Tradition (London: Triangle/SPCK, 1985); E. Dreyer, Earth Crammed with Heaven: A Spirituality of Everyday Life (New York: Paulist, 1994); C. Forbes, Catching Sight of God: The Wonder of Everyday (Portland, Ore.: Multnomah, 1987); Brother Lawrence, The Practice of the Presence of God (Albion Park, Penn.: Hadidian, 1989); K. A. Rabuzzi, The Sacred and the Feminine: Toward a Theology of Housework (New York: Seabury, 1982).

—Robert Banks

Christian Education

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

The average churchgoer views the terms Christian education and Sunday school as being synonymous. Such is not the case. Christian education is a learning function of the church, which is tied with worship and mission in a climate of fellowship. These functions are interrelated and supportive of one another. As I learn more about my faith, I am motivated to worship my God more fully. As I worship, I am in turn motivated to learn more about my Christian faith. Likewise, as I learn about my faith, my desire to share that faith with others in witness and service increases. And as I share my faith and serve others, my desire increases to learn more. Learning, worshiping and mission overlap in a fluid manner. The balance of growth between these functions is what discipleship is all about. Sunday school, on the other hand, is a tool or program that helps the church accomplish the goal of Christian education—which is to educate for growth (Col. 1:9-11). To better understand this essential function of the church, we must explore several characteristic themes.

A Lifelong Process

Too often the association of Christian education with the Sunday school has linked our impression of it in our minds with the school model. As a result, we think of our education in the church coming to a conclusion in much the same manner as a student finishes a course or program. In addition, we tend to view the educational ministry in the church as a ministry for children. But education and spiritual growth for the Christian take place throughout one’s whole life. While lifelong learning has enjoyed rising popularity in continuing education programs at community colleges, it remains a new idea in many churches.

More than a Classroom Process

Along with the false idea that education in the church is tied to a school model, there is the view that educational ministry is primarily a classroom experience. In the book of Deuteronomy (Deut. 6:4-9), we see that parents were encouraged to teach their children the truths of God in the midst of everyday situations. Likewise, much of Jesus’ teaching used everyday occurrences as a springboard to an important truth. Our classroom mentality can greatly limit the learning process. Little behavioral change in Christians takes place through the use of classroom lectures or discussions. In contrast, the discussion of a biblical truth in real-life situations seems to have a more lasting impact on the learner. Foundational beliefs of our faith can be easily shared within the walls of the church, but real application and growth usually take place in the home and workplace. The Christian educators’ task is to breach this created gap.

Several years ago a teacher of twelve- and thirteen-year-olds in our church took these young people on “walk-talks” on Sunday mornings. The group would walk several blocks to different locations near the church where the teacher would begin asking questions related to the walk. For example, a visit to the local courthouse prompted questions about how a person decides what is right and wrong and, in turn, how God decides what is right and wrong. Another walk to the nearby hospital led to a discussion about sickness and why God allows suffering. Another walk down a busy street prompted a discussion about why people do and do not attend church. Christian education is much more than classes and programs; maturing in Christ is a dynamic process.

Interaction with Truth

A primary purpose of the educational function of the church is to teach the truth of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17), communicating this knowledge to others so they can teach others (2 Tim. 2:2). While the methodology of this process may vary, the focus of this endeavor, as seen in Paul’s encouragement to Timothy, is to pass along a true understanding of God. This giving of information includes not only the facts and principles of Scripture but other related insights that enable Christians to better live their faith in their society, insights that do not contradict the truth of Scripture.

Information transmission, however, should not be an end in itself. It may only be the initial stage in a process of growth. The learner must interact with truth. Alongside information for the learner, formation of the learner must take place. This, in turn, leads to a transformation through the learner of what they are involved in. When Moses was at the burning bush, he did not just listen to God, but he interacted with what God was telling him. Through his questioning of and discussion with God, Moses began to assimilate God’s truth into his own life. He was then able to begin fulfilling the lifework God had for him. Oftentimes in the church we are content with merely passing along truth, never knowing whether the learner has grasped the truth for his or her own life. Wise leaders, teachers and parents allow those we teach to wrestle with the truth we share in order to promote living that truth.

Interaction with Others

God designed the church to be a community (Acts 2:42-47). The strength of a community rests on its members’ ability to learn from one another through modeling, encouragement and rebuke. Healthy settings for interaction, such as classes, small groups, committees, work groups, mentoring relationships and friendships, can be a tremendous asset to enabling believers to share and learn from one another. What one is learning often needs to be refined through the input of others. This refining can come through both encouragement and loving rebuke. Encouragement can enable one to apply what is known to be true. Loving rebuke can keep one from distorting scriptural truth.

In the church we often fail to provide this important dimension of learning, as when we rely too heavily on the lecture approach, even with some added small-group discussion. When people hear a new truth, they often lack the experiences to help them turn knowledge into wisdom of life. In-depth interaction is essential for this. The ultimate interaction takes place when modeling truth is included in interaction. Paul reminds the Thessalonians of this involvement when he writes, “We loved you so much that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well, because you had become so dear to us” (1 Thes. 2:8). Effective Christian education in the church must go beyond providing programs to providing a climate for nurturing relationships to be formed and encouraged.

The Learning Climate of the Church

Research by the Search Institute of over five hundred congregations has indicated that a primary factor in the spiritual maturity of Christians is their involvement in the Christian education ministry of their church. Though the technical aspects of this study are debatable, the general findings demonstrate the importance of the educational function of the church. Continuous spiritual growth can be stimulated if leaders in the church promote a positive educational climate empowering learners, whether children or adults, to use their gifts for the benefit of the community. In this way learners grow in teachableness. This growth will be seen in ongoing worship, mission and fellowship of the church.

An openness to learning leads us beyond the six to eight traditional Christian education programs in the church. It, instead, leads the church to endless dynamic possibilities for accomplishing the education of Christians. The church itself becomes a learning fellowship. The whole life of the church becomes the curriculum through which all members grow into full Christian understanding and maturity. So while the shape of the educational ministries may need to change constantly in order to be effective in a changing society, the educational function of transforming Christians into believers who know what they believe and who are growing up in Christ (Ephes. 4:14-16) is essential for every nurturing and growing church.

» See also: Conversation

» See also: Discipleship

» See also: Education

» See also: Spiritual Growth

» See also: Spiritual Formation

» See also: Sunday School

» See also: Teaching

Resources and References

E. A. Daniel, Introduction to Christian Education (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1987); M. Harris, Fashion Me a People (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1989); P. J. Palmer, To Know As We Are Known: A Spirituality of Education (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982); E. C. Roehlkepartain, The Teaching Church: Moving Christian Education to Center Stage (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993); D. S. Schuller, ed., Rethinking Christian Education: Explorations in Theory and Practice (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1993); J. Wilhoit, Christian Education and the Search for Meaning (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991).

—James Postlewaite

Church

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

We use the word church in a number of different ways. The word can refer to a building, the members of a congregation, worship services, a denomination, the church as an institution and the worldwide body of believers. It has also been used as a name by a rock group and by a chain of fast-food stores. In some parts of the world non-Christian religious groups call themselves churches in order to take advantage of tax breaks.

Even when we focus on the ways in which church members most often use the word—church as the full range of activities in a congregation—questions arise. Those activities vary greatly in character. They may include the congregation’s corporate worship, committees, small groups, programs, organizations, events and action groups. How can the one word encompass all these activities and their different constituencies?

What is its basic meaning? How did it come to have so many uses? What is the primary purpose of church? How can this be given the most effective contemporary expression? These are the main questions I will consider below. Other important issues are dealt with in related entries (see Authority, Church; Mission).

The Developing Meanings of Church over Time

The word church comes from the Greek word ekklēsia, from which we derive our word ecclesiastical. It was a common word in first-century Greek and meant simply “meeting” or “assembly.” It was used widely of all kinds of formal and informal gatherings, such as the regular meeting of citizens to discuss the affairs of a city, the gathering of an army or the spontaneous assembling of a crowd. The Hebrew word qahal was used in similar ways. We find several examples of this ordinary meaning of the word in the New Testament (Acts 19:39, 41).

The word ekklēsia, then, was not a religious term. It only gained this meaning by the attachment of other words to it, such as “of God” (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1) and “in God the Father” and “in the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thes. 1:1; 2 Thes. 1:1). In early Christian usage it referred basically to the regular gathering of God’s people in a particular place. Luther and other early translators understood this perfectly well when they rendered it “congregation,” that is, “those who come together.” It refers to the weekly coming together of believers—or to the people of God as regularly reconstituted through their meetings—rather than just the members of a church in a more abstract sense, including those who do not, or hardly ever, gather.

The word ekklēsia refers to both the smaller gatherings of believers, “the church that meets at their house” (Romans 16:5; see Church in the Home), and the larger gatherings of several such groups, “the whole church” (Romans 16:23). When the believers in several places are in view, the word is consistently used in the plural (Galatians 1:2, 22), again indicating that it is a local affair involving actual gatherings, not a generic term for believers everywhere.

Because of its basic meaning, ekklēsia is never used in the New Testament to refer to the worldwide church, though in some of the later writings it does refer to the heavenly church in which all believers also share. Just as the local church can exist at two levels, the church in the house and the larger congregation, so do congregations exist in two dimensions, on earth and in heaven. Each local church is a manifestation in time and place of the heavenly church to which all believers presently belong (Ephes. 1:22; Ephes. 3:10; Ephes. 5:22-30; Col. 1:18, 24). This is because we are raised with Christ and seated with him in the heavenly places (Ephes. 2:6; Col. 3:1) as a result of his death and resurrection. Here again the sense of “gathering” is present.

As disputes arose in subsequent centuries about who were the most orthodox believers, some began to draw distinctions between those who were the true church and those who were not. This gradually led to the word being used of the people of God more generally rather than of those who regularly gathered and interacted with one another in particular places. As the idea of the catholic church emerged, a worldwide fellowship of true believers distinguished from other believers who did not have the full truth, the word church began to gain a universal sense.

When, in the fourth century, Christians gathered for worship began to move out of homes into special buildings constructed on the pattern of pagan basilicas or temples, the word began to refer to the buildings themselves. This association of the word church with a building placed the emphasis on where people met rather than on the quality of their fellowship with God and one another. As the church grew in political power, it became defined institutionally over against the state and so became representative of the sacred over against the secular arena. It is only in more recent times, with the development of the program-oriented church, that the word has been applied to the whole range of activities in which a congregation is engaged.

The Basic Marks of the Church

Down through the centuries various theologians have sought to determine what distinguishes a church from other forms of gathering. The medieval Catholic church emphasized two elements in particular. First was the celebration of the sacraments, among which were included marriage, ordination and the last rites as well as baptism and Communion. Second was the transmission of authority by the Spirit from the original apostles, especially Peter, through an unbroken line of bishops associated with the church at Rome. The medieval Catholic Church placed special importance on the ceremonial and hierarchical character of the church and viewed church tradition as playing a determining role.

During the Protestant Reformation this view of the church was challenged in part. The Reformers placed chief emphasis on preaching the Word of God, followed by celebration of the sacraments, which were reduced to those instituted by Jesus: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. While the Reformers exercised due care in the choosing of ministers to preside over these, they redefined the idea of apostolic succession as a preserving of biblical teaching in the church through a line of people raised up by the Spirit. The Protestant Reformation placed special importance on the homiletical and sacramental nature of church and gave Scripture more weight than tradition.

The so-called Anabaptist movement, or left wing of the Reformation, wanted to go further. To preaching of the Word and celebration of the sacraments, the Anabaptists added a third mark of the church. Since the church was a society of people in relationship, its members were responsible to both disciple and discipline one another more deeply into Christ. While excommunication had often been practiced in the ancient church, it had mostly functioned as a marker of who was in and out of reach of the church’s saving sacramental grace. The Anabaptists placed more emphasis on the responsibility of members to be accountable to one another for the quality of their Christian life. This view of the church stresses its voluntary and relational character and sets Scripture more fully against tradition.

The Pentecostal, and subsequent charismatic, movement has in effect added a further mark of the church, namely, exercising the gifts of the Spirit. The early Anabaptists had begun to move in this direction by opening up the preaching of the Word to a wider range of people in church than just the minister. But Pentecostals sought to reclaim the full range of spiritual gifts, including those, like healing and miracles, that are primarily nonverbal. In this view of the church, while preaching generally remains important, celebrating Communion tends to become secondary, and the presence of the Spirit is more central overall than the exposition of Scripture.

From a biblical point of view, there is something to be learned from each of these views. It is hard to deny a place among the marks of the church to sharing the Word of God or to the gifts of the Spirit, but it would be better to see these as all stemming from the same source, so that prophetic speaking and teaching by any member qualified in the Spirit are also regarded as charismatic gifts. It is also impossible to deny the role of love as involving both mutual discipling and mutual discipline, and perhaps we would do best to view the sacrament of Communion as the highest expression of this rather than as a different mark of the church. Consider the following as a concise, yet also complete, definition of the marks of the church: the church is truly present wherever the people of God associate to share and live by the gifts and the fruit of the Spirit, both of these being centered on the Word of God and expressed in the sacrament of Christ’s death and resurrection.

Community as the Basic Purpose of Church

As outlined above, the word church acquired the range of meanings associated with it today. Does it really matter? Words are always changing their meanings, and surely we should feel free to employ them. While this is true, problems arise if the theological content attached to a particular use of the word is inappropriately transferred to the derived meaning or if that content is diminished because the original sense of the term is diffused.

For example, according to the New Testament, relationships between members of the church are to be governed by love (Romans 13:8-10; 1 Cor. 13:4-8; Ephes. 5:1-2; Col. 3:14). This word has a profound and concrete meaning when it refers to a group of people in close relationship who are regularly meeting together. That was the case in the early Christian communities, both at the smaller and larger level, for even the whole church was able to gather in a house. But when the word church is used of a building, of a huge number of people most of whom are unknown to one another or to the universal church scattered throughout the world, the meaning of love changes and weakens. This is compounded if the meaning of the word is determined by modern rather than biblical usage, stressing the role of emotions more than actions and mutual attraction rather than sacrificial service.

The same is true of other injunctions in the New Testament, such as “be kind and compassionate, . . . forgiving,” “be devoted to one another . . . honor one another,” “bear with each other” as well as “pray for each other” and “carry each other’s burdens” (Ephes. 4:32; Romans 12:10; Col. 3:13; James 5:16; Galatians 6:1), and of other dimensions of Spirit fruit, such as patience, gentleness, goodness and faithfulness (Galatians 5:22-23). According to the New Testament, the smaller and larger gatherings of Christians should embody, or incarnate, mutual Christlike and Spirit-transformed behavior.

We come to the same conclusions when we consider the link between instruction, or other gifts of the Spirit, and the church. It is clear from the New Testament that what happened in smaller ecclesial meetings involved a high degree of participation on the part of everyone present. In passages that have house churches in view, believers are encouraged to share the gifts of the Spirit with one another (Romans 12:6-8) and to “teach and admonish one another” (Col. 3:16). The limited size of such gatherings presented an opportunity for all believers to take part with their particular gift.

Participation by all believers was basically true of the larger church gathering also. Paul notes that when the whole church came together in Corinth “everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation” (1 Cor. 14:26). Though some members played a more prominent part in the meetings than others (1 Cor. 14:27-33), especially apostles or their associates when they were in the vicinity (2 Tim. 4:2), once again the relative size and—on occasions at least—leisurely length of the meetings (Acts 20:6-12) provided the opportunity for a large measure of mutual ministry to take place.

At the center of both gatherings for church was a common meal (Acts 2:46; 1 Cor. 11:20-34). As a full meal, not just a token, this was a highly social and joyous occasion, centered on the ongoing significance of Jesus’ sacrificial death and future return (1 Cor. 11:23-34). Perhaps the basic criterion determining whether a smaller unit in the congregation is a house church or just a small group, and the largest size of a congregation before it divides into two, is whether the members can eat and drink the Lord’s Supper regularly together.

All this suggests that the primary purpose of church is genuine community with God, one another and others who come in range, in which everyone has the opportunity to participate toward building up its common life, both in the church in the house and in the whole congregation. Understood this way, church is community, community in progress, interactive community that is building community among its people and extending community to others.

Church understood as “community” includes worship but is not exhausted by it, for worship is something that believers should be engaged in wherever they are and whatever they are doing during the whole of their lives (Romans 12:1-2). It involves mission to those who drift into the church (1 Cor. 14:24-25) and also generates, supports and monitors mission to those who remain outside (Acts 13:1-3; Acts 14:27-28; Phil. 4:18), but most of this is the largely independent work of some of its members or the overflow of members’ lives into their daily activities in the home, workplace or wider community, rather than something that takes place on church property or is organized by the church itself.

We would do best to reserve the word church for gatherings of the community to fellowship with God and one another and to use other terms for the additional meanings the word has acquired. For example, meetinghouse and church building are better terms for the place where Christians gather; denomination or network of churches, for wider groupings of congregations; worldwide people of God or community, for the so-called universal church; and religious and civic or political institutions, for what we refer to as church and state. Events, programs or action groups stemming from the congregation to reach out to the wider community have more to do with mission than with church and should be described accordingly. They join with a whole range of activities engaged in by Christians individually or with members of other congregations in their neighborhoods, workplaces or voluntary organizations and other interdenominational or ecumenical endeavors that have a similar intent.

Reshaping the Structures of Church

A more discriminating use of language would help prevent inadequate or even false notions of what the church should be doing and would encourage the church to focus on what is most essential. The prime aim of the church, as many are now beginning to say, is to actually be the church—that is, to become a counterculture kingdom community in the midst of a world that mostly has a set of different priorities and operates mostly by different values. The church should be a window through which anyone coming into contact with it can visualize, in advance of its full coming, the quality of life that characterizes the kingdom. They should be able to see something of the motivation of the kingdom revolving around giving and receiving in life, the relationships of the kingdom (people of different sexes, classes and races operating without regard to gender, class or racial differences), the economics of the kingdom (mutual sharing of goods) and the politics of the kingdom (decision-making to reach a common mind).

At the very least this view of the church emphasizes the necessity of small familylike groups in larger churches where people do not all know one another, so that the biblical injunctions can be lived out by subunits of the congregation. But the view also raises questions about the optimum size of a congregation. Once this grows larger than eighty or a hundred people, including children, it becomes impossible to put into practice these injunctions as a whole body of God’s people, especially if general gatherings are relatively formal and short and subgroups are highly compartmentalized by age, gender and interest. In contrast, once a home church gets too large, it multiplies into two groups, thus increasing the presence of groups of Christians in parts of the neighborhood or suburb where they can be in closer contact with the particular needs of the people around them.

Interestingly, most churches down through history have tended to be no larger, and often smaller, than this. Indeed, even in as churchgoing and size-oriented a country as the United States, the average-sized congregation is still around seventy-five adults plus children. Elsewhere it is often less. While this is generally regarded as a liability, if the purpose of church is properly understood, then a smaller size might be a genuine advantage (see Church, Small). It is worth taking note that adult Sunday-school classes in larger churches, if children were added to them, are often around a similar size.

The basic character of church also suggests that meetings of the congregation should be no larger than what enables everyone to have some knowledge of other members, including the children, so that there is a tangible experience of the wider community. Such a size also enables those whose gifts transcend the smaller home-church groups to have an opportunity to exercise them. Once the meeting of the congregation gets too big, there is room up front for only a few people to engage in ministry of this kind. An appropriately sized congregation also opens up the possibility of each of the home-church groups to contribute in some way, something that becomes impossible once numbers get too large. The advantage of dividing a congregation into two once it reaches a certain size is that it plants a church in another part of the town or city and so strengthens the presence of the church in particular districts or neighborhoods.

Alongside the regular, though not necessarily weekly, gathering of the whole congregation for fellowship with God and one another, other wider groupings of Christians belonging to it will take place. These need not be numerous but should certainly include a pastoral meeting for the core people in the home-church groups and congregational leaders, occasional meetings for prayer as particular needs arise and require attention, and perhaps other meetings for specific groups in the congregation (again not necessarily weekly) who would benefit from coming together across home-church boundaries.

Where a congregation has multiplied or decentralized into two or three congregations, there is still value in retaining a common link, periodically meeting together and undertaking certain things in common. But such a link becomes more like a minidenominational rather than congregational one. For example, its prime purpose should be to provide services and resources to the congregations and home churches. Meetings, which could be held in a rented space or sometimes in the open, would be held less often, monthly or quarterly or during the main festivals of the church year, and would have the character of celebrations and times for seminal instruction rather than developing community through the exercise of the gifts and fruit of the Spirit. Such centers need not be people- or capital-intensive, but they could provide training and education for members of the congregations and home churches which they are unable to supply themselves. This would take the pressure off such congregations from trying to provide the full range of services and ministries that they see present in larger churches but do not have the capacity to develop.

Further, a recognition of the difference between church and mission, along the lines suggested, would reduce the temptation for ecclesiastical structures to enter into time-consuming and cost-consuming territory that can best be occupied in other ways. For example, saying that “the church” should have a presence in business or in politics, or among the poor and marginalized, implies that this will be mainly carried out through the congregation or denomination. But by virtue of their daily occupations and voluntary work, Christians are already present in industry and politics and working among the poor and marginalized. While now and again it may be appropriate for a congregation or denomination to make a distinctive contribution in these or other areas, their main responsibility is to provide resources for these people and to encourage them to cooperate across congregational and denominational boundary lines so that resources are not fragmented but used most effectively.

What we have, then, whether we look at the Bible or at the challenges facing Christians today, is the possibility of reshaping the church in a way that frees it to fulfill its basic goal of becoming a kingdom community at both home-church and congregational level, as well as through ancillary meetings of equipping and commissioning all its people to extend the lines of the kingdom out into every aspect of society. The church is not merely an instrument to this end; it is an end in itself. But it is not an end for itself: it is an end for another end, the transforming of the lives, structures and culture of the surrounding world. Strangely, if the church focuses too much on mission, it runs the danger of losing community and all that centrally powers the mission. On the other hand, the more the church focuses on becoming a kingdom community, the more it tends to generate mission as its members’ lives overflow into the world. This is the paradox or mystery of the church, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

» See also: Church in the Home

» See also: Church, Small

» See also: Community

» See also: Denomination

» See also: Fellowship

» See also: Nondenominational

» See also: Small Groups

References and Resources

R. Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their Cultural Setting (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994); R. Banks and J. Banks, The Church Comes Home: Redesigning the Congregation for Community and Mission (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996); E. Brunner, The Misunderstanding of the Church (London: Lutterworth, 1952); V. Eller, The Outward Bound: Caravaning as the Style of the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980); C. N. Kraus, The Community of the Spirit: How the Church Is in the World (Scottdale, Penn.: Herald, 1993); H. Küng, The Church (London: Search, 1968); L. Mead, The Once and Future Church: Re-inventing the Congregation for a New Mission Frontier (Washington, D.C.: Alban Institute, 1991); J. Moltmann, The Open Church: Invitation to a Messianic Lifestyle (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978); C. Smith, Going to the Root: Nine Proposals for Church Reform (Scottdale, Penn.: Herald, 1992); E. Trueblood, The Company of the Committed: A Manual of Action for Every Christian (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1961).

—Robert Banks

Church as Family

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

The meaning and value of family may seem like one of the most obvious things in the world. After all, most of us are born into a family, grow up under the care and tutelage of parents and spend our lives answering (happily or unhappily) to an array of grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles and other kin. In so many ways, family is the ground we stand on. Small wonder we want to call it “natural” and believe it to be as final and unchanging as the law of gravity.

But in fact the meaning and value of family have shifted constantly from time to time and from place to place. It is well known, for instance, that the ancient Greeks considered homosexual practice natural, presenting little or no problem for their families. In some places and times, polygamy has been considered as (or more) natural than monogamy. Customs of inheritance, the gender roles of spouses, conditions for marriage and child rearing practices are just some of the aspects of family life that vary from culture to culture.

Contemporary Christians are perhaps more aware of the varieties of family than their ancestors. The late twentieth century is widely acknowledged as a time of rapid and epochal change, as a period of extraordinary diversity and widespread conflict. So Western Christians dwell in societies in which the very definition of family is debated. Do we best understand family as a man, a woman and their biological (or adopted) offspring? Or is a society better off if we widen the definition of family to include two men or two women living together, with or without children? Is lifelong fidelity, heterosexual or homosexual, at all realistic or even ideal? However marriage is defined, why do married people have children? In a world of burdened resources, should they have children?

All this may be unsettling and even frightening. But in some ways it is a beneficial development. It is only after we have admitted that the family takes many shapes and forms that we can ask what a Christian shape and form is and dream about how to better embody it here and now.

Church as First Family

Modern Christians have often assumed the Bible offers a detailed, once-for-all blueprint and definition of family. But the God of the Bible is not a philosophical construct, not an impersonal force to be dissected and manipulated. The God of the Bible is the living, dynamic source and sustainer of all that is, who deigns to enter history and relationship with the people Israel and the man Jesus.

So the Bible itself is not a list of abstract, timeless formulas providing technical guidance on such things as family life. Instead, the Bible is centrally and first of all the story of Israel and Jesus. To create and live in truly Christian family, then, the church in every generation and culture must read the biblical story anew. It must attend closely to the poetry and prison letters (and other genres) to see how the pioneers of the faith responded to the story in light of the particular challenges and privileges of their cultures. Then, without assuming it can simply mimic the pioneers (declaring, for instance, that all good Christians must wear sandals like Peter or that women will cover their heads in worship like the early Christians at Corinth), the church must respond to the story of Israel and Jesus in the light of the particular challenges and privileges of its day.

Turning to the Bible for clarity of vision rather than technical guidance, we are quickly reminded that Jesus called his followers to live in the light of the arrival of God’s kingdom: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news” (Mark 1:15 NRSV). The coming of God’s kingdom was in many ways shocking. Not least was it shocking because in its train came a revolutionary understanding and practice of family.

Jesus creates a new family. It is the new first family, a family of his followers that now demands primary allegiance even over the old first family, the biological family. Those who do the will of the Father (who, in other words, live under the reign of God) are now brothers and sisters of Jesus and one another (Mark 3:31-35). Jesus can speak even more challengingly: he forthrightly declares that the advent of the kingdom means brother will turn against brother, children against parents and parents against children (Matthew 10:21-22). So far as biological family is concerned, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34 NRSV). Those who love father or mother more than Jesus, this Jesus says, are not worthy of him (Matthew 10:37).

The consequences for the early church were real, visible and disturbing. A Roman family might, for instance, worship a number of popular gods—especially those in favor with the ruling elite at the time. It could be financially and politically costly to worship a single, imperious god, such as the God of Israel and Jesus. So if a Roman son became a Christian, the entire family fortune and heritage were endangered. The resulting conflicts were severe. Families were actually divided.

At the same time, it is important to notice that Jesus did not destroy the biological family. He did create a new first family and call for allegiance to the kingdom to precede the biological family. Yet he also spoke strenuously against divorce (Matthew 19:3-12) and welcomed and blessed children (Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17). So Jesus did not expect the biological family to be denied or eliminated. What he did was decenter and relativize it. He did not see it as the vehicle of salvation. He expected the first family, the family of the kingdom, to grow evangelistically rather than biologically (Matthew 28:19-20). Entrance to the kingdom in fact required a second birth, this time of water and the Spirit (John 3:5-6). For those who would follow Jesus, the critical blood, the blood that most significantly determines their identity and character, is not the blood of the biological family. It is the blood of the Lamb.

The sense of church as the first family is also clear in the letters of Paul. His most significant language for describing the church is the language of family. For Paul, Christians are children of God and brothers and sisters to one another (see, for instance, 1 Thes. 1:4, 6). The phrase “my brothers” occurs more than sixty-five times in his letters. Paul can also call members of a church “my children” (as in 1 Cor. 4:14; Galatians 4:19). Both the number and the intensity of these familial phrases make Paul’s letters remarkable in their time and place.

Such greetings were not merely pious niceties. The church Paul knew met in households. Paul expected and depended on Christians’ opening their homes (and thus their biological families) to Christian brothers and sisters (Romans 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:15; Col. 4:15; Philemon 2). Such hospitality extended to a wide network of Christians, including missionaries and those on business trips (2 Cor. 8:23). By so opening their homes, these Christians in effect recognized and welcomed “relatives” near and distant.

On a more basic level, Paul crucially links familial language with baptism. The Gospel of John, as we have noted, recognizes a need for the disciples of Jesus to be born again, to know a second birth that redefines identity and admits the disciple to a family-community that will nurture the new identity. Paul has similar concerns but addresses them with the language of adoption rather than birth (Romans 8:15-17; Galatians 3:26-4:6). He reminds believers that they have a new identity because they have been baptized into Christ. When children are adopted, they take on new parents, new sisters and brothers, new names, new inheritances. And those who have been baptized into Christ, according to Paul, have been adopted by God. This new baptism means that Christians’ new parent is God the Father (“Abba,” cries Paul). Their new siblings are other Christians. Their new name or most fundamental identity is simply “Christian”—one of those who know Jesus as Lord and determiner of their existence. And their new inheritance is freedom, community and resources provided a hundredfold (Mark 10:28-31; Galatians 3:26-4:6).

New Testament scholar N. T. Wright affirms in dramatic terms the centrality of what is here called first family. Noting that “from baptism onwards, one’s basic family consisted of one’s fellow-Christians,” he writes:

The fact of widespread persecution, regarded by both pagans and Christians as the normal state of affairs within a century of the beginnings of Christianity, is powerful evidence of the sort of thing Christianity was, and was perceived to be. It was a new family, a third “race,” neither Jew nor Gentile but “in Christ.” (Wright, pp. 449-50)

Single in First Family

One of the immediate and down-to-earth effects of Jesus’ creation of a new family is that single, or unmarried, people are very much a part of family. Perhaps it is not too strong to say that there is at least one sure sign of a flawed vision of the Christian family: it denigrates and dishonors singleness.

It was in the light of the kingdom come that Paul could write, “He who marries his fiancée does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (1 Cor. 7:38 NRSV). How could singleness be better than marriage? Paul recognized that the age of the kingdom does not come painlessly. Jesus announced and embodied God’s kingdom; the church after him witnesses to this Lord and his kingdom. But this means all false gods and idols are challenged. The rule of the principalities and powers—the undue, overreaching claims of governments, markets, fashions, cultures, educational and other institutions—is revealed to be illegitimate and ultimately destructive. So the false gods are not friendly to Jesus and those who would worship only the God he called Father. And so we live in awkward times. A new age has arrived but is not here in its fullness; the old age drags on with more than a little effect and efficiency. Because the powers of the old age remain real and often malignant, Christians can survive only with hope—the hope of Jesus’ return and the complete manifestation of God’s loving, just rule. In these circumstances, Paul notices that the married person may sink more deeply into the affairs of the passing world, or the old age, than singles (1 Cor. 7:33). With spouse and children, the married person takes on additional responsibilities and anxieties. The single person can live and serve in less complicated “devotion to the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:35).

For our day, Paul’s awareness of the advantages of singleness can serve as a reminder that in Christian (or first) family singleness and marriage are complementary. And this complementarity has some quite practical effects. Christian parenting, for instance, is a task for the entire church. It is a responsibility (as baptismal ceremonies in many traditions imply) even for those who have never conceived or legally adopted a child. This is not to dispute the primacy of biological or adoptive parents. But in Jesus’ and Paul’s first family, Christian parents are agents of the church. And they are engaged in a task too big and important for them alone. Single Christians should not be exempt from either the joys or the responsibilities that children bring. Singles are significant role models. In a transient society where many children are separated from biological relatives by hundreds of miles, singles can serve invaluably as surrogate grandparents or aunts and uncles. (A service most important, of course, to the parent without a spouse.)

Serving the church’s mission, singles also have the advantage of mobility. On balance it is simpler for the single, should it seem right, to move to a new situation, to make do with less money or even to confront potentially dangerous circumstances. This is not something for married Christians to exploit: no Christian, married with children or not, is exempt from moving, giving up possessions or facing danger. Yet singles can affirm a unique missionary advantage and take it seriously.

Married in First Family

If singles have the missionary advantage of mobility, married Christians may possess the missionary advantage of hospitality. Christians are peculiar people with a long tradition of welcoming strangers. God called the Israelites to love and care for strangers, since they were strangers themselves in the land of Egypt (Leviticus 19:33-34; Deut. 10:17-19). Jesus welcomed strangers or outsiders of many sorts, even to the point of inviting them to table with him. So too the early church put hospitality at the center of its life. As we have noted, Christians generously opened their homes to fellow believers. Christians are called to be hospitable within both the first family of the church and the second, or biological, family, and Paul effusively praises families whose homes are the hub of the church in several cities (Romans 16:5, 23; 1 Cor. 16:15; Col. 4:15; Philemon 2).

Among the significant strangers Christian parents must welcome are their own children. Our children are strangers to us in many ways: they come to us as aliens and have to learn to live in our world; they ask awkward questions (“If Christians are supposed to love each other, how can they kill each other in wars?” “Why is God letting my little sister die of cancer?”) that remind us how strange we ourselves are. Christian parenthood, then, is practice in hospitality, in the welcoming and support of strangers. Welcoming the strangers who are our children, we learn a little about being out of control and about the possibility of surprise (and so of hope). Moment by mundane moment—dealing with rebellion, hosting birthday parties, struggling to understand exactly what a toddler has dreamed and been so frightened by in the night—we pick up skills in patience, empathy, generosity, forgiveness. And all these are transferable skills, skills we can and must use to welcome other strangers besides our children. We become better equipped to open ourselves to strangers who are not our children but our brothers and sisters in Christ. Thus the Christian home can be a mission base in many ways.

The Christian Home as Mission Base

The Christian home is a mission base when Christians live in intentional community, such as Chicago’s Jesus People U.S.A. or Washington’s Sojourners Fellowship. But the Christian home is also a mission base when Christians who happen to live in the same neighborhood enjoy meals together, share a lawn mower and tree-trimming tools or “exchange” kids for an occasional evening.

The Christian home is a mission base when members of a church move into the same apartment complex, sponsor Bible studies and organize supervision of the playground. It is a mission base when it opens its doors to missionaries on furlough, friends marooned between apartment leases, someone out of work or a family that has lost its home to a fire. It is a mission base providing us resources and encouragement from which to launch into new mission endeavors—whether across town or across the world.

The point is simple. In a world that offers less and less nominal support for Christian practices, in a world increasingly fragmented, hostile and lonely, there is no end to ways the Christian home can serve as a mission base. The limit, quite literally, is our imagination.

In sum, Christian family is first and finally the life of the church. It includes singles and marrieds, those with and those without biological or adoptive children—all called to exercise unique but complementary missionary advantages. Its purpose is to witness, through its shape and practice, to the kingdom of the God met in Israel and Jesus. Christian family is where we live not so much in a “private” haven from the world as in a mission base to the world. The Christian home is where we strain and labor and sometimes weep in service to the kingdom. But it is also where we learn to “do” mission as rest and play, where welcoming friends and reading novels and planting gardens and making babies are among our most noble moral endeavors. It is where we do our most strenuous and refreshing work—for what could be more strenuous and more refreshing than rearing children?

» See also: Church

» See also: Church in the Home

» See also: Fellowship

» See also: Godparenting

» See also: Hospitality

» See also: Love

» See also: Parenting

» See also: Singleness

» See also: Witness

References and Resources

R. S. Anderson and D. B. Guernsey, On Being Family: A Social Theology of the Family (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985); B. Berger and P. L. Berger, The War over the Family (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983); R. Clapp, Families at the Crossroads: Beyond Traditional and Modern Options (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993); D. E. Garland and D. R. Garland, “The Family: Biblical and Theological Perspectives,” in Incarnational Ministry: The Presence of Christ in Church, Society and Family, ed. C. D. Kettler and T. H. Speidell (Colorado Springs: Helmers & Howard, 1990) 226-40; S. Hauerwas, A Community of Character (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981) 155-95; W. H. Willimon, The Service of God (Nashville: Abingdon, 1983) 170-86; N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).

—Rodney Clapp

Church Buildings

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

The English word church is derived from the Greek adjective kyriakos implying a place of Christian worship. In the New Testament, however, church is translated for ekklēsia, which means “a local congregation” and not a building. In the earliest manifestations of ekklēsia there was no confusion, for there were no special buildings designated as places of Christian worship. In the first century early Christians met in the most immediately available structures, that is, their own homes. The earliest-known extant Christian sanctuary was a private house in Dura, Syria, dated in the early third century.

A case can be made for maintaining this arrangement today. Churches that do not own real estate are often able to invest their resources in ministry more effectively and extensively. The lack of permanent facilities also combats the debilitating illusions of comfort and permanence, which might otherwise be realized. Without a building the ekklēsia is composed of “living stones” rather than bricks and concrete. Currently there are many examples of congregations who function effectively without a building. These congregations without buildings are often innovative and well targeted to the ministries to which they feel called. The house church movements in many parts of the world are examples of this approach.

Origins of Church Buildings

As early churches grew and liturgy developed, the homes in which ekklēsiai met were adapted to suit the congregation’s use. By the fourth century buildings were being separately constructed for Christian worship, adapting the basilica form used in pagan worship. After the Reformation, meeting houses provided an alternative form. The model of auditoriums has provided an alternative in the twentieth century. Until the twentieth century, church structures have dominated the landscapes of Western civilization. In recent times the university, the hospital and the shopping mall have come to more accurately represent the priorities of our culture.

A majority of contemporary congregations are accommodated in buildings built for the purpose. These buildings have a powerful influence on the life of the local church. The building determines to a large extent the activities in which the congregation will engage, its perception of itself and the allocation of its resources. The lack of flexibility in many church designs actually prevents congregations from activities to which they feel called. It is important for the ekklēsia to examine its essential nature and its mission, as the building that accommodates it is a powerful influence capable of reinforcing or frustrating the expression and perception of the life of the congregation.

Meaning of Church Buildings

What our buildings say about the congregations they accommodate and the way they shape us needs careful examination. Many of the current trends in church design have a relatively recent history and are borrowed from secular building types that may be based on inappropriate assumptions about the nature of the activities they accommodate.

An impartial examination of the main gathering space of many church designs would indicate that the life of the ekklēsia is primarily one of individuals consuming live entertainment or educational services. Many are designed to facilitate the production of electronic entertainment as well. This assumption extends to the buildings of most Christian traditions, with the performance of the presider at the altar the focus of observation in sacramental churches and the preacher in the pulpit or worship team and overhead projector seen on the stage in others. The building form determines the nature of the activity within it and forms the expectations and self-image of those who attend. The fact that many structures will be used no more than a few hours per week implies that this type of building is exempt from the criteria of effective stewardship of financial and physical resources, which we would apply to most other enterprises.

The use of pews is a relatively recent custom in the history of the church. This type of permanent seating usually means that only one type of activity can take place in the room. The permanence of the arrangement ensures that the possibilities of variation even within the broad category of worship will be limited. Many congregations are finding new life in apparently obsolete church buildings by removing this type of seating in favor of individual, movable seats. There is a growing trend for new churches to be equipped with movable seating. In some cases this seating is arranged in a semiwraparound form rather than in serial rows, allowing more participation to take place and some interaction between the members.

In our culture communications are increasingly influenced by symbols. Church buildings are symbols that need to be used carefully. For many in the community, a church building is the primary source of information about the congregation within. It has been said that some ekklēsiai are private clubs run for the benefit of its members. The building can communicate this by insensitivity to its surroundings, lack of adequate parking, uninviting and difficult-to-find entrances and other features that indicate it is closed to nonmembers. It is alternatively possible to indicate to the local community the existence of a welcoming, open-ended, serving, hospitable worshiping community that is active and open for the business of the kingdom of God.

Spaces Within Church Buildings

Christians have been endowed with powerful and corporate actions such as baptism and Communion. The character of these symbols is often not exploited in our buildings. Many traditions are becoming aware of the power of Christian worship as practiced in the ancient church of the third and fourth centuries.

Baptism was usually carried out on Easter eve. The baptistery was often a pool in the entry courtyard of the house in which the congregation met. The candidate would go down into the water (identifying with Jesus in his death) from the street-entry side of the pool and rise out on the other side of the pool (a participant in Christ’s resurrection) to enter directly into the meeting room of the ekklēsia as a full member of the company of the redeemed. The association of the baptistery with the entry to the sanctuary has a number of symbolic possibilities.

Similarly the Lord’s Supper was seen as a community event in which the presider hosted the celebration with the congregation as active participants. The simple expedient of arranging seating so that worshipers can see one another’s faces can emphasize the nature of a congregation as a group related to one another because of their being guests at the same meal.

If the function of a local congregation requires the development of a building, it presents a great opportunity to understand and express the ekklēsia’s nature, function and values. The building will help them remind themselves and communicate it to others.

» See also: Church

» See also: Church in the Home

» See also: Church Structures

» See also: Fellowship

» See also: Mission

References and Resources

R. Bowman, When Not to Build (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992); M. Mauck, Shaping a House for the Church (Chicago, Ill.: Liturgy Training Publications, 1990); R. Messner, Building for the Master (Wichita: RAM Media, 1987).

—Rodger Woods

Church Conflict

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Susan M. Heitler makes the simple and clear assertion “The health of any given system, be it an individual, couple, or group, can be seen as a function of its ability to negotiate conflict” (p. 47). This statement identifies a critical concern about church life. All churches are vulnerable to conflict, perhaps especially evangelical ones because of their independence and emphasis on the individual’s personal relationship to God. Conflict itself should not be seen as spiritually bad news. It is similar to conflict in marriage. The difference between good and bad marriages, like the differences between healthy and unhealthy churches, is not the amount of conflict but the way in which it is processed. Indeed any local church that takes its mission seriously will generate all kinds of conflict; absence of conflict may be evidence of spiritual lethargy rather than health.

Nevertheless, Heitler’s statement is challenging. If the capacity to negotiate conflict is a sign of health, evangelical churches are, by and large, unhealthy. Indeed it has been argued by some that evangelicals are by nature schismatics. That may be more extreme than is justified, but there is enough truth to be taken seriously.

Learning from Secular Sources

There is much to be learned from secular sources. For example, the idea that the best solution is when both parties emerge feeling they have both won is highly desirable. Interestingly it seems often to have been Paul’s technique, the letter of Philemon being a conspicuous example. It may not always be possible to attain this, but it is a good ambition. If we love and care for our brothers and sisters in Christ, we will want to work it out in a way that everybody feels satisfied with the resolution.

Another helpful technique is a time-out. This happens when a local church debating a very contentious issue calls a meeting not to decide but to discuss. One ground rule is the avoidance of personality issues. By removing the possibility of a vote, people will be relaxed and heard. A further meeting can be held to make the decision. A variation of this is to call a meeting to brainstorm on the issue. All suggestions are listed. There is permission to include both the sublime and the ridiculous. No decision needs to be made yet.

Conflict in the New Testament Churches

The churches in the New Testament were very familiar with conflict, for example, the Corinthian church, and the classic case recorded in Acts 15. Paul and Barnabas were drawn into a serious debate over the Gentile converts who had been won to Christ during their missionary journey. The argument was ostensibly over circumcision. Some of the believers “who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses’” (Acts 15:5 NRSV). This was no minor discussion. Circumcision was at the heart of Judaism. The passage speaks of “sharp dispute and debate” (Acts 15:2 NRSV) and “much discussion” (Acts 15:7 NRSV). The tone, comment and content affirm that the discussion was radical and emotional.

But it does not appear to have been personal. There was clearly lots of mud that could have been thrown. The issues were very important to the individuals debating them, to the community and to the future of Christianity. Nevertheless, there was an underlying goodwill, and they did not debate personalities. Without this and a significant willingness to hear what the Spirit had to say (Acts 15:8), no agreement could have been made.

Here was a church debate that could have been polarized ethnically, even with “biblical justification.” But they reached a unanimous conviction that transcended so many of the attitudes that divide many churches today. This classic model to resolve disputes within the local church reveals the following principles: (1) a willingness to discuss things openly and with a high degree of candor, without putting each other down or introducing personality differences; (2) a willingness to identify the issue clearly, that is, to clarify the matter under dispute; (3) a concern to understand not only what God has said but any fresh truth found in Scripture that applies to the situation; (4) a willingness to negotiate, recognizing that the compromise process does not necessarily produce an inferior Christianity.

It was obviously worth the debate because out of that discussion the whole Christian church has prospered down through the years. The whole Christian cause was liberated to reach the world for Christ. What a wonderful and constructive way to resolve conflict. It is not always so straightforward, though the lessons learned are applicable to all times.

Incidentally, Acts 15 goes on to record the clash between Paul and Barnabas over John Mark. The church seemed to have little patience with them and essentially told them to choose other partners and go about the Lord’s work. There appears to be a distinction here: personality conflict has a much lower priority, especially as this was a mission team rather than a local church. There could be no question of their being in fellowship even if they would not work together as a team in leadership. The situation was different for Euodia and Syntyche in Philippi (Phil. 4:2), two church members out of fellowship with each other.

Levels of Conflict

Another way of looking at church conflict is to determine how serious it is becoming by discerning levels of conflict. An example of level 1 conflict is disagreement over some proposal that is designed to move the church into a more active role. Not a significant amount of the church’s resources is involved. Often what is needed is clarification and a nondefensive attitude by the leadership. A more intense, level 2, conflict is a recurring issue over which strong feelings have been expressed and arguments about Scripture are advanced. A current example of this would be a debate over the role of women in the leadership of the church. A level 3 conflict has persisted with constant escalation for a period of time without resolution. An example is an ongoing debate about a charismatic style of worship in an otherwise emotionally withdrawn congregation. A level 4 conflict is one in which a significant group in the church is determined to have its way whether or not there is a church split and regardless of who gets hurt. There is no goodwill left in the system.

All of these find an example in 1 Corinthians. A level 1 conflict is manifest in 1 Cor. 16 regarding “the collection for God’s people” (1 Cor. 16:1). All Paul had to do was to clarify. Level 2 is illustrated by the debate over meat offered to idols in 1 Cor. 10:23-11:1; this debate has become more serious. The preoccupation with worship in 1 Cor. 11-14 was threatening the very existence and unity of the church and had the potential to escalate without hope of being resolved. It is a level 3 conflict. An examples of level 4 conflict forms the lead issue in 1 Corinthians: “ ‘I follow Paul’; another, ‘I follow Apollos’; another, ‘I follow Cephas’; still another, ‘I follow Christ’” (1 Cor. 1:12). A similar level of conflict is found in the debate about expelling from the fellowship the immoral brother (1 Cor. 5).

In a healthy church level 1 would almost go unnoticed. Level 2 would create vigorous debate, hard feelings and some losses depending on the ability of the leadership to hold the people together and be responsive. Level 3 would be much more difficult and would probably require some kind of outside mediation, but it is reconcilable. Level 4 in modern church life would demand outside help; it has reached the stage at which a spirit of reconciliation has been altogether lost.

A local church needs to examine the level of conflict and be willing in more serious cases to call in someone, either an individual or a team, who can help them. Paul functioned as a conflict resolver in Corinth. What one looks for in such a team is critical. Eddie Hall cautions the church:

Listening and mediation skills are great, he says, and understanding personalities and social systems is also helpful. However, skills are not enough. I once was part of a team that had excellent skills, but we couldn’t pray together. That visit produced the least satisfactory outcome of my experience with conflict-resolution teams. (p. 69)

Destructive church conflict is a spiritual issue involving spiritual warfare. It cannot and should not be processed as if the church were General Motors. It is appropriate to discipline individuals who, like Diotrephes in 3 John, are notorious and unrepentant troublemakers. A healthy church will seek the gift of discernment to know how to discipline such individuals. This too is part of conflict resolution.

Out of all of this the local church and the church universal can emerge stronger, more resolute and more effective, occasionally bloodied but focused again on its mission and, more important, focused on its Lord.

» See also: Conflict Resolution

» See also: Forgiveness

» See also: Pastoral Care

References and Resources

R. D. Bell, Biblical Models of Handling Conflict (Toronto: Welch, 1987); C. M. Cosgrive and D. D. Hatfield, Church Conflict: The Hidden Systems Behind the Fights (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994); E. Hall, “The Conciliation Calvary,” Leadership 14, no. 1 (1993) 66-72; S. M. Heitler, From Conflict to Resolution (New York: Norton, 1990).

—Roy D. Bell

Church Discipline

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Church discipline is the traditional term for how the church corrects sinful behavior in the congregation or removes a sinful person from the assembly. The term church discipline has largely fallen into disuse in the West because, for the most part, the practice itself has. Anyone familiar with church history should be surprised at this.

Through the centuries the church has shown vital concern about how to discipline its members. Discipline has been one of the most hotly debated and divisive issues. In the fifth century, even an emperor was excommunicated from the church. The Protestant Reformation overthrew many aspects of Roman Catholic polity but sharpened the historical church’s concern for congregational discipline. Luther and Calvin made church discipline central to their doctrine and practice of church government. The Anabaptists went so far as to place church discipline alongside preaching and the sacraments as one of the three marks of the church.

Why Has It Died Out?

One reason for the decline of church discipline is past abuses of it. Church discipline is abusive when it is used by church authorities as a tool of suppression and manipulation. When this occurs, the church, in time, decides that the price of church discipline is too dear, and it is allowed to die out.

Another reason is that the church is always affected by, even co-opted into, the dominant culture. Western culture is now more permissive than ever and has become increasingly tolerant of what we used to call sin and less tolerant of those who oppose that sin. It is no longer fashionable, and in some cases permissible, to challenge a person’s values or behavior.

A further reason for the scarceness of church discipline today is because the church has traditionally defined the focus of discipline too narrowly. In the past it has been carried out primarily to purge the assembly of sin or doctrinal error. This singular concern for congregational purity has led leaders to allow drastic and even cruel measures against those judged to be impure. This often has inflicted more damage on the church than it has corrected. As a result, churches consciously or unconsciously decided the price of practicing discipline was too high and let it drop from its central place of importance.

How Can It Be Reintroduced?

The church could receive benefits of discipline, and the above-mentioned problems connected with it would be avoided if we followed Jesus’ clear instruction in Matthew 18:15-17:

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that “every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Jesus began his instruction by making everyone in the congregation responsible to everyone else for the ministry of discipline. Church discipline is neither the exclusive responsibility nor the prerogative of church leaders. This should keep discipline from becoming a weapon of control wielded by autocratic leaders.

According to Jesus, the first disciplinary approach is to be made in private. This prevents the poison of gossip. No one should talk about another’s alleged sin behind his or her back. The person who is suspected of sin must be the first to hear about it.

Jesus’ teaching on discipline follows his story of the return of the lost sheep (Matthew 18:10-14). Accordingly, the person who has sinned is the lost sheep, and discipline is analogous to rescue. Discipline does not first push the contamination out of the church but rather draws the erring brother or sister back into it. Jesus says in Matthew 18:15, “If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.” Successful church discipline is not the upholding of some abstract notion of congregational purity but the restoration of broken fellowship. It is the welfare of the person that is of primary importance.

Everything said about the motive of the first private approach is true of subsequent more public meetings. Whether one or two others are taken along or whether the matter is taken to the church, the purpose of discipline is to persuade the offender to be reconciled to the assembly by repenting of sinful behavior. If the community fails in reconciling the sinner to itself and the lost sheep insists on remaining lost, the church will then “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17). In this, we would follow Jesus in his own treatment of pagans and tax collectors. While he did not have an ongoing close relationship with them, he did keep mixing with and talking to them in hopes that they would repent and believe and follow him.

Our first task, however, is to develop churches in which people really know and care for one another. Without that there is no context in which discipline makes much sense. It is interesting to note that Paul’s approach to discipline (1 Cor. 5:1-5; Galatians 6:1-5) is very similar to Jesus’ approach. Then if our churches follow Jesus’ and Paul’s practice, our discipline will have teeth—it will be binding. But it will be above all an expression of pastoral care in its motive and effect.

» See also: Accountability, Relational

» See also: Authority, Church

» See also: Conflict Resolution

» See also: Discipleship

» See also: Fellowship

» See also: Membership, Church

» See also: Pastoral Care

References and Resources

K. Blue and J. White, Discipline That Heals (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992).

—Ken Blue

Church in the Home

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

According to some leading observers of the Christian scene, the two fastest growing forms of church life today are the very large church, including the megachurch, and the church in the home. The latter is found under various names, for example, house (or home) church, basic Christian (or basic ecclesial or small faith) community and street (or neighborhood) church. What is this form of church life? How does it justify itself? What are some of its main operating principles? Why is it growing in so many places today?

What Is the Church in the Home?

The terms house church and church in the home conjure up different pictures in people’s minds. In some Protestant circles they describe any regular meeting in homes by members of a congregation for any religious purpose whatsoever, for example, for prayer, study, support or mission. These meetings are often in small groups. In many Catholic circles these terms often refer to the family as it seeks to live out the gospel and as it prays and listens to Scripture together. In certain charismatic circles these terms refer to the emergence of newer independent groupings of congregations that began but may no longer center in homes.

None of these captures the full sense of a house church or church in the home. This is essentially a group of adults and children meeting in a house, apartment or other convivial space, who have covenanted to meet together regularly as an extended Christian family. In doing this they engage in all the functions of a church gathering—praying and praising God, learning and teaching God’s Word, eating and drinking together in God’s name—as well as share their life together, take responsibility for one another, become mutually accountable and assist each other to be involved in ministry and mission to the wider community.

Generally those involved in a house church also meet regularly, though not necessarily weekly, with a larger group of Christians for fellowship with God and one another. This may take the form of a cluster of home churches that have combined meetings or a congregation that is part of an existing denominational or nondenominational grouping. However this takes place, participants experience church at two levels, both as a smaller phenomenon and as a larger (though not necessarily big) one, each of which has a unique value.

What Is the Basis for the Church in the Home?

In Old Testament times, believers met for corporate worship and fellowship primarily in their homes on the sabbath and in the temple for major festivals. One of the main festivals, the Passover, was itself centered on the home and included children in a significant way (Exodus 12). From the day of Pentecost, the first Christians in Jerusalem met in both homes and in the temple, in the former dining together and praising God and in the latter hearing the apostles’ teaching and participating in the wider fellowship (Acts 2:42-47).

As the apostles preached the gospel, communities of faith were formed throughout the ancient world. These also operated at two levels—the church in the home (Romans 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philemon 2; compare Acts 16:40; Acts 18:7; Acts 20:8) and the church in a town or city (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; 1 Thes. 1:1; 2 Thes. 1:1). Though in some places the believers were not all able to gather together (even a century later this did not happen in Rome), where possible they seem to have met both as extended Christian families in an apartment or house and as a gathering of such groups in the house of a significant member (Romans 16:23).

Based on what is said in passages mentioning the smaller gatherings for church in the home, or in letters where one is mentioned, meetings involved exchanging greetings and the kiss of peace (1 Cor. 16:19-20), giving mutual encouragement (Acts 16:40; compare Hebrews 10:25), teaching and admonishing one another, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs to God (Col. 3:16), contributing gifts of prophecy, financial aid and practical help (Romans 12:6-8), showing love, mercy and hospitality (Romans 12:9-13) and, as mentioned before, eating the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:46; see Communion).

Though traces of the church in the home disappear at certain points in church history—partly because such gatherings do not leave much in the way of records—evidence for their existence, or the existence of groups sharing many of their features, is present. Archaeological evidence shows that for most of the first three centuries Christians met in their own homes or converted homes to wider church use. In the following centuries, small communal and ecclesial (churchlike) groups regularly surfaced, especially in times of major reform or renewal: the earliest monastic groups in late antiquity, the non-Catholic Waldensians in the Middle Ages, the Anabaptists during the Reformation, the Quaker meetings and Methodist classes in the early modern period, the conventicles or “little churches within the church” among the German Pietists, and such later groups as the Scottish Covenanters and early Plymouth Brethren.

During the twentieth century the church in the home has taken various forms, for example, the underground churches in Eastern Europe prior to the fall of the Iron Curtain, basic ecclesial communities in Latin America and Asia, house churches in India and mainland China, new independent Christian movements in various parts of Africa, and house churches in the West. Some of these arose for practical reasons such as too few clergy, some as a response to political oppression or social injustice, some because of impersonal, disempowering or hierarchical encounters with church structures. On the whole, house churches have had a strong emphasis on laity, frequently combined with a commitment to linking faith with everyday life and a desire to have an enhanced presence and witness in their local neighborhoods.

The movement toward the church in the home tends to avoid any formula-driven approach to church life. Not only do individual groups develop their own unique identity, one which may change over time, but clusters or networks of such groups also develop their own distinctive character. Some are more charismatic than others, some more structured; some are more concerned with social action, some with evangelism; some have a greater ecological commitment, some a stronger cultural one; some are more interested in restoring biblical patterns, others in finding contemporary expressions of biblical intentions. There may also be theological, cultural and denominational differences.

What Are the Marks of the Church in the Home?

In contrast to typical small groups in the local church, or larger meetings of a congregation, home churches tend to have the following characteristics:

1. Giving quantity as well as quality time to one another and God as participants meet for several hours a week. This includes praying, singing, eating, sharing, learning, planning and—especially with children—playing together.

2. Churching together as an expression of being a community, not simply reproducing a smaller-scale version of what happens on a Sunday. This provides an opportunity for members to share whatever gifts they have to offer and to develop a common life.

3. Making decisions about all major matters affecting the group by consensus. This involves seeking to reach a common mind under God rather than a democratic process of agreement or abiding by a majority vote.

4. Recognizing children and teenagers as equally important as adults and integrating them in as many activities as possible. This leaves room for activities especially designed for them, as well as time with an adult apart from the main group.

5. Incorporating a sacramental dimension through combining the Lord’s Supper with a common meal. This is introduced by a member or household with readings and prayer, and Christ’s sacrifice is held out as a model for, as well as a basis for, the group’s life.

6. Building strong relationships in the group between the members, including the children. This involves members’ being willing to care for others in practical ways and making themselves accountable to others in major areas of discipleship.

7. Integrating Sunday and weekday, private and public responsibilities. This takes place as people bring their ordinary concerns to the group for processing by Scripture, experience and prayer and as they celebrate their family, work and social life.

8. Developing leadership organically rather than through top-down appointment. This takes place as a core group of men and women with pastoral capacities emerges. These members are then recognized and encouraged in some way by the group.

9. Assisting each member to identify his or her unique ministry to the group, to the larger church and to the wider community and world. Support for these ministries takes place inside and outside the group through interest, prayer and sometimes financial aid.

10. Looking for new members to invite into the group and multiplying the group when it becomes too large and unwieldy. The latter normally takes place by commissioning a few members of the existing church in the home to go out and bud a new one.

How Do Home Churches Differ from a Cell Church?

Both approaches to renewing the church recognize the central place occupied by the home in the ministry of Jesus and in the early Christian movement. In the cell-church model, converts are grouped into home cells, and several home cells are grouped to form a congregation. Cell churches stress the role of every believer in these meetings and the character of leadership as nonspecialist and nonhierarchical. Each home cell has a servant-leader or deacon; in time—after two years perhaps—a cluster of five home churches would have a servant-elder; a congregation of some twenty-five groups would have a pastoral leader. There are also the citywide apostles, prophets, evangelists and teachers whose main function is to equip the churches within their region. Though the language of servant leadership is used, all positions of responsibility are described as “offices.” This people-based design for the church is set over against the program-based design of most congregations, which is built up in a corporate managerial fashion around the hierarchy of specialists, committees and organizations.

There are a number of key differences between the cell-church model and the one I am advocating. First, the structure of the early church is interpreted too much in terms of the present practice of cell churches. While to some extent we all tend to read into the biblical accounts our own ideas and frameworks, the precise numbers and organizational grid attached to the cell-group reconstruction do this in an observable, somewhat managerial way. While the model moves away from a hierarchical view of leadership, the role of the leader (always singular) in the individual cells, cluster of cell groups and cell-group church suggests top-down, chain-of-command elements that sit uneasily with the side-by-side, spheres-of-influence approach that is more in keeping with the early church. Congregational meetings are also larger than what would allow them to operate in a sufficiently interactive way.

Second, there are also a number of important differences between the way cell groups and home churches work. Cell groups normally meet for around an hour and a half, not three or more hours, and appear more task-oriented. Since they are to grow new groups every four months, they change more rapidly and so allow little time for deep relationships to build. When there is a sufficient number of cell groups to form a congregational network, they are often redistributed, thus further weakening communal bonds. Children and teenagers in cell groups are regarded more as witnesses to what takes place than as full participants, or they have separate cell groups altogether. Indeed, cell groups can be relatively homogeneous rather than being as much as possible a microcosm of the whole church. So while there are some similarities between the cell church and interactive congregations based on home churches, there are also some fundamental differences.

Why Is This Form of Church Life Growing?

There are several reasons why house churches are growing in popularity. In these groups people experience together the reality of God in ordinary settings and relationships of life rather than mainly in a separate, sacred space and time. God becomes present, vivid, intimate in the familiar setting of a living room, around the dining-room table, in washing dishes and cleaning up, in playing with children. God becomes present in the midst of discussion, prayer and learning about everyday pressures, responsibilities and challenges. In other words, the reality of God appears in the midst of everyday realities.

In such groups many people are discovering for the first time a sense of genuine family life or the value of the extended family. Believers who come into such groups from broken or dysfunctional families often are reparented. Others start to appreciate the benefit of belonging to an extended family as opposed to just the nuclear family. All gain the opportunity of a place to belong, the experience of acceptance, a setting in which they can gradually make themselves vulnerable and share as well as test out their personal and vocational dreams. As in a good family, in time members of the group also begin to develop fresh rituals for celebrating the ordinary and special events that come their way.

As the common life of members in the group deepens and expands, they begin to see ways in which more holistic forms of Christian education are taking place, both for themselves and for their children. The ethos of the group plays a highly formative role in shaping the priorities and values of its members. Parents learn from observing the way other parents in the group parent children, relate, develop their lifestyle, make decisions, deal with work, face difficulties, endure illness or suffering. More focused learning opportunities within the meeting are always practical as well as instructive.

The church in the home increasingly becomes a safe house for members and newcomers who are often on the margins of our society. Unmarried people, those who have been widowed, the physically or mentally challenged, single parents, overseas visitors, lonely people or social misfits—all these can find a home and support. In an increasingly busy, mobile and fragmented society, the church in the home becomes ever more important as a form of available and relevant community for those who seek it.

None of this is intended to downplay the difficulties sometimes encountered in belonging to such a group. It requires a deeper commitment than participation in most small groups or membership in larger congregations. Belonging can lead to more open conflicts between members than what transpires in more anonymous settings. It may take longer to develop forms of leadership or servanthood within the group. On the other hand, commitment develops through people’s being voluntarily drawn and loved into such a community, not through its being a demand imposed on them. If properly handled, conflict is one of the primary ways of moving forward into a deeper experience of divine and human community. Leadership becomes a corporate reality, shared among the whole group as well as embodied in core people within the group who model God’s faithfulness, love and vision. Among the growing number of Christians who belong to a church in the home, there is a conviction that the widespread growth of these groups is the next stage of the small-group movement and that their reappearance in the church is fundamental to its renewal and expansion in our day.

» See also: Church

» See also: Community

» See also: Fellowship

» See also: Home

» See also: Small Groups

References and Resources

R. Banks, Going to Church in the First Century (Beaumont, Tex.: Christian Books, 1990); R. Banks and J. Banks, The Church Comes Home: Redesigning the Congregation for Community and Mission (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996); A. R. Baranowski, Creating Small Faith Communities: A Plan for Restructuring the Parish and Renewing Catholic Life (Cincinnati, Ohio: St. Anthony Messenger, 1988); L. Barrett, Building the House Church (Scottdale, Penn.: Herald, 1986); B. J. Lee and M. A. Cowan, Dangerous Memories: House Churches and Our American Story (Kansas City, Mo.: Sheed & Ward, 1986); C. Smith, Going to the Root: Nine Proposals for Church Reform (Scottdale, Penn.: Herald, 1992).

—Robert Banks

Church Renewal

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Renewal is difficult to define. It can mean different things to different people. Even the dictionary suggests several options, from “restore to original state” (as in a painting) to “replenish with a fresh supply” (as in recharging a dead battery). Church renewal has encompassed both of the above, that is, a desire by churches to rediscover the life and form of the early church and to restore its “Pentecostal” power.

Ecclesiastical and Charismatic Renewal

In England the late David Watson (I Believe in the Church) and in North America Howard Snyder (Community of the King) are but two authors among many who have tried to share a vision of church life that is more vital and effective. This ecclesiological emphasis on renewal stressed the priesthood and giftedness of all believers and that the role of church leadership was to equip God’s people to do the ministries so long designated as “clergy” roles (Ephes. 4:11-16; see Stevens).

Alongside of, and vital to, ecclesiological renewal has been the charismatic movement. Controversial, multifaceted and at times schismatic, it has nevertheless brought new life to most denominations. Not all charismatics have exactly the same theology. Some believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit (accompanied by the gift of tongues) is a distinct and special experience that launches a believer into a new life of power and spiritual giftedness. Others, while strongly affirming that all the gifts of the Spirit exist today, do not believe that the baptism in the Spirit is a special (or second) work of grace. They believe that the command to be filled with the Spirit (Ephes. 5:18) is given to God’s community as the norm that establishes the full operation of all of the Holy Spirit’s gifts in the church. In the early 1960s the charismatic movement (what some call the “renewal in the Spirit”) was in full force. In the United Kingdom Colin Urquhart’s When the Spirit Comes and in North America Dennis Bennett’s Nine O’Clock in the Morning were early editions of scores of books, Catholic and Protestant, explaining what some have called neo-Pentecostalism.

The marriage of both the ecclesiological and the pneumatological has been typical of most churches that declare they are being renewed. For a good theological analysis of this blend, read J. I. Packer’s Keep in Step with the Spirit.

Renewal and Small Groups

In Britain this duality was seen in the so-called house church movement. Some Christians took on radical anti-institutional church positions at first, but by and large they were believers experiencing the new wine (the power of the Spirit) in new wineskins (simpler New Testament forms). Many mainline churches in England, particularly Anglican and Baptist, took on much of the ethos of the house churches while remaining within and loyal to their denominations. There was an emphasis on the three C’s: cell, congregation, celebration. This means that the primary unit of life in a church is the small cell, consisting of about a dozen people who meet weekly for worship, study, fellowship and outreach. A number of cells come together periodically to form a congregation, when the same experiences on a broader scale can be expressed. They can meet geographically in an area of a town and be more localized in their ministries than the church at large meeting in a regular church building. The celebration is the meeting of all the cells for praise, worship and public teaching. ICTHUS Fellowship of London, led by Roger Forster and Graham Kendrick (who writes many of Britain’s renewal songs), is among the most well-known expressions of this renewal.

The largest church in the world, the Oida Full Gospel Church of Seoul, South Korea, led by David Yonggi Cho, has attained phenomenal statistical growth through its emphasis on the role of cells, that basic concept that has been championed by Ralph Neighbour in his book on the cell church, Where Do We Go from Here?

The cell-church model differs from the North American metachurch model advocated by Carl George, which encourages many kinds of cells and interest groups within a church that also has many programs. The “pure” cell-church model emphasizes that the cell is the church and that by intentional evangelism it will keep growing and multiplying. Most cell churches have some form of the three C’s.

In North America and elsewhere, the Vineyard churches (whose chief early leader was John Wimber) are similar and have brought to the fore an emphasis on the church displaying the power of God’s kingdom in our society (read Power Healing and Power Evangelism by Wimber and Springer).

An early model of renewal in North America was the Church of the Savior in Washington, D.C. (clearly explained by E. O’Connor in Call to Commitment). In what has been called a post-Christian and postmodern time, this model of church renewal, while contrary to the present trend of megachurches, may yet prove to be one of the most feasible and effective as we enter the twenty-first century. Its emphasis on mission groups (cells) and high commitment to community life (though not monastic), which is mobilized to affect the world with care and evangelism, is highly relevant and suggestive.

Renewal, Revival and Evangelism

Contemporary renewal movements are similar to earlier ones, for example, to John Wesley’s emphasis on the class meeting (cells) and bands (mission groups). Each renewal also brings a fresh emphasis on music and worship with new and simple songs in the popular idiom of the day.

Historically, renewals have seen a fresh emphasis on evangelism. This was not at first true of the current renewal, but now it is becoming a major aspect among all churches. Many not in the charismatic movement have found renewal in churches through evangelism and have realized that reaching out to others with the gospel was at the heart of the first Pentecostal visitation (Acts 1:8). Leaders such as Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago have invited us all to contextualize our gospel and find effective means of growth in order to reach unchurched peoples; seeker-sensitive services are but one aspect of a growing renewal in evangelism.

Renewal is seen by some as the forerunner to revival—getting the church back on track so that God can bless it fully. Renewal is not revival, but it carries the seeds of revival, especially as such renewal relies on God’s Spirit to produce by his power what our human effort cannot. Renewing churches rediscover prayer, particularly intercessory prayer, so they can do warfare against dark principalities and powers. Members of renewing churches will be sensitive to the presence of God’s Spirit in all aspects of their lives, and empowered by the Spirit, they will express and demonstrate the power of the gospel through reaching out to those without Christ. Renewal without evangelism is simply not renewal but self-centered indulgence in quasi-spiritual things.

No church can say it is renewed but rather that it is being renewed. But the process has begun with the confession of need, both personal and corporate, as expressed in the ancient prayer “Lord, revive your church, beginning with me.”

» See also: Church in the Home

» See also: Evangelism

» See also: Small Groups

References and Resources

D. J. Bennett, Nine O’Clock in the Morning (Plainfield, N.J.: Logos International, 1970); R. Neighbour Jr. and L. Jenkins, Where Do We Go from Here? A Guidebook for Cell Group Churches (Houston: Touch, 1990); E. O’Connor, Call to Commitment: The Story of the Church of the Savior (New York: Harper & Row, 1963); H. A. Snyder, The Community of the King (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977); H. A. Snyder, Signs of the Spirit: How God Reshapes the Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989); R. P. Stevens, Liberating the Laity (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1985); C. Urquhart, When the Spirit Comes (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1979); D. C. K. Watson, I Believe in the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979); J. Wimber and K. Springer, Power Evangelism (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986); J. Wimber and K. Springer, Power Healing (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987).

—Bob Roxburgh

Church, Small

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Small congregations are of different kinds—rural, fringe and urban. By virtue of their integration into and reputation within the community, some are still the dominant church in their area. In some places it is their denominational profile that stands out. Others have developed a distinctive identity and style. Normally they are known for the quality of their communal life rather than of their corporate worship. They are more likely than large congregations to resist change and innovation. They tend to give more attention to continuity, their place of meeting and a social agenda. Most small churches have a relatively stable or declining membership.

In a growing number of places it is very easy for small churches to feel second-rate compared to larger ones. Since these days success is mostly measured in numbers, members of small churches—especially in cities—can easily feel they are lacking. Yet in most parts of the world the majority of congregations are small. This is not only true in relatively unchristianized countries like China or post-Christian societies such as Europe. Even in the United States, about half of all Protestant congregations average fewer than seventy-five people. In fact nearly one-fifth of all United Methodist churches, one-seventh of all Presbyterian churches and one-tenth of all Baptist and Episcopal churches in the United States have fewer than twenty-five members.

Their History and Extent

Historically, for the most part, churches have not been large. The earliest Christian gatherings were small enough to fit into a home or apartment. Though this changed when Christianity became the state religion in the fourth century, most churches were not that large, particularly in rural areas where the majority of the population lived. The large cathedrals built during the Middle Ages mostly supplemented the life of local churches in a particular region. While the Reformation reinvigorated church life and attracted larger congregations in some cities, most people still lived in the countryside and attended small churches. Later renewal movements, such as Methodism, were originally also strongest in villages and towns. Most congregations in North America began their institutional life as small churches. Also, the main models for congregations until recently included only one paid staff, one part-time staff or one volunteer-led staff, all of which are oriented to small churches.

As the Industrial Revolution expanded the size of cities and evangelicalism effected renewal in many places, larger preaching houses began to appear. This became easier with the advent of streetcars and automobiles. As the driving population has increased (see Automobile; Commuting), some very large churches have appeared in newer suburbs and cities where freeways converge. Now megachurches of several thousand members have become a fixed feature of the religious scene. Even so, these still serve about one-sixth of the total churchgoing population. About one-half attend medium-sized or larger congregations, and the remaining third are in small churches. Increasingly people are preferring to attend a church not too far from where they live, at least in their region if not in their locality.

Some Advantages and Disadvantages

In principle, though not always in fact, small churches have many advantages. They tend to be less impersonal, giving members and their children a better chance of knowing and supporting one another. As a recent survey of Southern Baptist congregations indicated, they tend to generate greater commitment: people in them give more of their money and time than members of large congregations. Since in smaller churches there are fewer people to undertake the work of the church, members develop a greater sense of responsibility and leadership. They tend to be more missionary-minded: proportionally they give more to, and offer themselves more to train for, Christian work overseas.

Small churches also have potential disadvantages. While members of small churches may know one another more, for this reason they may also have stronger conflicts. Unless resolved, these can easily become long-lasting feuds between different factions in the church. While in small churches there is more opportunity for people to take responsibility and exercise leadership, sometimes it is also easier for them to hold the reins too long and restrict the contribution of others. Unless the church is made up of people who are relatively mobile, new members can sometimes find it more difficult to become fully accepted. Also, in a small congregation unhelpful gossip may exercise a strong sway.

None of these need to happen. They are not inherent in the small size of a church. They are simply the reverse side of the advantages just mentioned. For despite the widespread perception that small churches are more likely to be in-centered and cliquish, often this is far from the case. Whether a congregation is inward-looking or outward-looking has little to do with size: it depends on people’s—and the pastor’s—attitude. In fact, strong mission-oriented denominations like the Mennonites and committed socially conscious ones like the Quakers have generally been made up of smaller congregations. There is also a widespread belief that larger churches with well-known teacher-pastors produce members who know more about their faith and apply it more consistently to their lives. Surveys across a range of denominations by the Search Institute in Minneapolis show that this is just not the case.

Their Possibilities and Challenges

There is no doubt that some small churches are at risk, especially those made up of first-generation immigrants, those who no longer have a resident pastor and new mission churches that never grow beyond around forty people. But small churches are not vulnerable in general. While it is often felt that small churches cannot serve their members or communities as well as large churches, in most respects this is highly doubtful. Where it is the case, there are ways of dealing with the situation. We do well to remember that down through the centuries the small church has been a highly effective instrument for producing mature believers and Christian leaders. There is no reason to believe that this cannot be the case today. God managed to do this without the array of buildings, organizations and programs that most congregations today feel are necessary. Where parents take the primary responsibility for educating their children in the Christian faith, where strong relationships are built with adults in the congregation as well as with peers, where intergenerational small groups replace groups segmented by sex, age and interest, the nurture and equipping of church members is at least as strong as that in the largest program-oriented congregations and in many cases is actually stronger.

Limits on what a small church can achieve can be overcome through working cooperatively with other local churches or by participating in wider community activities. For example, some small churches combine forces to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, help unemployed people find work, teach literacy skills and so on. It is also possible for small churches to organize occasional common services or a combined youth program, evangelistic outreach or vacation Bible school. Also, members of a small church can join local community movements involved in service, bringing justice or protecting the environment rather than feel they must create their own structures to fulfill such objectives. Small churches can also partner with particular local institutions and also encourage members to become involved in community choirs, societies or other cultural activities rather than set up parallel church-based ones. Too many churches unnecessarily duplicate what is being done elsewhere or could be better done collaboratively.

In spite of all this, small churches are in for an increasingly difficult time. With the trend towards megachurches on the one hand and house churches on the other, small churches may find themselves caught in the middle. This would be a great pity. Megachurches might be more effective if they multiplied smaller congregations throughout a city and held only occasional huge meetings, that is, if they turned themselves into a constellation of smaller churches. House churches can be fully effective only if they cluster together in congregations, still relatively small, that meet regularly, perhaps monthly.

In the coming years small churches will need to find ways of opening up more to new members, without feeling that numerical growth is the only criterion of fidelity to the gospel. To remain vital, they should continue focusing on what they do best: building community, especially among the lonely and unchurched, and serving their immediate neighborhoods, which sometimes are increasingly multicultural. They have much to offer families, mature adults and lifestyle enclaves. One possibility for them is to develop house churches so that they can attain greater relational depth and collaborate more systemically with other small churches in evangelism, education, youth work and mission, thus having access to larger resources and having a more concerted influence on their neighborhoods and cities. In some rural areas small congregations could almost turn themselves into home churches within their denomination and so be less dependent on itinerant pastors or costly buildings. Looked at as a challenge rather than a problem, the present uncertainty surrounding small churches can lead to very creative experiments and opportunities.

» See also: Church

» See also: Church in the Home

» See also: Fellowship

References and Resources

S. R. Burt and H. A. Roper, Raising Small Church Esteem (Washington, D.C.: Alban Institute, 1992); M. Breen with S. Fox, Growing the Smaller Church (London: Marshall Pickering, 1992); C. S. Dudley and J. M. Walrath, Developing Your Small Church’s Potential (Valley Forge, Penn.: Judson, 1988); L. Schaller, The Small Membership Church: Scenarios for Tomorrow (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994).

—Robert Banks

Church Structures

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

John Alexander says, “If you are a leader who believes in structure, brace yourself to receive criticism as a carnal stifler of freedom, creativity and the Holy Spirit” (p. 11). Any conversation about structure in Christian settings, especially church structure, must contend with the attitude suggested in this quotation—as prevalent today as it was twenty years ago. At the very least, there is a warning here about the care needed in approaching structure in the church. How can structure enhance rather than inhibit freedom? How can structures advance the cause of the church?

The term church structures in this article refers not to “hard” architecture, that is, church buildings, but rather to the “soft” architecture that is reflected in how a church is organized—though no doubt there ought to be a link between the two types of architecture (for structure as an overarching way of dealing with reality, see Structure; System). The focus will be on how a local congregation is organized, as opposed to a house church on one end of the ecclesiastical spectrum and a denomination on the other. In one sense the house church is a structure all by itself, whereas denominations have a number of local congregations, and sometimes regional associations, as building blocks (see Church in the Home; Denominations). By focusing on the traditional local church, this article deals with the level of organization that has the greatest impact on most believers. Rather than examine the internal workings of a local church in detail, the article will overview the variety of structures and how they relate to one another (see Church Leadership; Committees; Small Groups; Sunday School).

The Purpose of Structure and Structures

Structure is a rather modern, abstract way of talking about the intentional, purposeful subdivisions of a local church and the linkages between them. There is the ushering team, home groups, Sunday-school classes, the church board and congregations that gather for worship. Structures are one of the three major components that make up the system of a local church. The other two are resources—all of which are limited in some way (for example, member gifts, staff, building, time together, money and communication “platforms,” such as pulpit and publications)—and culture (the traditions and unspoken assumptions about the life and mission of the congregation). This systems theory approach to understanding the biblical idea of the body has been creatively explored by R. Paul Stevens and Phil Collins in The Equipping Pastor.

To what purposes should resources be applied under the influence of the culture of the church and through the structures in the church? The obvious answer is New Testament purposes. As we will see, however, this simple approach provides a powerful basis for evaluating the organization of a church. Although the New Testament is key, it is true that there are some clues about structures found in the Old Testament. A classic example is Exodus 18, where Moses, overburdened by caring for the Israelites in the desert, delegates responsibility for judging in minor matters to officials set over very specific subunits, right down to groups of ten. Another oft-cited example is the construction and security teams set up by Nehemiah that allowed the wall of Jerusalem to be rebuilt in fifty-two days (Neh. 6:15).

In spite of these stories, the central Old Testament system components were left behind under the new covenant; in particular these were the three central elements of the Mosaic covenant—sacrifice, priesthood and tabernacle. As Howard Snyder reminds us, “The amazing teaching of the New Testament, especially in the book of Hebrews, is that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of sacrifice, priesthood and tabernacle” (p. 57). This is why we should not speak of “going to church” on Sunday (for Jesus is accessible all the time through his once-for-all sacrifice) or of attending Pastor So-and-So’s church (for every believer is a member of the priesthood under the Great High Priest) or of “meeting at the church” (for Jesus is present everywhere and especially where two or three are gathered—regardless of the building in which they sit). According to Snyder, “The great temptation of the organized church has been to . . . turn community into an institution. Returning to the spirit of the Old Testament, she has set up a professional priesthood, turned the Eucharist into a new sacrificial system and built great cathedrals” (p. 58). Note how the soft and hard architectures often become intertwined, one reflecting the other and both reflecting a theology. Thus, from a structures point of view, the New Testament requires abandonment of the long-standing clergy and laity subdivisions in the church. It also may mean that building development committees are out of a job!

Structural thinking, however, must include more than knowing what to avoid. What are the positive New Testament purposes that should shape and evaluate structures (and all other aspects of local churches)? The most succinct description of these purposes, although anticipated by Jesus’ life beforehand and interpreted by Paul later, is found in reference to the earliest days of the church in Acts 2-3. There we find the perfect fulfillment of the so-called Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20: Go out and enroll (baptize) disciples or learners and then teach them to obey everything I have commanded (“the apostles’ teaching”; Acts 2:42). The key “obedience points” according to Acts 2:42 are loving one another (service and fellowship) and communion, offering praise, thanksgiving, worship and prayer. The conclusion, then, is that all structures in a local church should serve one or more of these five purposes: going/enrolling and discipling, which lead to “one-anothering,” worshiping and praying. Furthermore, none of these purposes should be neglected or out of balance.

Variety of Structures

What structures are appropriate to fulfill these purposes? Traditional subdivisions in a congregation have included the clergy-laity one criticized above, as well as age-and-stage groups, in either graded Sunday-school classes or midweek communities like “college and careers.” However, the latter groupings can be evaluated (and found somewhat wanting) in light of the benefit of intergenerational approaches to learning and relating. Are there any other useful structures? Indeed, two dividing lines have arisen with strong modern expression but also a good pedigree: group size and group purpose.

First, many students of ecclesiology are claiming that it is wise to have both large and small structures in a local church, typified by congregational meetings, such as worship services, and home meetings, such as Bible studies. This claim arises because it seems logically impossible to fulfill the fivefold purpose of the church without both kinds of experience. On one hand, how much practical and consistent loving of one another can happen in large meetings? On the other hand, how can the worship life of eight believers compare with the praise of one hundred or one thousand? Interestingly, though “the Bible is relatively silent regarding organizational and administrative patterns” (Getz, p. 185), it does seem to support the rhythm between large and small structures, as the meeting in the temple courts and in homes suggests (Acts 2:46). Based on the Bible and church history, Snyder is convinced that this rhythm is normative: “Whatever other structures may be found useful, large-group and small-group structures should be fundamental” (p. 164).

One modern finesse of this principle that has arisen out of the church growth movement is the addition of a medium group (sometimes—confusingly—referred to as “congregations” and numbering anywhere from fifty to two hundred people). These may form on an ad hoc basis (special equipping or evangelistic events) or be permanent (several small groups joining together for worship and teaching). In practice, though they may be of benefit in some settings, such medium groups represent the size of the average church—which returns to Snyder’s essential large-small rhythm.

The other distinction that leads to structures is that of group purpose or the wisdom of banding together to fulfill certain functions in a focused way. Thus, there is a place for the evangelism group and the fellowship group and the discipling group and the prayer group. These groups may be large or small; for example, evangelism took place in both settings (Acts 5:42). The point is that these groups focus gifting and other resources on certain purposes and peoples. Is this focus permitted? Or does every small group and large gathering have to cover all the purposes of the church all the time, with inward and outward emphases perfectly balanced?

Some argue strongly for this latter view. The Bible, however, seems to suggest otherwise. One of the most famous examples is the occasion in Acts 6 when the apostles preserve their own sense of purpose around prayer and teaching by appointing seven leaders to focus on practical fellowship needs in the body. This illustration also shows that the two favorite structures of local churches, namely, committees and leadership boards (elders, deacons, councils, staff teams), can function as purposeful small groups (sometimes called mission groups) if they are rightly designed and have been careful to gather the appropriate leadership gifts together to fulfill their mandate.

Losing and Choosing Structures

The ideas just promoted—design and care—suggest an element of freedom in the way a church is structured. This is the “scandal” of the local church: each one is free to choose its own way when it comes to how it is organized. Such diversity can be unsettling, but if it is true that the New Testament paints only broad strokes concerning church structure, then a diversity of organization seems inevitable. The first choice of church organizers may be to eliminate some structures; the second choice may be to add some new wineskins. Before any such plans for change are made, seven final provisos are in order.

1. All structures must be tested against the only critical measure: Are they advancing the cause of New Testament purposes in the unique life and mission setting of a particular church?

2. Structural thinking must extend beyond polity, that is, issues of church government or order and debates between congregational, episcopal and presbyterian forms. The whole body, not just decision-makers at the top, is to be equipped and mobilized through appropriate structures.

3. Any structure in place, including the specific large- and small-group models being tried, must be seen to be humanly created and temporary and therefore held on to with humility and an openness to change. A church not willing to change or even eliminate any structure is risking paralysis.

4. The substance always must come before the structure: “The church’s essential characteristic is life. . . . Its life is an organized life, to be sure; but this organization is secondary and derivative. It is the result of life. The church is, first of all, a spiritual organism, which may, secondarily, have some organizational expression” (Snyder, p. 157). The hard question that must be asked is, How much effort is being put into forming structures and how much into making sure those structures express New Testament life?

5. This is not to say that church structures are in the end somehow optional, even in churches that stress the charismatic over the institutional. Snyder refers to “phantom churches” that pride themselves on having little structure and impromptu gatherings. These may have highly individualistic members and yet be vulnerable to the first strong personality that comes along (Snyder, p. 77).

6. In this day of accelerated social change and increasingly flat hierarchies (with lots of lateral rather than vertical communication) in organizations outside the church, it is more important than ever for churches to have simple, flexible structures. If people walk into a church having experienced the organizational revolutions in the workplace and social institutions of today, they should not feel like they have stepped back three decades into the past.

7. However, one should be sure that any changes are truly necessary. Change should not be dictated by the latest fashion in church management or by some ideology about grassroots versus top-down initiatives or by an artificial struggle between people and programs. The adage “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?” applies. One must heed the warning attributed to Petronius Arbiter (c. a.d. 66), who was project manager to Emperor Nero for the Roman games:

We trained hard—but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life we tend to meet any situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization.

» See also: Church

» See also: Equipping

» See also: Organization

» See also: Organizational Culture and Change

» See also: Structures

References and Resources

J. W. Alexander, Managing Our Work (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1975); J. D. Anderson and E. E. Jones, The Management of Ministry (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978); G. Getz, Sharpening the Focus of the Church (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1984); R. Neighbour Jr., Where Do We Go from Here? (Houston: Touch Publications, 1990); H. A. Snyder, The Problem of Wineskins: Church Structure in a Technological Age (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1975); R. P. Stevens and P. Collins, The Equipping Pastor: A Systems Approach to Congregational Leadership (Washington, D.C.: Alban Institute, 1993).

—Dan Williams

Circumcision

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Circumcision refers to the practice of removing the prepuce of a male. Historically it has been practiced in a variety of societies for cultural and religious reasons. Jews and Arabs continue to circumcise their sons in keeping with their religious traditions. Some groups in Africa and the South Pacific also practice the ritual, though the origins of these practices are sometimes obscure. Sometimes it is performed as a rite of passage from puberty to manhood. The procedure has never been common in Europe.

Circumcision in the Old Testament: A Metaphor for Holiness

In the Old Testament God adopted this West Semitic rite, depicted on statues of warriors from the early third millennium b.c., to show that the organ of procreation was consecrated to him.

Moses complained that he had “uncircumcised lips,” by which he meant his speech was not fit to participate in God’s program (Exodus 6:12 KJV). God remedied the situation by giving him speech that made him as God to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1). Jeremiah speaks of uncircumcised ears, that is, ears unfit to hear God’s word (Jeremiah 7:10). When Israel entered the Promised Land, they were to regard its fruit as uncircumcised for three years, but in the fourth year “all its fruit will be holy, an offering of praise to the Lord” (Leviticus 19:24). A circumcised heart (Leviticus 26:41; Deut. 10:16; Deut. 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 9:25-26) refers to the human intellectual-emotional-spiritual forum, where decisions are made, as able to participate in God’s covenant.

The Practice of Circumcision in Old Testament Times

According to Genesis 17:9-14 Abraham was obliged to circumcise himself and his household to make the organ of procreation symbolically fit to produce seed fit to participate in God’s covenant. Some cultures circumcise their children at puberty as a rite of passage from childhood to manhood in the community. God employed the sign for infants eight days old to show that they are “holy” (see Romans 11:16; 1 Cor. 7:14).

The extension of the sign to all of Abraham’s physical seed, not just Sarah’s, shows it included nonelect children. Physical circumcision could not be equated with the circumcision of the heart, the essential covenant requirement (Deut. 6:5; Deut. 10:16; Deut. 30:6). The granting of the sign to those bought with money, however, shows that the covenant relationship could include Gentiles. An uncircumcised male will be cut off by God (that is, he might die any day; Genesis 17:9-14).

Two Old Testament stories about circumcision have received considerable discussion. After the Lord threatened Pharaoh with the announcement that unless he let Israel go the Lord would kill Pharaoh’s firstborn son, God met Moses to kill him, or more probably Moses’ firstborn son, for failing to circumcise him (Exodus 4:24-26). Moses’ narrow escape validated God’s threat against Pharaoh’s household (compare Proverbs 11:31; 1 Peter 4:18).

Two explanations have been proposed for God’s command to Joshua to circumcise the Israelites again (that is, a second time; Joshua 5:2-3). On the one hand, that portion of the united militia who were forty years and older may have had to be circumcised again because the Egyptian circumcision was an incomplete slit, unlike the Israelite complete circumcision. This interpretation best explains the emphasis on flint knives, which were plentiful in Palestine but not in Egypt, and the reference to the reproach of Egypt (Joshua 5:9). On the other hand, that older portion may have been reckoned as the first circumcision, and those under forty, who were not circumcised in the desert, the second. This interpretation best suits Joshua 5:4-7.

Circumcision of the Heart: The New Testament

Without circumcision of the heart, circumcision is uncircumcision (Romans 2:25-29). The outward sign fades into insignificance in comparison with keeping the commandments (1 Cor. 7:18-19). The circumcision in Christ entailed the putting off of the whole, not only part, of the sinful nature (Col. 2:11). Paul vehemently opposed the notion that Gentiles had to accept circumcision and thus become Jews before they could belong to God’s chosen people. Christians are justified by faith in Christ alone (Acts 15:1; Galatians 2:3; Galatians 5:12). Since both circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing (1 Cor. 7:19), if Jews wished to continue the practice, they could (Acts 16:3).

Circumcision in North America

In the United States over 60 percent of males are circumcised (62.7 percent in 1994; Hill). In addition to religious tradition, it is practiced for cosmetic, precedential (that is, “like father, like son”) and hygienic reasons. Its popularity is somewhat puzzling since many physicians say it is unnecessary. Advocates of the practice, however, claim it might serve to prevent penile and cervical cancer, and there is fear that delayed circumcision will be more risky and traumatic (about 5 percent of uncircumcised infants require the operation later in life). Christians, be they ethnic Jews or Gentiles, may elect to circumcise their children for these reasons but not for spiritual advantage.

» See also: Body

» See also: Sacraments

References and Resources

R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961); George Hill, “U.S. Circumcision Statistics,” 3 Apr. 1997.

—Bruce Waltke

Citizenship

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

To be a citizen is to hold a political office: not an elected office, to be sure, but an important office of public responsibility nonetheless. But what is citizenship? Where does it come from? And what, if anything, does it have to do with Christian faith? What is the connection between one’s earthly citizenship and citizenship in God’s kingdom? Or is there none?

The History of Citizenship

The idea and practice of citizenship originated in ancient Greece, not in Israel. But biblical religion had a big influence on the development of the meaning of citizenship in the West. The citizen in certain Greek city-states was someone who had a voice in shaping the common life of the community, especially in making its law through a deliberative process. Most people in those city-states were not citizens. Citizens gained their status by virtue of their education, wealth or leadership prowess. The role of the citizen came to be distinguished from other affiliations and classes of people, such as cultic officials, tradespeople, warriors, farmers and slaves. Citizenship meant having the responsibility and privileges of membership in what was thought to be the highest form of human community, namely, the political community.

The children of Israel exercised many responsibilities similar to those exercised by citizens of Greek city-states and in early republican Rome. However, Israel was structured not as a city-state but as the covenanted people of God, living under a legal order handed down by God to a nation made up of many family clans. Human responsibility for the common laws that governed Israel as a whole belonged to judges, arbiters, conciliators, courts and eventually kings. But everyone of the children of Israel was a member of God’s covenanted people through whom God was revealing his will for all nations. The community of which they were a part was more profound and historically far-reaching than a Greek city-state.

Israel, as we know from the Bible, was conquered by Assyria and Babylon more than five hundred years before Christ. Between about 400 b.c. and a.d. 300 the independent Greek city-states and republican Rome also came to an end. Massive empires took their place and essentially smothered the earlier meaning of citizenship and Israelite clan membership. Most people became mere subjects, which is to say, they became subject to an imperial authority and were required simply to obey.

Several important developments between about a.d. 300 and the Protestant Reformation (which began in the 1500s) led to new understandings of citizenship. First, the early church, which had no political authority in the first centuries after Christ, gradually grew to become the most influential institution in the collapsing Roman Empire and in the feudal period that followed. The Roman Catholic Church gained so much moral and legal authority that it succeeded in subordinating political authority to the church and to the church’s canon law—a law that functioned not merely as internal church law but in many respects as public international law for all the lands where the church’s authority extended. Consequently, an important distinction was drawn between higher ecclesiastical authority and lower political authorities.

For the most part, until the time of the Reformation, a top-down conception of political authority dominated in this church-led culture, which reached its height in the twelfth through fourteenth centuries, called the High Middle Ages. The Roman Catholic Church absorbed the hierarchical pattern from imperial Rome. The idea was that God granted authority to the church (eventually to the leading church official—the bishop of Rome), and the church then delegated political authority to lower, nonecclesiastical officials. However, beginning late in the Middle Ages, a rediscovery of ancient Greek and Roman documents led to a renewed interest in the work of Aristotle, the Stoics and other ancient philosophers. One consequence was a revival of the idea of citizenship.

Both inside the church and in wider political circles a number of people began to argue for a bottom-up origin of authority. In one way or another, officials—whether in the church or the empire—ought to be accountable to the people. From this point of view, God delegated authority to the whole church, not just to priests, and to the body politic, not merely to the rulers. Great battles ensued, both intellectual and military, between those claiming the divine right of kings and those arguing for some kind of popular or national sovereignty. These battles contributed to the breakup of the Holy Roman Empire and to the splintering of the church, neither of which could withstand the impact of Reformation theology and the increasingly volatile campaigns for national independence. By the 1700s new political entities had come into existence—the first versions of modern states. In some cases these states refused to subordinate themselves to the Catholic Church. And inside many of them, various efforts were made to redefine the state as a limited, law-bound trust in which the rulers would have to be accountable to the people.

One line of argument for citizenship in the new states was deeply rooted in Christian faith. Its advocates continued to believe that God is the source of all authority on earth, but they also believed that God’s grant of authority to governments, for example, should be recognized as having the purpose of establishing justice rather than perpetuating autocracies or monarchies. People should not merely be subject to authority but should be free to participate in holding governments accountable to God. Furthermore, there is nothing sacred about a monarchy, and there is no reason why political authorities should be subordinate to church authorities. Different officeholders have different kinds of authority from God, and each one should exercise that authority in a way that is accountable to the people—whether those people are members of the church or citizens in the state.

The Secularization of Citizenship

At the same time that many Christians were trying to rethink (and reform) politics away from the hierarchical patterns that had dominated the church and most lower governments, another stream of thought was also emerging. Many thinkers during the Renaissance and on through the eighteenth-century Enlightenment wanted to recover political authority entirely for “the people.” From this point of view, God and the church were part of the problem, not part of the solution. Political freedom and responsibility of citizens would be impossible to achieve as long as people appealed to God or the church for help. Citizenship would have to arise from the people themselves. Sovereignty would have to be grounded originally in the people and then delegated in limited amounts to the rulers chosen by citizens. Rulers—governments—would have to be subject to citizens, not the other way around.

It should be clear to anyone in our day that this line of argument for citizenship won out over the milder form of argument proposed by many Christian reformers. Today, in most democracies and modern states, the belief is that political sovereignty originates with the people, that rulers are subject to the people and that citizenship is an entirely secular affair, unrelated to God. Even in the United States, which was greatly influenced by Puritan and other Christian immigrants, the Constitution grounded political authority in the people. The Declaration of Independence may trace our inalienable rights and freedoms back to the Creator, but the American system makes government entirely accountable to the people, not to God.

Recovering Christian Citizenship

What then shall we say, from a Christian point of view, about the meaning of citizenship today? First, I would urge Christians to try to understand all of life as directly accountable to God. Perhaps most of our employers, government officials and leaders in science, art and the media will not agree with this judgment, but there is no alternative from a Christian point of view. Not only does the apostle Paul say that governments are ordained by God (Romans 13), but the whole of biblical teaching makes this clear. It is not just the church, the people of God, who are dependent on God; the entire creation depends on the Creator, and all human authority comes from God.

Some Christians interpret the passage about Caesar in Mark’s Gospel (Mark 12:13-17) to suggest that Jesus was separating human civic obligations from the obligations owed to God. But when Jesus says, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12:17), he does not say that what belongs to Caesar does not belong to God. Instead, we should interpret this passage as we would the passage in Ephesians where Paul writes, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right” (Ephes. 6:1). Children should obey their parents, but obedience to parents is part of what children owe to God. So also in political life: citizens owe honor and taxes to government (Caesar), but they do so as part of their total obligation to God. Or, to put it another way, Caesar deserves taxes from citizens, but both Caesar and the citizens together owe all of their political/governmental responsibilities to God. Caesar deserves taxes, but God deserves everything, including the dutiful service we render to Caesar when we pay Caesar our taxes. This is why the apostles were bold, when push came to shove, to say, “We must obey God rather than men!” (Acts 5:29), even when some of those men happened to be government officials.

The error of modern secularism, therefore, is not in affirming the distinction between church and state, but rather in trying to disconnect ordinary life from God. The error is not in the revival of citizenship and the demise of top-down hierarchicalism. Rather, the mistake is in believing that government’s accountability to citizens can be sustained only if both government and citizens disconnect themselves from God.

Staying in tune with biblical revelation about God’s diversified creation (including diverse kinds of human responsibility in marriage, family, agriculture, government, industry, commerce, the arts and more), Christians have every reason to accept the differentiation of modern society. Family life may legitimately be distinguished from various professions, as may science from art, politics from church life and so forth. This great diversity of social life holds together under God as a single creation from God; it need not be organized hierarchically under an all-powerful emperor or church. Citizenship is different from parenting or engineering or pastoral ministry. Christians may accept the distinct, distinguishable responsibility of citizenship without imagining that it must be disconnected from the all-embracing allegiance owed to God.

Citizens of Two Realms

Citizenship in two realms is where the important connection between earthly citizenship and citizenship in God’s kingdom comes in. Another analogy might be helpful. Christians should have no difficulty recognizing that a family member—a child in the Smith family, for example—can at the same time be a child in God’s family. The two are not incompatible. In fact, biblically speaking, the earthly family is supposed to be an image of the family of God. The same can be said about citizenship in the United States of America or in any other country. Fulfilling one’s earthly civic responsibilities is a duty owed to God as well as to fellow citizens. Believers who recognize God’s supreme rule in Jesus Christ and, by faith, thereby accept citizenship in God’s kingdom are people who must learn to perform their civic duties as unto the Lord.

There are correct ways and wrong ways to act as a citizen, just as there are good and bad ways to act as a child in one’s home. Christians must be willing to obey God rather than earthly rulers if the rulers seek to compel an obedience that radically conflicts with obedience to God. But very often the challenge to believers is to perform their civic responsibilities constructively in ways that demonstrate their obedience as citizens in God’s kingdom. God has called us in Christ to pursue justice, to seek to live at peace with all people and to love our neighbors. In a complex society such as ours, one of the most important ways to live by this faith as a citizen in God’s kingdom is to pursue justice for all neighbors in the political community in which we hold citizenship.

If we now turn to examine the nature of citizenship in the country in which we live, we will discover all kinds of important resources in the biblical tradition to help us. Part of what is good about most constitutional governments today is that they were created over centuries by citizens who were trying to define them as limited authorities. Thankfully, Christians do not stand alone in rejecting totalitarian government, but Christians should recognize that every form of earthly totalitarianism is a mistake because God alone holds total authority over the earth.

As soon as citizens seek to define government’s limits, they ought to confront the question about the nature of other types of human authority, outside government. This is often a difficult task for those who reject biblical revelation. Most often they recognize only the authority of individuals and the state. Christians can hold a high view of citizenship in the state while also recognizing that family life, business, church life and other arenas of human responsibility are not reducible to either individual autonomy or a department of state.

When it comes to trying to hold government accountable to its own calling before God, citizenship in a modern state becomes an extremely important calling for the average Christian citizen. Certainly one important way to hold government accountable is through voting in regular elections. Another is to make sure that governments are held accountable to a basic law, a constitution, which government may not abrogate autocratically. The fact that these means of accountability have been built into most democratic states should be accepted with thankfulness, and we should recognize that Christian influences had something to do with their implementation.

Christians should be at the forefront of citizen actions that seek to secure accountable governments through constitutional limits and protections and through regular elections and court reviews. They should also take their civic responsibilities much further than this. Not every Christian is called to be a full-time political activist or government official. But the office of citizen gives one important responsibility nonetheless. Part of that responsibility is somewhat passive: stopping at stoplights, paying taxes and essentially heeding the laws that exist. But good citizenship, from a Christian point of view, must go beyond mere obedience to the law. Laws are not always just; times change, and reforms are required even of good laws. To serve God with heart, soul, strength and mind means to offer up all of life, including one’s civic responsibility, to God in service. To do that, Christians must do more than merely go along with the expectations and demands of fellow citizens (even the majority of fellow citizens). Instead, Christians should pursue justice by seeking to influence government through elections and other means, by seeking to revise unjust laws and by helping governments make the proper distinctions among state, church, family, school, business enterprises and other institutions responsible to God. Citizenship is one of the important callings Christians have in a highly differentiated social order, which in its entirety is called to accountability before God.

» See also: Law

» See also: Lobbying

» See also: Politics

» See also: Principalities and Powers

» See also: States/Provinces

» See also: Taxes

» See also: Voting

References and Resources

R. Beiner, ed., Theorizing Citizenship (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994); The Public Justice Report, published six times a year by the Center for Public Justice, Washington, D.C., seeks to develop mature Christian insight into the responsibility of citizens; T. R. Sherratt and R. P. Mahurin, Saints as Citizens: A Guide to Public Responsibilities for Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995); J. W. Skillen, Recharging the American Experiment: Principled Pluralism for Genuine Civic Community (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994); J. W. Skillen, The Scattered Voice: Christians at Odds in the Public Square (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990).

—James W. Skillen

City

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

The city is a fascinating, complex and dominating fact of contemporary life. An increasing number of the world’s population are city dwellers. It would be rare to find someone who has not had firsthand experience of the city, and impossible to find someone whose life is beyond the reach of the city and its influences. But what are we to make of the city? And what is the city to make of us?

The City in Western Culture

The city has provoked a range of attitudes and commentaries. On the one side, the city has been celebrated as the seat of civilization and the crucible of high culture. It is associated with enlightened minds, innovation and social progress. On the other side, the city has been portrayed as promoting social pathology and moral disorder, the very antithesis of community, kinship ties and family values. Invariably, the city is contrasted for better or worse with the culture of the countryside (see Community, Rural; Towns).

The language of the city in Western culture draws deeply on the legacy of the Greco-Roman world. The English word city derives from Latin terms having to do with membership of the citizenry (civitas) and with the individual citizen (civis). Concepts such as freedom, public citizenship and political democracy lean heavily on the philosophy and polity (polis) undergirding the ancient Greek city-state. The latter was broad enough to incorporate the city and its hinterland as a political unit, but over time the concept of citizenship in the polis became associated with the public life of the urbs, the city, and the urbane qualities of the free citizen of good taste and sound judgment. These qualities of city life seem today to be lost in the fog of a past era. We are more accustomed to the pejorative language of “blight,” “decay,” “problem” and “crisis.” As goes our language, so go our perceptions. What are we to make of the urban social upheaval that is transforming our cities?

A Matter of Perspective

It is a remarkable experience to fly into any major city at night. One gets a sense of the city as a whole, without distraction. Benign as it appears from such a height, however, what we observe is already filtering through the lens of what we think, judge, want and expect the city to be. Once at street level, we can grasp the whole city only with an act of the imagination. Our imagination is fueled by reports of events that lie outside our immediate field of observation. Such external reports collude with our hopes and fears, dreams and aspirations, needs and desires. They help shape our image of the city. This is true also when it comes to the attitudes and judgments we make about other people and places in the city based on our limited personal experience. Experience is never unmediated or free of the assumptions and biases of the interpreter. However, as we open ourselves to the experiences of the city with a view to encountering its rich diversity, so we receive wisdom and insight from surprising places, causing us to shift our perspective and our accustomed ways of thinking and acting. Since we possess the city as a whole only in our imagination, we must remain open to the experiences and observations of others, especially to the “other,” the strange and the stranger.

City living is the art of constructing mental maps by which to integrate and order the myriad impulses of the city. These maps enable us to negotiate our way in a complex and constantly changing environment. We scan the city as a landscape, and translate it like a text. City living is like learning a language, replete with cultural nuances and the collective wisdom and experience of generations.

Received Wisdom About the City

The biblical images of the city demonstrate the range of attitudes noted above. On the one hand the city is depicted in the Bible as the center of apostasy, injustice and self-aggrandizement, characterized by Babylon, a city of rampant evil. On the other hand, the city is characterized as Jerusalem, a place of God’s dwelling, governance, protection and promise of a future full of hope and healing. In reality, the biblical vision of the city incorporates both characterizations. It is the home of sinner and saint, of grit and grace. Above all, it is the primary locus within which the biblical drama unfolds. As has often been noted, the biblical journey begins in the garden, moves to the city, spreads from city to city and culminates in the vision of a garden transformed into a city.

The city in our times differs in fundamental ways from the cities of the Bible, from ancient Greece and Egypt, and from those of medieval Europe. One important difference is the degree of visibility of the whole as noted above. The modern city is in fact a composite of many worlds. Increasing specialization of function brought about by modern technology underlies the wealth of individual worlds found in the modern city. We construct our lives in the city in unique ways out of the many options that the city provides.

It is common wisdom to characterize the modern industrial city by the metaphor of the machine. In the modern city the person is more nearly a part of a machine than a whole personality, fitted to fulfill a particular task with the appropriate frame of mind. This specialization of the person prompts the observation that the modern person is fragmented. We meet in the city the fragments of persons rather than whole persons. Not only is the city fragmented through the intense differentiation of human affairs, but the city dweller is fragmented by a thoroughgoing specialization in which each brings to their specialized activities only the fragment of themselves, the part which is needed for the efficient performance of that activity.

As we move steadily into the postmodern, postindustrial stage of urban society, cities are themselves becoming specialized institutions within a broad network of cities. The increased capacities of information technology to span space and time in nanoseconds undermines the tendency of bygone cities to determine the entire round of life of its inhabitants. Cities are integrated into a much larger complex, national, regional and global (see Global Village). Paradoxically, the globalizing of the city has also seen a resurgence in localism and the investment by people in the life of the neighborhood.

Can the biblical treatment of the city make sense in the postmodern city of our times? Without a doubt we are all familiar with the sinfulness of our cities, etched into the very fabric of our corporate culture, and menacing the well-being of individuals, families and communities. This much has not been changed. But the gospel message sounded in the city, to the city and through the city remains the same: where sin abounds, the grace of God abounds all the more. This is a challenge for us to recover a spirituality adequate to the needs and opportunities of our times.

An Urban Spirituality

What does it mean for us to live in the city as disciples of Jesus Christ? What is the good news for everyday life? How does the city build our humanity as creatures before God?

At his conversion, Saul was instructed to “get up and enter the city, and you will be told what to do” (Acts 9:6 RSV). A spirituality adequate to the challenge of urban discipleship today will make a similar metaphorical journey of conversion. This spirituality has the elements of liturgical celebration, where liturgy fulfills its literal meaning as “the work of the people.”

To begin with, we are challenged to get moving, to arise and step toward the city. Let me suggest that this is not a movement so much from outside to inside the city as from passivity to activity within the city appropriate to the invitation of God. And what is this invitation? It is the gracious beckoning to step into the place of pain and temptation in the struggle for the soul of the city. It is not the call to either precipitate our own action in response to a deep sense of guilt and culpability over our participation in the injustice and brokenness of the city, nor to attempt to break through the feeling of powerlessness by an aggressive activism. Rather, it is the invitation to “follow Jesus,” through liturgical identification, into the very place of action where the full force of evil assails us, threatens to destroy us, but is forced to yield to the resurrection power of new life.

This movement of paying attention to the invitation of God will enable us to “enter” the city, that is, to enter into a profound awareness of the mysterious presence of God as grace active in all our dealings and relations within the city. To enter is to become aware and more keenly discerning of the movement of God in and through the city.

Then we are ready to hear the voice of God which addresses us in the very act of paying attention—to God, to the city, to the community and to ourselves. As we move in concert with God in the city, we are told what we are to do. As we do what we are told, we discover again and again the grace of God’s transforming passion for the city, and the sustaining power of the divine life in our own lives and communities. And out of this spirituality of engagement and discernment we are led to celebrate the festival nature of the kingdom of God in the city. We rejoice that God is in the business of transforming urban culture and celebrate the anticipations of the future city in our present cities. We celebrate the gifts of creativity and the imitations of the presence of the Creator in moments of justice for the powerless, hospitality to strangers, equality for the underprivileged and recovery of dignity for the degraded. For such is the city of God.

References and Resources

R. Bakke, The Urban Christian: Effective Ministry in Today’s Urban World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1987); D. Callahan, ed., The Secular City Debate (London: Collier Macmillan, 1966); D. Clarke, Cities in Crisis: The Christian Response (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1960); H. G. Cox, The Secular City: Secularization and Urbanization in Theological Perspective (London: SCM Press, 1965); K. B. Cully and F. N. Harper, eds., Will the Church Lose the City? (New York: World Publishing, 1969); J. Ellul, The Meaning of the City (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970); C. S. Fischer, To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982); P. S. Hawkins, ed., Civitas: Religious Interpretations of the City (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); L. Mumford, The City in History: Its Origin, Its Transformations and Its Prospects (New York: Harcourt Brace and World, 1961).

—Ken Luscombe

Civil Disobedience

Back to Table of Contents Back to Table of Contents

---

Civil disobedience means breaking the law nonviolently for conscientious reasons. The term is a recent one, probably coined in the nineteenth century by Henry David Thoreau, but the practice is an old one, found in ancient Greek drama, in the life of the prophet Daniel and, arguably, in Israel’s exodus from Egypt. More recent noteworthy examples include the campaigns against slavery and the slave trade, the fight for women’s suffrage, Gandhi’s campaigns against the British in South Africa and India, and Martin Luther King’s campaigns for civil rights in the United States. Tactics can include sit-ins, illegal marches, tax boycotts and blockades. Should a Christian be involved in such actions? Are there situations in which it would be wrong not to be? After defining the term, this article will explore options, ethics and cautions.

The Meaning of Civil Disobedience

The term civil disobedience is not a terribly precise one, for it attempts to bring together two ideas. One describes an action: disobedience, usually meaning disobeying someone in authority. The other describes the manner of disobeying: civil, that is, it is not just any kind of disobedience. The notion of civility can be understood in two ways: (1) as the disobedience of civil, that is, political, authorities and/or (2) as disobedience carried out in a civil manner. To say disobedience is carried out in a civil manner can also be understood in two ways: (1) the disobedience is carried out in a respectful way, and/or (2) the one disobeying recognizes the legitimacy of the authority being opposed. We shall look at each of these in turn.

Types of Civil Disobedience

Disobedience is different from rebellion, revolution or any other attempt unconstitutionally and violently to overthrow a government, a regime or a political order. It is an attempt not to overthrow an order but to dissent from it in some way and to show that dissent in actions more than words. In some cases, for instance, in blocking a logging road, a nuclear plant or an abortion clinic, it is an attempt to impose an outcome by nonviolent means. It is not merely a symbol or a statement, though it will have these overtones as well, but an active attempt to stop something from happening or to start something. In other cases it is simply a collective, or an individual, act of conscientious refusal to pay a tax or to obey a law or an order because people believe that they cannot morally carry out a particular directive from a government. They have no wish to start a political movement; they just will not violate their conscience.

Some say that civil disobedience is not restricted to opposition to the government, that it includes actions such as blocking an entrance to support or protest women priests. Since there is no official definition of what civil disobedience means, this usage cannot be faulted. However, the fact that the state is usually recognized as the only body authorized to use coercion in public life means that opposition to it has a particular edge. With other bodies in society we may be not so much disobeying as dissenting: they have fewer means to compel us. Also, if we do cause problems for other bodies by physical disruption, it is usually the state as the enforcer of last resort with whom we must deal eventually.

Disobedience can be carried out against an entire regime, against only a particular law or against only a particular government action. If the disobedience is against a particular law or action, typically those involved continue to accept the overall legitimacy of the government as such. People who protest certain types of logging do not (usually) deny all legitimacy to government or deny the validity of other laws. They think that in one or more instances government has overstepped its bounds. One common manifestation of this is a protester’s calm acceptance of being arrested and fined or imprisoned. Sometimes fines are refused as a matter of conscience, whereas prison cannot really be refused. So the government is both opposed and accepted at the same time, hence the common sight of people being carried away from demonstrations by police. The demonstrators will not cooperate in their own arrest, but they will not run away from or actively oppose the police. Civil disobedience always contains this duality of rejection and acceptance.

The situation in which a regime as such is opposed is a little more complicated. A person may oppose a regime in its entirety but, for practical reasons, disobey only certain of its commands. Hence in countries such as the Netherlands during World War II, some people took up arms against the occupying Nazi regime, whereas others obeyed most laws except those, for example, requiring that Jews be handed over. The latter group would be practicing civil disobedience; the former, rebellion. The basic view of the legitimacy of the regime might have been the same, but the strategies were different.

Civil Disobedience and Christian Ethics

One of the major elements that distinguishes civil disobedience from other forms of opposition is civility. It neither casts all discretion to the winds nor demonizes its opponents. It is carried out with a modicum of respect; it grants a certain legitimacy to those whom it fights. Gandhi developed this into a view of satyagraha, or “truth force,” wherein the disobedience must be carried out without hatred or anger as an act of love; this is the core of its essential power.

Civil disobedience’s duality of acceptance and refusal has commended it to Christian ethicists, especially to those, such as Anabaptist and other pacifist theologians, who reject the notion of violent opposition to government. Civil disobedience forswears violence. At the same time it denies certain things to Caesar all the while respecting Paul’s stricture that the powers that be are God’s ministers (Romans 13:1-8) and also Peter’s claim that “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29; compare 1 Peter 2:13-14). Obedience to God and God’s ministers are combined in Jesus’ admonition to give to God the things that are God’s and to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s (Mark 12:13-17). Hence civil disobedience has