Some time ago, I posted a series on Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD), a term coined by Christian Smith, who wrote Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers
Smith and Lundquist found that most Christian American teenagers (and their parents) have a view of Christianity that reduces to —
1. A God exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when he is needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.
This is not the gospel of the Bible. This religion doesn’t rely on Jesus for salvation, but good works. This religion is not about participating in God’s mission to redeem the world. Rather, God exists to help me feel happy and good about myself. God is not my king. He’s my personal counselor and therapist.
It’s a non-threatening, non-challenging, and ultimately non-saving religion that will not change the world, much less save it. But it has so permeated our teaching and preaching that we have trouble seeing it as wrong at all.
And I am deeply concerned that our doctrine of church leadership is being taken over by Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.
When you ask yourself what you want in an elder, do you focus mainly on what the elder can do for you?
Do you mainly ask whether this is a man you want to visit you in the hospital — or a man who can challenge you to visit others?
Do you mainly ask whether this is a man who can help you solve your interpersonal problems — or a man who can challenge you to become a peacemaker who solves the interpersonal problems of others?
Do you mainly ask whether this is a man who’d be a great comforter and counselor in times of your own distress — or a man who’ll lead you to be fully committed in the mission of Christ to redeem the world?
You see, in nearly all writings within the Churches of Christ about elders that I’ve read, I see next to nothing about the mission of God, being missional, or helping the Spirit transform church members to become more like Jesus.
We might talk about these things in other contexts, but when we talk about church leadership, we want a therapist more than a shepherd. Shepherds lead sheep. And somewhere along the way, we’ve lost the concept of leading.
If shepherds lead, then where should our shepherds — our elders — lead us? Do we want to be led to “be happy and to feel good about oneself”? Or to carry a cross of self-sacrifice for a lost and hurting world?
This is from an excellent essay by Christian Smith, “On ‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’ as U.S.Teenagers’ Actual, Tacit, De Facto Religious Faith” (an excellent essay — well worth the time to read) —
Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is also about providing therapeutic benefits to its adherents. This is not a religion of repentance from sin, … of living as a servant of a sovereign divine, of steadfastly saying one’s prayers, … of building character through suffering, of basking in God’s love and grace, of spending oneself in gratitude and love for the cause of social justice, etc. Rather, what appears to be the actual dominant religion among U.S. teenagers is centrally about feeling good, happy, secure, at peace. It is about attaining subjective well-being, being able to resolve problems, and getting along amiably with other people.
When we speak of church leadership, are we more focused on “attaining subjective well-being, being able to resolve problems, and getting along amiably with other people” or “spending oneself in gratitude and love for the cause of social justice.” Do we want to be led to serve the poor and seek the lost? Or to be well cared for in times of emotional distress?
Now, it’s important that the readers understand that I believe elders should very much be involved in pastoral care — visiting the sick, caring for the bereaved, etc. That’s not my disagreement. Rather —
* I am deeply concerned that we’re letting the pastoral element of leadership overwhelm the mission. If we don’t see our elders/shepherds/overseers as called by the Spirit to lead us into mission with God (as well as providing pastoral leadership), we miss one of the central elements of Christianity.
* I am deeply concerned that we’re letting the pastoral role of elders/shepherds/overseers become a consumer good, a fringe benefit of membership, rather than an example of how all church members should behave toward each other.
The elders aren’t called to be a sick-visiting ministry. They are referred to over and over as “leaders” and “shepherds.” The primary point of both terms is that they are to have followers — and if the elders are engaged in pastoral care (they should be), their followers should be doing the same. They should also be caring for each other, visiting the sick in the hospitals, comforting those who’ve suffered loss.
Hence, to be around an elder should be to be challenged to follow in their footsteps as they serve in the mission of God to redeem the world.
Elders should be challenging the members to step up and be better servants, more sacrificial, and more submissive to their fellow members. To be around an elder should be more about being called to step up and participate in God’s mission than being comforted and put at ease. Ease is not the goal. This is a cross-carrying religion.
Hence, the core of an elder’s work is surely mainly about helping the members become living sacrifices. This is the theme sentence of Romans 12. When Paul urges leaders to lead with zeal in Romans 12:8, it’s in the context of —
(Rom 12:1 ESV) I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
This, I believe, is what our leaders should lead us to do.
Yes, there is a pastoral role for elders, and it’s important, but it’s not the central, defining task of an elder. Leadership is. And we are living in a time when the church is desperate for leadership.
1, 2, and 5 are true. (For 5 see Romans 2:6, 15.) 3 is arguably true if the happiness is the makarios happiness of the Beatitudes. Only 4 is clearly untrue.
I’m not at all convinced that pastoral ministry is not the primary ministry of elders especially when teaching is viewed as a pastoral activity. The visional/missional leadership you describe seems to have been more an apostolic ministry in the early church. The broader perspective of apostolic identity in Paul’s letters allows for a continuing apostolic ministry today. Churches of Christ have had our apostles in the past (Batsell Barrett Baxter, Jimmy Allen, David Lipscomb and others). The fragmented condition of Churches of Christ today makes it difficult to recognize contemporary apostolic leadership.
Jay is starting to sound like a Methodist. They have the Stephen ministry which involves lay people in pastoral care and counseling (with limits) and teaching others how to Do this. The ideas presented here have only been publicly addressed in a few progressive cofCs in the last 5 years. (If you read Jay’s previous posts about conservative/progressive churches, progressives will go out into the world and offer help whereas conservative ones generally won’t.) Prior to that church was about the acts of worship on Sunday and a “lesson” on some obscure aspect of one of Paul’s missionary journeys or a “why we don’t ____”. Most younger people have never seen pastoral care unless the minister came when one of their grandparents was very ill and they just happened to see him. Some young people would be taken to visit an old sick person (non-relative) once every year or so. Old and sick were synonymous. Only the terminally ill or old “shut-ins” got pastoral care. Few if any ordinary people ever saw anyone have concern when someone was getting ready to ship out to a war zone, a woman was having difficulty with a pregnancy while her other kids at home still needed care and did not understand what was going on, or someone young had to deal with the untimely death of a parent. Also, good church (cofC) members only went to visit when it was a member of their particular congregation. Sadly, members of any other cofC in the town or down the road did not matter.
When my late grandmother (who was an excellent cofC member) told her minister the next Sunday that “the Methodists and the Jews took care of me” when he told her he knew she had been in the hospital earlier that week, that was the most scathing indictment of the CofC imaginable.
I never really heard the central elements of Christianity ever discussed. I really thought it was just about not doing x, y, and z (cite that as 1 cofC 1:3). The first time I ever heard the basic elements of the faith mentioned from the pulpit was the Sunday after the world had lost both Mother Theresa and Princess Diana. That was when the moderate minister said that these two women showed the world the actions of Jesus and what Christianity was supposed to be. Yes one lived In a palace and the other a convent, but both worked with and for people of no status whatsoever. Keeping it short, he concluded with this is what the faith is all about.
I respectfully disagree with Gary about including Jimmy Allen as a cofC apostle. I have heard him preach and all he did was threaten everyone with hell. All human behavior was wrong, everything was a sin, and there was not one milligram of grace. There was neither pardon nor forgiveness, much less any of that strange Jewish term, atonement. Maybe in some other setting he could be decent, but I never saw it. He was the only preacher I ever saw take the songbook and beat on the lectern with it.
Okay … I am not entirely (or even a good part of the way) convinced by Gary’s comments. Romans 2 does NOT teach that being a good person (whatever one takes that to mean) is what will get anyone into heaven. I can see where someone might think that, (and I know plenty of people who agree with #5 without any reference at all to Romans, much less to Romans 2), but a careful reading of Romans 2 reveals that Paul is pointing out that whether our perspective on the works of the Law of God is based on words that are written in the inspired scriptures OR written on the hearts of those who know nothing or very little about what is written in scripture, the result is the same – works are not enough; one must entrust oneself to God (have faith) and particularly entrust oneself to Jesus, His Son, who died and rose again to give us hope. (And in this I am taking Paul’s point of view in Romans 2 that ‘works’ is a reference to what mankind can do.) I do not see Paul making a case for ‘doing good’ getting anyone into heaven. Having a judgment that considers a person’s deeds does NOT make salvation a matter of being a good person. It does, however, make judgment something that considers who a person is and how that is expressed in what they do. Lives will be judged by deeds in the sense that deeds reveal the heart. As Jesus put it, “you will recognize them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:16 and 20, Matthew 21:41 and 43, and Luke 3:8)
I also have some issues with the idea that missional/visional leadership was a function of “more an apostolic ministry in the early church.” It seems to me that this mindset separates leaders and those whom they lead in a very artificial way – similar to the mindset that preachers are hired to do evangelism for the congregation and that evangelism is not legitimately the responsibility of the entire body of Christ. It seems to me that we have read Matthew 28:18-20 for so long in a certain way that we sometimes fail to notice what Jack Exum pointed out in the title of his book, “Go Ye Means Go Me”. Evangelism was one of many things the apostles were to do and teach when making disciples, but NOT the only thing. Still, it was something they were to pass along to ALL of those disciples of Jesus whom they made in their evangelistic ministry.
Jay, if you read Psalm 23’s portrayal of what God will do as David’s shepherd, it is easy to similarly get the idea that pastoral care (as WE call it) is the prime role of our elder-shepherds-leaders. All it takes is viewing that passage in a very cursory manner, similar to the way one might tend to view Matthew 28:18-20 as only applying to the apostles and not to those whom they reached with the gospel message. After all, our example to follow is Jesus, who was evangelistic (preaching the kingdom) AND concerned with people’s physical and emotional well-being (healing) AND was deeply involved in sharing His life with others to help them grow in spiritual health and perspective on life (teaching).
Isolating any of those ministry focuses for only particular roles in the Body of Christ is, I believe, a mistake … a very critical mistake. Elders are to be servant-leaders among the Body, NOT instead of the Body being servant-leaders to their own sphere of influence. Watching over someone is NOT unique to elder-shepherds in the Body and neither is it an authoritarian role in any way. It is, first and foremost, the function of every servant to watch over their Master’s things/people/mission as stewards of those things the Master has assigned to them. Elder-shepherds have a broader assignment of what every husband and wife do in their home. Responsibility is emphasized over authority, which is very limited when viewed in the context of the husband and wife being stewards of their home on behalf of the One to whom that home truly belongs. The true Master of that home has the real and unlimited authority to do with it as He wishes – while parents/married couples are charged with the responsibility of making ‘expressing well their Master’s will in that home’ as their prime objective.
Thinking that it is mostly the work of elders-shepherds to pastorally care for the whole flock, or that reaching out with the gospel to the entire world is mostly the work of apostles and preachers among the Body members, or that teaching is only something qualified and appointed ‘Teachers’ can do in the body of Christ are all fallacies to be avoided. To some extent we are all responsible for ALL of these works. To a greater extent, perhaps, or at least in a broader context, we recognize and appreciate leaders in cooperation with the Holy Spirit because they can help u see the way to grow and be more mature and fruitful in these various functions.
When my mind receives the message that a knee is in pain, it is not only the mind or the heart or any other singular member which responds to that pain. Shoulders, arms and elbows and wrists and hands and even core torso muscle groups respond to comfort the afflicted member-knee. Sometimes even the toes curl up and the ankles flex in response to the pain of the knee. Pain to one member of the body affects ALL of the members of the body to varying degrees. And that is how it is in the body of Christ – or should be.
As John Donne so eloquently put it, “Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.”
Grizz
There are two extremes possible for the church: 1. All grace and no works, 2. All works and no grace. Somehow the CoC has figured out how to avoid both grace AND works and just gathers to debate doctrine.
I am moved by Mark’s observations. No perceptive person could argue with him regarding what the CoC has, over the years, put first and foremost; doctrine over human beings. In defense of Gary, however, I do believe he was stating that many held Jimmy Allen as an “apostle”. I know that congregations in the part of the country in which I grew up held him up as “preacher of preachers”. And while some may think Mark a bit harsh, he is correct. I heard him numerous times as a child and teenager, and the sermons I remember are “What is Hell Like” and the ones against sex.
The problem of much of conservative Christianity is that it sees the masses as “bodies filling space”. It seldom takes the time to think of the stranger in the mall or grocery store as a human being who goes through the same human situations as self, who may be going through unbelievable pain and hardship and is reaching out to God even as they pass one another. As far as conservatives are concerned, God listens to very few. It is inconceivable to them that God is listening to this person who is, more than likely, not a “faithful member of the Church”, or “truly born again”.
We do not “fall in love” with humanity. We must take the time to practice a conscious relationship with God and God’s children. It is a challenge and an effort that must be faced each day. Abraham Joshua Heschel said that the prophet is one who “has God and man in the same thought at the same time”. When he uses the term “prophet” he means the person who can read the present, and this means paying attention with open mind and heart.
Gary, John and Mark,
Regarding Jimmy Allen, like many men of his generation, he came to grace late in his career. You really have to distinguish the older and younger JAs. Allen famously wrote Rebaptism
, which branded him a “liberal” by many, because he opposed re-baptism of Baptists.
A recent Christian Chronicle article http://www.christianchronicle.org/article2159008~Jimmy_Allen_not_done states,
— and you’ve just got to love someone who can say —
Amen!
I don’t know that any of that makes or doesn’t make Allen an “apostle.” I mean, perhaps if someone would offer up a definition …
If by “apostle” we mean someone who preaches the gospel to the lost, producing thousands of baptisms, well, maybe so. Allen has baptized thousands. Or do we mean someone who sends others out as missionaries?
The New Testament appears to have a double sense, treating the 12 and Paul as “apostles” of a particularly high authority, and yet Paul often uses “apostolos” to refer to the men and women he trained as missionaries. And so it’s important, I think, we speak about modern-day apostles that we be careful to address whether we mean “apostle like Peter” or “apostle like Junia.” (Phil 2:25: Epaphroditus; Gal 1:19 James, brother of Jesus; Barnabas Acts 14:14; Andronicus and Junia Romans 16:17)
The word literally means “ambassador,” “envoy,” or “messenger.” Therefore, it strikes me that an apostle (Junia sense) has a primary mission to the lost, as in “missionary” or “church planter” rather than “located preacher” or “revival preacher.”
Does God specially gift certain people to plant churches and to act as missionaries? Unquestionably. Are they apostles in the Junia sense? I can’t see why not. Are they apostles in the Peter sense? I don’t think so.
(Not sure what this has to do with elders, but it’s an interesting subject.)
Thanks for informing me about Jimmy Allen. I did not know you could use his name and grace in the same sentence, save the presence of a negating word. Personally, I never heard him talk about civil rights or anything near grace.
Evidently, the way some people believe, Jesus was/is not particularly useful except as a teacher and example. Maybe we need to read more of Romans. There are not any “good people” in God’s view.
Glenn,
Thanks for your most excellent thoughts. Amen and amen.
Gary,
While I disagree with some of 1 – 5, my biggest concern is what is being left out. Where is Jesus? Where is the need to be saved? Where is repentance? Where is mission? MTD extracts the parts of Christianity that serve us and omits all the parts about cross carrying, loving neighbors, and the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus. There’s no submission, no sacrifice, and no serving — and no Jesus.
PS — I strongly disagree with your interpretation of Romans 2. Did a series on it a while back. Happy to dig out the links if you’re interested. I don’t think you were a reader when it was posted a year or so ago.
Jay, thanks for your insight regarding Jimmy Allen. What I have seen and heard of him over the last few years is his Website, in which he pretty much takes the middle of the road position, like most in the mainline CoC, the same as he has taken much of his preaching career. Still, I am always thankful for a person who has grown in grace.
Mark I suggest you read Allen’s biography “Fire in my Bones”. You might learn more about the man than your previous encounters afforded you. He is a good man who doesn’t deserve your scorn.
Jay suggests, “And so it’s important, I think, we speak about modern-day apostles that we be careful to address whether we mean “apostle like Peter” or “apostle like Junia.” (Phil 2:25: Epaphroditus; Gal 1:19 James, brother of Jesus; Barnabas Acts 14:14; Andronicus and Junia Romans 16:17)”
My question is, “Why?” What, precisely, are we trying to accomplish by creating first-class apostles and second-class apostles? And where do we learn to make such distinctions?
The idea of “super-apostles” has been addressed in scripture already, by Paul. He is clearly dubious of the distinction. It is clear to me from Second Corinthians that Paul was a bit irritated as being thought of as something less than those fellows sitting up there in first class.
Charles,
I distinguish Peter-type apostles from others because the Bible does —
(Act 1:24-26 NET) 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know the hearts of all. Show us which one of these two you have chosen 25 to assume the task of this service and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 Then they cast lots for them, and the one chosen was Matthias; so he was counted with the eleven apostles.
(Rev 21:14 NET) 14 The wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Very well, Jay. I am okay with this, as I do agree there is some actual distinction applied to the Twelve, the “twelve apostles of the Lamb”, even though I am in the dark about the actual significance of that distinction. But there are not thirteen foundations to the wall of the city, only twelve. There are not twenty-five thrones, but twenty-four. This distinction puts Paul squarely in that second group with Andronicus and Silas and James et al. According to this distinction, Paul is not “an apostle like Peter”. He does not meet the Acts 1 requirements at all.
But in Second Corinthians, Paul rails against being considered somehow less an apostle than the group he sarcastically calls “super-apostles”. Whatever distinction there is for the Twelve, it appears to me that at least part of the church was making it, and was reluctant to receive Paul’s apostleship as being of the same order. Paul did not agree.
This leaves us with two distinct groups of apostles: the Twelve, and everyone else. Since we do not know the actual nature of this distinction, I am loath to put too much weight on applying it. The one person in scripture who does address how this distinction was being applied makes a strong case that this unexplained distinction is not a distinction in apostolic calling or apostolic authority.
There have been some groups historically who were not altogether comfortable with Paul’s teachings (the Quakers come to mind) and who did not consider his words to be always authoritative. They used the distinction of The Twelve to justify that position. Others, seeking to prevent heresy by killing off the apostles in the first century and ending divine revelation there, were forced to splice Paul into the Twelve by virtue of his letters, but dismissed any other identified apostles as, at best, temporary aberrations or “lieutenant apostles” who were mere extensions of the Thirteen.
So, if scripture does suggest two groups of apostles — The Twelve, and All The Others — the question remains: What is the nature of the distinction and what are WE doing with it?
Others
Charles, just because I played basketball when I was young, doesn’t mean I was a Harlem Globetrotter.
To clarify my comment on Romans 2 I certainly believe that we are saved by grace through faith.But I see good works as the evidence of faith. That is why Paul can make statements about salvation by grace as well as Romans 2:6, 15 without contradicting himself. Faith and works are two sides of the same coin practically speaking. That is the message of James.
Charles I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the curious but overwhelmingly ignored divergent perspectives on apostles and apostleship in the NT. Why would Judas be explicitly replaced by Matthias only to have Paul seemingly become the thirteenth apostle? If Paul was emphatic about anything he was emphatic in Galatians about his apostolic standing that he received directly from God independent of the Twelve. It truly is a mystery.
Jay 2 is capable of including the Sermon on the Mount and all of Jesus’ teaching and so can be construed to include Christian discipleship. I think 2 can be interpreted in different ways.
I think Jimmy Allen was a CoC apostle in the tradition of Paul- accepted by many but disdained by some. I did hear sometime around 1980 an elder at Vultee Church of Christ in Nashville introduce him as one of the greatest evangelists since the days of the apostles! Allen seemed embarassed by this and quickly launched into his message.
Paul faced this distinction when he told the Corinthians that “If I am not an apostle to everyone, then at least I am to you…”
And I can understand Allen’s discomfort. In working with apostles over the years, I have observed that the true apostle does not really like limelight, as it takes the spotlight from Jesus. So when somebody calls him “the greatest” anything, he’s going to shy away. At the same time, our unwillingness to recognize the apostolic gifts and ministry of modern apostles has made them labor under less-accurate descriptions, simply because no matter how much a man of God did the work of an apostle, we would not begin to think of him as one. And since we did not, he did not, and both missed a great blessing.
Charles said,
“In working with apostles over the years, I have observed that the true apostle does not really like limelight, as it takes the spotlight from Jesus. ”
That doesn’t ring true with the Word of Faith movement that I have seen on TV and on video: the lauding and the receiving of accolades seem anything but humble or “shying away” from. Maybe whatever you are a part of is different. If so, please disregard.