The Complete Book of Everyday Christianity

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 orthopathy (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

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

“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 won the respect and support of people in many Christian communions as an avenue of Christian action, though of course they disagree on when it is appropriate. It is practiced by groups as divergent as Operation Rescue on abortion and Sojourners on refugees or nuclear arms. Even Christian groups who do not think of themselves as politically active engage in widespread acts of civil disobedience, such as smuggling Bibles into closed countries, making contacts with underground Christians in countries such as China or conducting evangelism in areas where it is forbidden.

Cautions About Civil Disobedience

The notion of civil disobedience has become accepted so widely, particularly among Western Christians, that it would be wise to be more careful than we often are in advocating it. In particular we should beware of reducing the Christian tradition of civil disobedience to the American tradition of individual rights against government. The gospel emphasizes not so much a right of disobedience as a duty of disobedience. It is not a matter of personal discretion but a matter of Christian obligation.

This necessarily raises the vexed question not only of the legitimacy of a ruler but also of the legitimacy of an opponent. Who has the authority to say that the government is wrong and that a law should be disobeyed? The anarchic idea that any individual Christian (or congregation) should just decide simply to “obey God rather than men” is a manifestation of Western individualism more than biblical insight. What is necessary is some form of legitimate authority within the Christian community, something that Protestants especially are loath to face. In addition, what we loosely call democracy—the growth of representative government, the division of political powers and the legitimizing of legal opposition—raises these questions to a higher pitch. If a government has been constitutionally elected by most of the members of a state (including most of the Christian members), who has the authority to challenge its laws and why?

It might be useful to apply the criteria of a just war to civil disobedience. In particular, we need to ask whether it is a last resort. Have all legal avenues been exhausted? Are the actions appropriate to the cause and proportionate to the outcomes? Is there a specific and achievable end? The growth of democracy means that there are a wide variety of legal means available to oppose bad laws or a corrupt government as a whole. This is not to say, of course, that a democracy guarantees right government. “The people” are no more inherently righteous than their rulers and are quite capable of supporting genocide: Nazi Germany was a “democracy.” But there are legal means of opposition: elections, lobbying, media and party organizations. Within a democracy, however, Christians—especially younger ones—may find civil disobedience more attractive because it is easier and more glamorous than the often boring day-to-day work of politics. If we have not yet campaigned, organized, voted, lobbied long and strenuously and found it utterly futile, we should not quickly leap to civil disobedience, which, by alienating people, can sometimes hinder more than help.

Despite these caveats, civil disobedience should be seen in principle as an important and authentic expression of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Karl Barth once said, “To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world.”

» See also: Civility

» See also: Justice

» See also: Law

» See also: Organizational Culture and Change

» See also: Politics

» See also: Power

» See also: Principalities and Powers

» See also: Structures

References and Resources

H. Bedau, ed., Civil Disobedience: Theory and Practice (New York: Pegasus, 1969); J. F. Childress, Civil Disobedience and Political Obligation (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1971); L. Rasmussen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Reality and Resistance (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972); J. H. Redekop, The Christian and Civil Disobedience (Hillsboro, Kans.: Kindred Press, 1990).

—Paul Marshall

Civility

To be civil is to be courteous and respectful. While we sometimes employ the concept in describing rather intimate relationships, as in “They are still living together, but they are barely civil to each other,” it more accurately applies to more public interactions. Originally civility had a direct connection to how people behaved in cities. The word comes from civitas, Latin for “city.” It was in the ancient urban center that a person was most likely to encounter strangers. The public square was a space in which people interacted on a basis other than kinship or friendship.

Cities are still very impersonal places today—even more so than in ancient Athens or Rome. But contemporary human beings typically encounter strangers in many other contexts as well: in air travel, over the phone lines, on E-mail networks, on interstate highways and in national parks. Modern means of transportation and communication have made civility an even more complex challenge in contemporary life.

Civility ranks high as a positive trait in many philosophical systems. Aristotle insisted, for example, that we do not fully actualize our human potential until we learn to be civil. While experiencing the intimacies of family bonds and friendship is necessary to our development, we reach a higher stage of human awareness when we can treat other persons with courtesy and respect, not because we love them and know them, but simply because we recognize the common humanity that we share with them in spite of tribal or linguistic differences. This pattern of thought was taken over by many Christian thinkers who incorporated an emphasis on civility into Christian systems of thought.

Biblical Civility

Civility is not a biblical term as such, but the idea is certainly present in the Scriptures. Indeed, taken as a way of describing respect for strangers, civility is a rather prominent biblical motif. In the Old Testament God regularly encouraged the people of Israel to show courtesy to those who were different from themselves. For example, the chosen people are reminded that they received God’s mercy even when they were still strangers: “for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:34). This theme is repeated in the New Testament: Christians are called to “speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show courtesy to everyone” (Titus 3:2 NRSV).

The Christian community has often been rather uncivil. This has usually been due to a failure to live up to biblical standards. To be a Christian does not mean that all the vestiges of human fallenness automatically disappear. Like pride and greed and lust, intolerance is not an easy sin to purge from human relationships. Unfortunately, Christian incivility has often seriously hindered the witness of the Christian community, as when Christians have actively persecuted those with differing convictions or when Christian thought and practice have been distorted by racism, ethnocentrism and other forms of prejudice and bigotry.

But not all instances of Christian incivility can simply be dismissed as blatantly sinful. There are special challenges associated with the obligation to cultivate civility within a biblical framework. The Scriptures also call us to maintain strong convictions. Christians are commanded to stand firm in the faith, to resist being “tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine” (Ephes. 4:14 NRSV). This means that civility may never be elevated above other virtues, nor may it be treated in isolation from other demands in the life of discipleship.

The Christian sociologist John Murray Cuddihy chose his words wisely when he entitled his book on this subject The Ordeal of Civility. The element of ordeal is never absent from Christian efforts to cultivate a civil attitude toward those with whom they differ on important questions. The writer to the Hebrews counsels us to “pursue peace with everyone” (Hebrews 12:14 NRSV), clearly implying that the pursuit will sometimes be a very strenuous exercise.

Pluralistic Settings

The challenges of civility take on various forms in different historical periods. In some settings Christians have been a persecuted minority. In others they have controlled the patterns of power and wealth. For many Christians in recent times the challenges have emerged in the context of pluralistic settings. Pluralism, as such, is not a negative thing. The body of Christ is intentionally pluralistic, with a membership drawn “from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9 NRSV). In the context of Christian community, then, pluralism is not a pattern to be avoided or even merely tolerated; it is to be encouraged as a means of exhibiting the manifold riches of God’s creating and redeeming purposes.

The appropriate patterns of Christian civility become especially difficult to sustain, though, in a larger culture in which relativistic themes are very prominent. The question, Who is in a position to tell other people what is right and wrong for them? is typically meant to be rhetorical. Each person is taken to be his or her own reliable guide to the basic issues of life. But from a Christian perspective, the question has a definite answer: God is in a position to tell us how we ought to think and act. The divine Creator has fashioned us in accordance with wise purposes and has given us instructions for living that, in Lewis Smedes’s apt phrase, “fit life’s designs.” Christian civility can never rightly align itself with an anything-goes relativism.

This does not mean, however, that Christians should simply impose their beliefs and convictions on others. One important ingredient in God’s wise design for humankind is that human beings are created with the capacity for free choice. God does not want grudging service from us—God wants our freely offered obedience. Christians best witness to the truth of God’s revelation when they invite others to consider the convictions and values that are associated with the way of discipleship: “O taste and see that the Lord is good; happy are those who take refuge in him” (Psalm 34:8 NRSV).

Theological Reference Points

There are no simple, fail-safe rules for cultivating and sustaining civility. It is helpful, however, to coordinate our efforts at civility with some practical theological reflections. To be sure, becoming civil persons requires more than our having the right kind of theological thoughts. But attempting to think clearly about the demands of civility can provide us with guidance for this important spiritual exercise.

One important reference point for a practical theology of civility is God’s creating purposes. All human beings are created by the Maker of heaven and earth. By virtue of this created status, each human being is greatly valued in the sight of God. One reason why we ought to be civil toward people, even those with whom we disagree significantly, is that they are valuable products of a special creation.

This emphasis is an important counterweight to the Christian tendency to see our non-Christian opponents primarily in terms of their fallenness, especially when we are caught up in heated debates with them. Fallen human beings are nonetheless created persons. The biblical reference to humankind as created in “the image of God” is a much-debated theological topic. Whatever our specific interpretation of this theme, the Genesis account clearly implies that God created human persons with special—and highly valuable—capacities. It is also true, of course, that the creation story is immediately followed in Genesis 3 by the sad tale of human rebellion against the will of God. But Christian theologians, even ones who have given special emphasis to the devastating effects of the Fall for the human condition, have typically insisted that some glimmerings of God’s creating design shine through the gloom of original sin.

Human beings can be thought of as precious works of divine art. Even those products that have been seriously bruised and vandalized by human rebelliousness are still greatly valued by the divine Artist. Every human being, no matter how sinful he or she has become, deserves to be treated with the reverence that is appropriate to a creature who has been lovingly fashioned by God.

A second theological reference point is the redemptive ministry of Jesus Christ. The Incarnation is, in an important sense, the model for Christian civility. God did not wait for human beings to earn the love of their Creator by first of all cultivating pleasing beliefs and actions: “But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8 NRSV). Jesus explicitly described his earthly ministry in these terms when he answered those who criticized him for associating with disreputable characters: “I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32 NRSV). To be sure, Jesus also on occasion used rather uncivil language (“hypocrites,” “whited sepulchers”—Matthew 23:27) against some of the people he encountered. But these judgments were usually unleashed against religious leaders who took a condescending attitude toward the poor and outcast of society.

A third reference point for developing a practical theology of civility is the sanctifying mission of the Holy Spirit. The indwelling Spirit has been sent by Christ to cleanse us so that we might live the kinds of holy lives that are appropriate for the demands of discipleship. The contours of Spirit-filled holy living, as spelled out in the “fruit of the Spirit” characteristics in Galatians 5, have direct links to the cultivation of civility: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” (Galatians 5:22-23 NRSV).

Most of these characteristics are primarily other-directed, having to do with the Christian’s attitudes and behaviors toward other persons. When we think of how this fruit applies to fellow citizens and coworkers whose beliefs and values differ significantly from our own, the relevance to civility is obvious. We must be loving toward them, striving to live at peace with them. They should expect us to be kind and gentle toward them, exhibiting a generous spirit in our relationships.

Some of the other fruit characteristics are primarily inner-directed: they have to do with traits within ourselves that we have cultivated by the power of the Spirit. Patience and self-control are especially crucial for the nurturing of civility since they are linked, in the Christian life, to our sense of what God is doing in history.

God’s dealings with rebellious creatures are regularly portrayed in Scriptures as long-suffering. We are living, to use a Mennonite phrase, “in the time of God’s patience.” In accordance with a wise and mysterious plan for the creation, God has chosen not to rush to judgment. The arena of human activity, as we presently experience it, is one wherein people are relatively free to follow through on their basic life choices, for good or for ill. This state of affairs will not continue forever. Divine judgment is coming.

Nurturing Civility

Two lessons in particular are important for the nurturing of Christian civility. First, it is for God to decide when the final accounting will take place. Until that decision is revealed, Christians must share in the divine patience, tolerating the beliefs and values that people have chosen as their framework for living. In such a context, the primary Christian obligations are to demonstrate, to all who will pay attention, what it means to live in obedience to God and to invite others to join in that way of life through faith in Jesus Christ. The second lesson is that God alone will do the final judging. The decisive verdict as to who is “in” and who is “out” is for the Lord alone to make. On that day no one will be saved except by sovereign mercy. To absorb these supremely important lessons is to learn humility, which is foundational to Christian civility.

To repeat: none of this can be taken as an excuse to conform to an anything-goes permissiveness. Christian civility can never be divorced from sound biblically based convictions. The relationship between a civil spirit and a love of the truth is stated succinctly by the apostle Peter: “Always be ready to make your defense,” he encourages, “for the hope that is in you”; then he quickly adds, “yet do it with gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15-16 NRSV).

» See also: Citizenship

» See also: Civil Disobedience

» See also: Love

» See also: Witness

References and Resources

J. M. Cuddihy, The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Lévi-Strauss and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity (New York: Basic Books, 1974); R. Mouw, Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivil World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992); L. Smedes, Mere Morality: What God Expects from Ordinary People (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).

—Richard Mouw

Clergy

In common speech clergy is a term used to describe a religious official, certain members of a religious order or a pastoral leader of a church or denomination. Its counterpart is laity—the untrained, uneducated, common members of the church. This two-people approach to the church is anachronistic and unbiblical (see Laity). We look in vain in the Bible for laypersons in the sense of untrained, unequipped and not-called. Those words available in the ancient world to describe laypeople (in the common sense)—laikos and idiōtēs—were never used by inspired writers to describe Christians. Instead we are introduced to the whole people of God—designated by the word laos (the people)—who including leaders together are the true ministers. The Greek word for clergy (klēros) is used to describe the dignity and appointment of all the people to ministry. So paradoxically the church has no laypeople in the usual sense of that word and yet is full of clergy in the original meaning of that word.

We will examine how the tragic division between clergy (used henceforth in the normal and unbiblical sense) and laity appeared within the people of God and discover what we can do about it. The problem is almost universal, even among denominations that began with a vision for every-member ministry. Nothing can happen without the clergy’s presence; ministry is defined by “what the minister does”; pastors are called “the ministers” of the church. The clergy give the ministry, and the laity receive it. Four dimensions seem to be implicit in the modern concept of clergy: (1) the vicarious function, that is, service is rendered not only on behalf of, but instead of, the people; (2) the ontological difference, that is, a person becomes a priest or clergyperson by virtue of ordination, not character, and therefore cannot resign from ministry (I “am” a minister, rather than I “do” ministry); (3) the sacramental function, that is, generally the clergy alone are qualified to administer baptism and the Lord’s Supper (see Communion); and (4) the professional status, that is, the clergy represent an elite group with specialized functions that they can perform better than others.

Clergy in the Bible

According to the Old Testament the entire people were called to belong to God, to be God’s people and to serve God’s purposes (Exodus 19:6). But within that people only a few—prophets, priests and princes—experienced a special call to give leadership to God’s people, to speak God’s word and to minister on behalf of God (for example, Isaiah 6:8). Old Testament saints looked forward to the day when a new covenant would be inaugurated, when God’s law would be written on the hearts of all the people (not just in a document), when “all know [God], from the least of them to the greatest” (Jeremiah 31:34) and when the Spirit would “move [people] to follow [God’s] decrees and be careful to keep [God’s] laws” (Ezekiel 36:27). The apostles firmly believed that the promised day came with the coming of God’s Son, Jesus, and the outpouring of God’s Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-21). For this reason the apostles used the Greek word kleros (clergy) to describe a whole new reality: the dignity, calling and privilege of every member of the family of God.

Remarkably the Greek word klēros, a word from which clergy is derived, means “assigned by lot or inheritance.” It is used in the New Testament for the privileges and appointment of all the people of God (Galatians 3:29; Ephes. 1:11; Col. 1:12). When we step into the world of the New Testament, we meet a single people (laos) marked by universal spiritual giftedness, universal priesthood, universal empowerment by the Spirit of God, universal call or vocation and universal ministry. All are klēros in the sense of being appointed by God to service and dignity. The ministry belongs to the people. Layperson then is a term of incredible honor. A pastor can rise to no greater honor than to be a layperson. Indeed, one searches in vain in the New Testament for a theology of the laity in the usual sense. As the Catholic historian Alexandre Faivre observes, “Neither laymen nor priests can be found in it” (pp. 7-8).

The New Testament, however, has many references to leaders being set aside to exercise their gift of ministry within God’s laos, but these are not described and do not function in ways that resemble the modern idea of clergy: they are not vicarious leaders; they are not ontologically different from other laypersons; they do not perform a sacramental function; and they are not a professional class. Not even the call of Saul to be an apostle can be used to justify a special call to the clerical ministry, as some maintain, since the apostle never offers his own unique call to be an apostle to the Gentiles as a model for the special, “secret” call to become a pastor, missionary or priest.

The Clerical Captivity of the Church

In the second and third centuries a clergy-lay distinction arose in the church. Four influences can be discerned: (1) the attraction of secular “management” structures in the Greco-Roman world (the magistrates and the plebs, the common people), (2) the transference of the Old Testament priesthood model to the leadership of the church (church elders are the same as Old Testament priests), (3) the influence of popular piety elevating the Lord’s Supper to a mystery that required priestly administration and (4) political and theological pressures in the church calling for more control from the top. The last influence requires more explanation.

In the face of heresy threats (Docetism, Gnosticism and Judaizing), Ignatius of Antioch (a.d. 50-110) appealed for the necessity of having a single bishop as the focus of unity. In the works of the lawyer Tertullian (a.d. 160-220), we are given a structure for the church in which the laity is identified with the plebs, or ordinary people, and is distinguished from the priestly, or ecclesiastical, order of bishops, presbyters and deacons, though for him the laity is still the privileged and endowed people from whom the hierarchy emerges (Faivre, p. 46). Clement of Alexandria also used laikos for ordinary believers, but in sacralizing the hierarchy of the church, he also relativized it because he envisioned human deacons and presbyters as mere imitations of and steps toward the heavenly episkopos (Faivre, pp. 58-59). Origen, himself a layperson, complained about how difficult it now was for a lay teacher to bring a homily in the presence of bishops but also gave priests power to purify laypersons at the penitential level. So by the beginning of the third century, the term clergy was used to describe a special class within the church, and laity the rest (sometimes not even including women) who were not bishops, presbyters or deacons. The layperson’s function was “to release the priest and levite from all his material concerns, thus enabling him to devote himself exclusively to the service of the alter, a task that was necessary for everyone’s salvation” (Faivre, p. 69).

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (a.d. 249), made it clear that a member of the clergy was not a layperson. Using the analogy of the Levites, he argued that clergy must not become involved in the world in order to properly attend to the ministry of the altar (Faivre, pp. 106-7). He was convinced that a bishop was accountable to God alone (Rademacher, p. 565) and modeled his church order on the civil orders of the rulers of the city of Carthage. As shown by Rademacher (p. 59), Cyprian’s influence on the church has been substantial: (1) He made a clear distinction between the ordo of bishops and the laity. (2) He sacralized the priesthood according to the Old Testament model of sacrifice priesthood. (3) He linked ministry to sacrifice, again in the image of the temple priesthood. (4) He shaped the church as a clearly defined institution of salvation. (5) He modeled the bishops on the image of Roman senators, thus excluding women. (6) He consolidated the ruling powers of bishops through numerous episcopal conclaves and established a monolithic episcopate.

From the fourth to the sixteenth centuries the clergy-lay distinction deepened. The laity ranked on the bottom of the clerical ladder. After his conversion (a.d. 312) Constantine appointed civil magistrates throughout the empire, organized the church into dioceses along the pattern of Roman regional districts and consistently used clerical and clerics to denote a privileged class (Rademacher, p. 60). Under the Gregorian reform (a.d.1057-1123), the ministry of the entire Western church was shaped by Roman law. So in the period prior to the Reformation: (1) The bishop of Rome came to be regarded as the head of the church on earth. (2) The language of worship had ceased to be the language of the people. (3) The clergy dressed differently and were prepared for ministry in an enculturating seminary. (4) Ordination became an absolute act so that congregations were no longer needed for the celebration of the Eucharist. (5) The clergy became celibate and thus removed from the normal experiences of the laity. (6) The cup was removed from the laity in the Eucharist.

In due course the clergy-lay distinction became institutionalized in religious orders, priestly ordination and the seminary system.

The Incomplete Reformation

Even the Protestant Reformation with its call to recover “the priesthood of all believers” did not succeed in recovering laity as a dignified people. How this happened—from the time of the Reformation itself and through the succeeding centuries—is a fascinating and important story. Factors in the incomplete Reformation follow.

Protestant replacement for priests. The substitution of the sermon for the sacrament as the central act of Protestant worship may have set the church up to give the preacher-expositor the same clerical standing as the priest-officiant at the Mass. Thus, the preacher replaces the priest. It tended to keep interpretation of the Bible out of the hands of the layperson again and confine it to the ordained person. In the evolution of Western society from a.d. 500 to 1500, laypersons lost access to top culture and learned traditions. An educated church leadership perpetuated the division.

Inadequate structures for renewal. The Magisterial Reformation did not provide an ecclesiology comparable to its rediscovered soteriology. Though this developed more among the Anabaptists, in time even denominations stemming from the so-called Radical Reformation gravitated from their founding vision of every-member ministry to the old clergy-lay distinction.

Lay theology lost. A theology of and by the laity was only partially attempted and largely lost. Though during the Reformation and in later periods there was a flurry of pamphlets and short books by laypeople, these rarely survived in the following centuries and, until recently, were mostly ignored by theologians and other scholars. The story of ministry and theology itself has almost always been written by clergypersons for clergypersons. Parallel to this is the written history of the church—which is from the perspective of the clergy and councils rather than the laity.

Eclipse of the kingdom. There has been a preoccupation with ministry in the gathered life of the church (or in its expansion through evangelism) rather than the totality of life under the rule of God. Kingdom ministry has been mostly eclipsed by church ministry. Ministry is viewed as advancing the church rather than the kingdom. The Epistles are the primary guide; the Gospels have been eclipsed.

A two-level call. Calvin’s “secret call” to the ministry of the Word perpetuates a two-level call to the ministry: a general call to all and a special call to the few. Even in denominations claiming to proceed from the Radical Reformation, ordination councils still require a testimony of the secret and special call to the professional ministry.

Laity unrecognized. Ordination is still retained almost universally for the full-time supported church worker; no adequate recognition of lay ministries exists. Most denominations still regard ordination as conferring a distinctive status rather than recognizing a specific function. No denomination ordains people to societal careers and missions (see Ogden, pp. 188-215).

Theological education. The Catholic seminary system was eventually adopted. While important exceptions still exist, by the end of the nineteenth century the seminary system became the universal model for equipping a generation of pastors, thus guaranteeing their enculturation into the clerical culture. With a few exceptions, theological education remains, by and large, the exclusive preoccupation of those intending a career in the clergy.

Spirituality. An adequate lay spirituality has rarely been developed. While the Reformation rejected the two-level spirituality of the monastery and the common Christian, and some of the Puritans developed a spirituality for the whole life, most Protestant spirituality has had a clerical cast with emphasis on the deeper life of outstanding Christian leaders or, occasionally, on the mystical. Thus, most Protestant spirituality has ignored exploring the holiness of the ordinary Christian in the totality of his or her life in the world. The church in the West has never become free of Greek dualism, which relegates bodily life to a lower level.

Influence of the world. As in the past, cultural and social forces at work in the wider society (secular management models, professional-lay analogies, increasing centralization of government) have influenced the shape of the world. The church must continuously fight the fleshly predisposition to distinguish between clergy and laity. Each generation must enter the renewal of ministry in Christ. The priesthood of all believers can be lost in a single generation. What will it take to liberate the church from its clerical captivity?

Liberating the Clergy

The trinitarian basis of understanding the people of God (laos) is crucial. As in the interpenetrating relationships between Father, Son and Spirit, the members of God’s people coinhere, pour life into one another, without coalescence and merger. Different spiritual gifts and various leadership functions can be expressed in a unified way without hierarchy. Those in a mutually other penetrating, cohering and functioning community can have submission to one another without subordination because that is the way it is in God, when the church reflects. The submission of the Son of God to the Father is not subordination but the quality of the way the Son relates to the Father. No hierarchy is implied. It is the whole Godhead, not just the Father, who rules. In the church it is the same: leadership is vested through mutual submission and rich diversity in the whole community without hierarchy. So, as Leonardo Boff says, being a people like God “produces a vision of a church that is more communion than hierarchy, more service than power, more circular than pyramidal, more loving embrace than bending the knee before authority” (Boff, p. 154).

What can be done to live out this biblical and theological vision of the people of God, a people who at one and the same time are without laity and full of clergy? First, theological education should be provided for the whole people of God in the context of both church and societal ministry (congregation, academy and marketplace learning). It is too important to be restricted to a few. A reformation in theological education institutions is sorely needed. Clergy and laity must study side by side in the same environment.

Second, every Christian should undertake lifelong theological education with the goal of becoming mature in Christ (Col. 1:28) and participating in God’s grand purpose for the universe. That is, every Christian person should become a theologian—reflecting biblically and culturally on one’s life and service in the church and the world.

Finally, those in church leadership should form a gracious conspiracy with the rest of God’s laity to bring an end to unbiblical clericalism. Equipping the saints (Ephes. 4:12) is a corporate task. Clergy must be liberated by laity from having the impossible task of representing the entire ministry of the church. Laity must be liberated from becoming clergy assistants to discover and embrace their own ministry. Pastors then become assistants to the rest of the people of God. This mutual liberation must be a ministry of love, not rebellion. As Jan Grootaers said, it will take the remainder of the twentieth century “to move towards this balance of revising the status of laity within the institutional Church. . . . One part of the Church can never move forward without the other, for both are subject, in common obedience, to one and the same Lord” (quoted in Rowthorn, p. 46).

» See also: Equipping

» See also: Laity

» See also: Leadership, Church

References and Resources

L. Boff, Trinity and Society, trans. P. Burns (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1988); A. Faivre, The Emergence of the Laity in the Early Church (New York: Paulist, 1990); G. D. Fee, “Laos and Leadership Under the New Testament,” Crux 25, no, 4 (1989) 3-13; R. Kimelman, “Judaism and Lay Ministry,” NICM Journal 5, no. 2 (1980); 32-53; S. C. Neill and H. Weber, The Layman in Christian History (London: SCM, 1963); G. Ogden, The New Reformation: Returning the Ministry to the People of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990); W. J. Rademacher, Lay Ministry: A Theological, Spiritual and Pastoral Handbook (New York: Crossroad, 1991); A. Rowthorn, The Liberation of the Laity (Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1986); C. A. Voltz, Pastoral Life and Practice in the Early Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1990); M. Warkentin, Ordination: A Biblical-Historical View (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982); J. H. Yoder, The Fullness of Christ: Paul’s Vision of Universal Ministry (Elgin, Ill.: Brethren Press, 1987).

—R. Paul Stevens

Climate Change

Analysing the threat

Over its long history, the Earth’s climate has changed many times due to a range of factors. Contemporary concern about climate change arises from the observation that human activities are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the inference that this is significantly and dangerously shifting global climatic patterns. Natural changes in the past were slower, smaller or occurred prior to the rise of human civilisation, making our present experience and expectations a novel form of a recurrent phenomenon.

Already we are moving beyond the relatively stable climatic range of the last few thousand years, within which civilisation emerged and developed and upon which much of our present infrastructure and agriculture is dependent. The scope and pace of these changes may well overwhelm the ability of natural and human systems to adapt without major disruptions and discontinuities.

Crucial to the climate system is the role of certain “greenhouse” gases that trap solar energy in the atmosphere, acting like a blanket in reducing heat loss back into space. After water vapour, whose short atmospheric lifespan makes it follow and magnify other changes rather than trigger them, the largest contributor to this effect is carbon dioxide, which is the best known of the greenhouse gases, though methane, nitrous oxide and many other trace gases also play a role. Carbon dioxide has many natural sources and sinks, which are more or less in equilibrium. This means that human emissions, though only a fraction of total emissions, nonetheless have resulted in steadily rising atmospheric concentrations since the industrial revolution. Current levels are around forty percent higher than they were prior to the widespread exploitation of fossil fuels and higher than they have been for at least two million years. Even were human emissions to cease today, carbon dioxide levels and global temperature averages are likely to remain significantly elevated from pre-industrial levels for millennia. Other greenhouse gases are also rising, due chiefly to land use changes associated with the spread of monocultural industrial agriculture.

This enhancement of the greenhouse effect is reinforced by a number of positive feedback cycles that amplify initial changes. For example, increased air temperatures result in higher levels of atmospheric water vapour, a potent greenhouse gas, itself increasing temperatures; similarly, declining Arctic summer sea ice exposes more dark ocean, which absorbs more solar radiation than highly-reflective ice, further increasing the system’s total heat energy. There are also some negative feedbacks that dampen the effects of these changes, but these are outweighed by positive feedbacks in all humanly meaningful timeframes.

The extra energy retained in the system means more than simply global warming of the average atmospheric and oceanic temperatures. The average temperature rise includes a redistribution of temperature patterns, with some areas warming far more than the average, particularly over land in northerly latitudes. Warmer air holds more moisture, increasing the severity of extreme precipitation events. Shifts in ocean and air currents mean altered geographic and annual distribution of precipitation. That is, on average more rain and snow falls, though not necessarily in the same places or at the same times of year as previously. This has serious implications for natural and human agricultural ecosystems. Furthermore, climate change is frequently a multiplier for other ecological problems, lowering the resilience of ecosystems to shocks and pressures such as introduced invasive species, pollution, and overexploitation.

Warmer oceans expand and melt icesheets, both raising sea levels with a wide range of consequences for coastal infrastructure and low-lying islands. Rising carbon dioxide levels pose a further threat to aquatic life through increasing the acidity of the oceans, reducing the ability of many species foundational to the marine food web to access the calcium they require for growth.

Since 1900, average global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.7ºC and most of this has been in the last three decades, with more warming in the lower atmosphere, over land, at high northern latitudes and at night (all features best explained by greenhouse gases being the primary driver of the warming). Already this is associated with a wide variety of effects: melting glaciers, rising sea levels, increasing oceanic surface temperatures and stratification, biodiversity decline and species distributions moving polewards, shifts in the timing of events in the natural world (flowerings, migrations, hibernations and so on), increase in extreme precipitation events and other noted changes in the hydrological cycle and wind patterns, expansion of the tropics, intensification of droughts, altering distribution of infectious diseases vectors, increasing the intensity, scale and frequency of wildfires, increasing frequency and severity of mass coral bleaching events and many more.

Due to a multi-decadal lag between emissions and temperature rise resulting from the slow release of heat from the oceans, the system is committed to at least another 0.7ºC rise from our present levels of greenhouse gases. Depending on future emissions and the precise sensitivity of the climate system as a whole once all the feedbacks are included, temperatures are likely to rise between 2-6ºC by 2100.

The precise extent of the threat is difficult to pinpoint but the mainstream scientific debate ranges between those who fear we may face hundreds of millions of refugees, trillions of dollars in infrastructure costs, thousands of extinctions and widespread loss of habitats, and those who think it could well be significantly worse. If temperatures rise by more than 4ºC, the continuity of industrial civilisation becomes significantly less likely.

Global climate is a highly complex system whose intricacies are still under intense scientific investigation. In particular, the precise role played by cloud and tiny particles called aerosols are yet to be definitively quantified. Therefore, scientific predictions or projections concerning the climatic future retain a measure of uncertainty. It is possible that currently unknown or partially understood negative feedbacks could dampen the predicted rate or extent of change. Yet it is equally likely that currently unknown or partially understood positive feedbacks could exacerbate the situation even further.

However, the primary uncertainty remains the scope and pace of human societal change in response to this rising threat. To what extent will humanity continue to pursue activities that emit climate-destabilising emissions? Of course this question is thorny, given the intimate and variegated ways that the combustion of fossil fuels powers so much of the world’s electricity, heating and transport demands. What mix of mitigation, adaptation and suffering are we collectively willing to bear?

Scriptural and theological reflections

Christian theology has much to contribute to ethical deliberation about climate change. The Christian community that engages in such shared reflections is to be shaped by the gospel of Christ in this as in all things. A theological epistemology informed by an understanding of common grace opens the space for empirical scientific knowledge of the world on which climate concerns are based. A redeemed identity discovered in Christ by grace ensures that believers have no need to seek cultural identity markers in shared patterns of denial, nor to allow fears to lead to repression of threatening beliefs.

A healthy doctrine of creation fosters a profound respect for the integrity of the created order. Humans are not masters over creation and isolated from it but privileged members of the community of creation, belonging with the soil from which we were taken and sharing the breath of life with the community of living beings. God’s blessing upon humanity is shared with the other creatures; the fruitfulness and multiplication of one is not to come at the expense of the other. An awareness of sin and brokenness generates suspicion towards human attempts at dominion that look more like domination than humble attentiveness and mutual blessing. Christian concepts of dominion take their lead from the one who came not to be served but to serve. Faith in Christ summons believers to acknowledge our complicity in the disordering of creation and seek forgiveness and repentance from the ways of life that abuse what we have been given. Receiving creation as God’s good gift needn’t imply there is a given and unchanging ecological or climatic optimum, though will lead to deep concern over the implications for the created order that arise from the pace and scale of change associated with our destabilising of the climate.

Wholehearted love for God expressed in love for neighbour will pay close attention to the particular threats faced by the neighbour, particularly those most vulnerable and with the least voice in society and its decisions. Climate change represents a heightened case of exclusion since those who will suffer first and most belong to three categories largely or entirely bereft of political clout: the global poor (particularly in Africa, Asian mega-deltas and low-lying islands); children and generations not yet born; and other species. While being liberated from fears for personal survival that may prompt desperate acts of self-protection, Christian charity opens the believing community to the suffering of the weak and voiceless and empowers a willingness to enter into their fears and threats and, if necessary, suffer alongside them.

An eschatology that embraces hope for the resurrection of the dead and the renewal of all things simultaneously underscores the preciousness of the created order that is to be redeemed from its bondage to decay and banishes fears of climate catastrophe from the apocalyptic imagination. Relieved from the presumption that we can see what the end of history looks like, the believing community is liberated to respond in freedom to the genuine threats to human society and the community of life represented by climate change without giving in to despair.

A faithful response

Climate change raises a wide range of ethical questions for Christian disciples and broader society. The multifaceted, cumulative sources of the problem, the time lag between emissions and climatic effects, the possibility of dramatic non-linear responses within the system, the supranational effects that rarely correlate geographically or politically with the locations of the primary sources, the association of emission sources with widely desired economic activities, the extreme longevity of the consequences, the invisibility and impersonality of the threat, the complexity of the science and the enormous vested interests at stake: all these factors make a faithful response at personal, communal, societal, national and international levels deeply challenging. And yet the scale and nature of the issue demands responses at each of these levels. Changes to lifestyle without policy changes are as insufficient as policy changes without a widespread change of heart.

At the root of the issue is the question of what it means for human beings and our communities to flourish. Anthropogenic climate change is perhaps the most dramatic manifestation of the unintended consequences of the pursuit of economic growth without regard for the ecological home in which such activity occurs. The equation of material prosperity with human flourishing has not only begun to uncreate the created order, but has also resulted in widespread spiritual poverty. Consumerism, in which we find our identity in what we consume, is consuming not only the planet’s ecological health, but also our souls.

A faithful Christian response to climate change is therefore rooted in repentance and liberation from all such contemporary idolatries. The joyful embrace of a life that is less demanding on the material riches of the planet and more rewarding relationally and spiritually is good news for both the climate and the conscience.

Yet personal attempts to live more simply for the sake of freedom, justice and love require a community of hope to sustain. The Christian church is – or is summoned to be – the kind of community in which such transformation is possible by the power of the Spirit, where life-giving alternatives to an existence dominated by the love of money are explored and affirmed and where hope is nurtured even in the face of death.

At broader levels, Christians may legitimately disagree about how to engage governments and society, and may require expert assistance in the evaluation of various possible policy responses, yet will not be content with collective responses that fail to heed the plight of the most vulnerable and voiceless. Strategies to mitigate the severity and pace of change may include the implementation of technical innovations, but the church will be wary of technological utopias and the lure of obscuring the role of misplaced desires in the equation. Prudent consideration of adaptation measures is also implied by justice and love, as our actions and inactions to date have already ensured a certain level of climate instability. Yet Christians will refuse the false council of pure adaptation, heeding the warning of scientists that unmitigated climate change will likely exceed the ability of natural and human systems to adapt.

The future of our atmosphere is uncertain and threatening to all those who breathe it. God makes no promise that our civilisation will survive, let alone thrive. Yet Christian faith is not dependent upon or subservient to the task of self-preservation. Christians in a changing climate can continue to follow Christ, pouring out our lives in loving serving of neighbour to the glory of God.

Further reading

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report, 2007. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml.

Australian Academy of Science, The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers (August 2010). Available online: http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf.

David Archer. Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007.

Clive Hamilton. Requiem for a Species: Why we resist the truth about climate change. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 2010.

Michael Northcott. A Moral Climate: The Ethics of Climate Change. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2007.

Stefan Skrimshire (ed.). Future Ethics: Climate Change and Apocalyptic Imagination. London: Continuum, 2010.

Nick Spencer and Robert White. Christianity, Climate Change and Sustainable Living. London: SPCK, 2007

—Byron Smith

Clubs

My first exposure to clubs was through my mother. Born in Newfoundland (now a province of Canada but then a colony of England), my mother joined the Toronto chapter of the Old Colony Club. They gathered weekly to talk about life back on “The Rock,” as Newfoundland was affectionately called, and performed many services to needy Newfoundlanders in Toronto. I remember especially her weekly visits to the tuberculosis sanatorium to bring gifts and cheer to the people interned there. Belonging to a club never seemed to her to be anything other than a practical expression of her commitment to follow Jesus. But it was many years later that I began to reflect on why she joined at all or why I should join a photography club.

Clubs Past and Present

Clubs are usually small, voluntary societies that people elect to join for the purpose of pursuing an interest or service with people of like mind and heart. Most clubs meet periodically, have tests or standards for membership, collect annual dues, have an elected hierarchy of officers and sometimes have their own building as a meeting place. The word club is sometimes used for the building that houses a club (“Let’s go down to the golf club”), for a building that houses a random group of people (a night club) or for an association of nations (such as the European Economic Club), but these senses of the word will not be considered in this article.

Today one faces an extensive array of clubs: social clubs, dinner clubs, hobby clubs, ski clubs, Christian clubs on the university or college campus, badminton clubs, racial clubs (like the Old Colony), rifle clubs, political clubs, women’s clubs, rowing clubs, Bible clubs, sewing clubs, yacht clubs, fitness clubs and book clubs, to mention a few in which the word is actually used. Then there are societies with membership and selective interests that are clublike without using the name club, such as professional societies, Rotary (a service club), trade unions (occupational clubs), the Masons (a service club with secret rituals), fraternities (select student clubs), writers’ groups (art clubs), volunteer orchestras (musical clubs), groups of people who regularly enjoy recreation together (mountain climbing clubs or kayak clubs), Morning Out for Moms groups in churches (a mothers’ club) and buddies who go to the same tavern at the same time (a drinking club). Gangs are really street clubs with initiation rites, codes of behavior and a common identity. It is sometimes argued, wrongly though not without reason, that even the local church is a club since it involves membership with people having a common interest and is a voluntary society in which persons can know and be known by others as they pursue a common interest. We will return to this later. The list above is not exhaustive, but it shows how club life permeates everyday life. But it is not just a modern phenomenon.

Men have always gathered in small groups outside the home, a privilege only recently accorded women.There is evidence of club life in earlier periods of civilization, for example, the social, athletic, occupational, political, philosophical and religious collegia or societies that were so characteristic of the first-century Greek and Roman world. Membership in the guilds proved to be a terrible dilemma for the Christian tradespeople in the seven churches of Asia since, as evidenced in the last book of the Bible, these were associated with pagan religious rituals and sexual orgies (Rev. 2:20-25). The problem was that believers often could not find work without belonging to these guilds, a situation not unlike the almost universal requirement to belong to a trade union in some parts of the world today. Other kinds of gatherings, such as the regular banquets in pagan temples referred to in 1 Cor. 10, posed other problems such as eating meat offered to idols.

In modern times clubs for eating, drinking and conversation similar to what are commonly found today developed in England around the emergence of coffeehouses following the introduction of coffee in 1652. Samuel Pepys referred to gatherings in the Coffee Club Tavern as clubbing. This intimate environment afforded an opportunity for free speech. With the spread of coffeehouses customers began to associate with particular clubs. Gradually older and more important customers dominated, and the coffeehouse speakeasy gave way to a class or professional group, which during the nineteenth century became even more specialized: clubs for travelers, diplomats, university graduates, agriculturalists, artists and cyclists. Not until 1883 did women in England have a club of their own. Nor did working-class people have clubs until 1862 when the Reverend Henry Solly founded the Working Men’s Club and Institute Union, which promoted adult education, provided indoor and outdoor activities and brought dignity to laboring people. Throughout this period political discussion was a crucial component of club life, from the earliest coffeehouses to the clubs that met for parliamentary reform. Clubs spread to continental Europe and North America, the first American club being established in 1732—the Fish House Club of Philadelphia. A plethora of social, professional, college and service clubs followed.

The emergence of private sporting clubs in England in the nineteenth century provided a way for the wealthy and elite to separate themselves from the crowd. This is club life at its extreme, but clubs do not normally exist to promote egalitarianism. They exist to express difference, pluralism, distinctiveness, not sameness and uniformity. They exist because people have something in common with only some other people. In one sense they are necessarily exclusive. A common characteristic of clubs throughout history is selectivity of membership. It is always a club for certain kinds of people or for a certain interest.

The secret society ratchets the selectivity factor a notch higher, since the members pledge not to divulge what actually happens in their initiation or their meetings. Membership in the Masons, a club that originated in Egypt several centuries prior to the coming of Christ, is especially problematic for Christians, who, because they are followers of Christ, are liberated to live open and transparent lives (2 Cor. 3:18), allowing others, especially those outside the faith, to observe fully “what makes them tick” (compare 2 Tim. 3:10). Throwing “your pearls before swine” (Matthew 7:6 NRSV) relates to showing discretion in telling everything about the kingdom of God to those unwilling to respond, not to having secrets.

Toward a Theology of Joining

It is significant that most clubs have a meeting house where the members meet, talk, share a beverage, swap stories and display their trophies. This incarnates the two dimensions of club life: pursuit of an interest and relationship with others who share that interest. Club life is not a private pleasure. Clubs meet a fundamental human need to belong to and relate to other people, a need written into our construction by the Creator. We are “hard-wired” for relationships. These are essential to our dignity and growth and intended for our enjoyment as well as profit.

Many clubs offer a concrete opportunity to serve, which again is a fundamental human need and calling. It cannot be emphasized too often that the Greek word for ministry is simply the word for service. So service clubs are ministry opportunities. But not all clubs exist to serve; nor need they. Leisure is the freedom to do anything or even nothing. So clubs that allow us to cultivate ourselves in the company of others are legitimate and worthwhile even for people who are members of a church. One should not expect the local church to meet all these needs, and the provision of multiple-interest clubs within the church (often as a way of keeping people involved or protecting them from secular society) may be a negative thing in isolating Christians from the world.

Often the richest fruits of club life are byproducts of meeting with a very select group: the stimulation of interchange that takes place for the sheer joy of sharing a common passion with others. The Inklings was a literary club that provided rich inspiration for people like C. S. Lewis, J. R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, Dorothy Sayers and others. The Clapham sect in England was a group of prominent evangelical Christians, among them people like William Wilberforce, who met from 1790 to 1830 in members’ homes and churches. These wealthy Anglicans believed in the preservation of ranks in society and appealed to the rich as the Methodists appealed to the poor. But the Clapham sect also gave themselves unstintingly to helping the poor and disadvantaged and was almost single-handedly responsible for abolishing the slave trade in England. This is as it should be. Reform in all of its forms comes from nurturing the inner life, often without the pressure to produce.

All clubs (even church clubs) are something less than family and less than the church. Clubs are, by and large, a good place to meet people and to meet them on the basis of a common denominator—interest, race, language, hobby, sport. They are associations rather than communities, even if they often contain a genuinely communal dimension. This is why they are always something less than the full experience of the people of God, the church. The church was not intended to be a club of like-minded people from the same socioeconomic group, even though many local churches have gravitated in that direction. Constitutionally the church is a crosscultural, international, interethnic community in which Jew and Gentile (two irreconcilably separated peoples in the ancient world) are included in something that transcends both: a new humanity (Ephes. 2:14-16). It is also an entity that seeks to develop a common life, not just a common interest (even religious interest), one marked by long-term commitment, mutual care and accountabilities and deep sharing of personal and physical things (see Church; Community).

So paradoxically, Christians may be encouraged to join clubs for personal enrichment, service and (best as a byproduct) evangelism, but the church itself must never become a club. While it has a voluntary membership and offers face-to-face fellowship, the church must never become selective. That has always been the church’s scandal: slaves shared the Lord’s Supper in the ancient world with philosophers and wealthy merchants. Today the church scandalously takes all comers. But it is also the church’s glory: the one society on earth whose constitution requires accepting everyone. So Christian growth involves not only associating like with like in clubs but associating with those we have not selected and probably would not want to join except for Jesus.

» See also: Church

» See also: Community

» See also: Hobbies and Crafts

» See also: Leisure

» See also: Play

» See also: Society

References and Resources

D. Christen, How to Survive Belonging to a Club (Appelton, Wis.: Tolvan, 1979); J. Friguglietti, “Clubs,” in The Encyclopedia Americana (Danbury, Conn.: Grolier, 1989) 17:123-25; W. Rybczynski, Waiting for the Weekend (New York: Viking Penguin, 1991); E. E. Wolfers and V. B. Evanson, Organizations, Clubs, Action Groups: How to Start Them, How to Run Them (New York: Penguin, 1982).

—R. Paul Stevens

Coffee Drinking

Coffee is more than a beverage, more than the most popular hot drink consumed throughout the world and more than a major industry that affects the economies of many Third World countries. Drinking coffee is integral to our way of life, a significant social and cultural phenomenon.

The Origins and Spread of Coffee

Around a.d. 600 coffee was found growing in Ethiopia. Initially it was rolled with fat into little balls and eaten. Several centuries later it appeared in Arabia under the name quawha, meaning “that which enables you to do without something.” Steeped in water, it was regarded as a tasty drink and as possessing recuperative powers. For a long time its attractions were kept relatively secret. Mocha was the first port where it became more freely available.

By the early seventeenth century coffee had spread eastward to India and beyond, and westward to the Caribbean and Latin America. The first coffeehouse in England was set up in 1637. It was patronized by the elite of society and within thirty years had many imitators. The Dutch introduced coffee to America, though it was only after the Boston Tea Party that it became the preferred drink there. As a result of mass production and the invention of instant coffee in the twentieth century, coffee became the most popular drink in most Western countries. The growing, harvesting, processing and distributing of coffee is now a huge industry. It is dominated by global corporations that often exploit workers in Third World countries, influence their economies in ways that are not always beneficial and effect cut-price deals for affluent nations with very large markets.

The Benefits of Coffee

Already in the seventeenth century coffeehouses became known as “penny universities,” where, for the payment of a relatively small sum, a person could take part in interesting social, intellectual and political discussion. In nineteenth-century Europe such places were often the seedbeds of democratic or revolutionary change. Coffee shops have long been a favorite haunt of artists and creative people. They have also been the setting for a great deal of business and commercial activity.

Offering someone a drink of coffee is also a mark of hospitality and helps create an atmosphere that puts people at ease. Why else do we so often offer or accept a cup of coffee even though we may not need anything to drink? In his poem “White with Two Sugars Please” the English poet Steve Turner refers to other functions or dimensions of this drink. Coffee, he says, can give you a legal shot of energy when you are feeling drowsy. It can help you pass time when waiting for the weather to clear. It is “something you can dangle your lips in when conversation is scarce.” It helps friendships develop and is always a good excuse to stay longer. Coffee is a universal language, a kind of multiracial, multilingual, multicultural Esperanto enjoyed by people of all ages. “Yes,” he concludes, “there’s something quite religious about coffee.”

At the personal level, people generally find that coffee enhances concentration and boosts energy. This is because caffeine is a mild central nervous stimulant. A 1994 study demonstrated that caffeine intake improved performance on semantic memory, logical reasoning, recall and memory recognition tests. For some tasks it gave people more energy than eating breakfast. On the other hand, there is no proof that it enhances creativity, and its effects are only temporary. Its stimulant effect leads many people to avoid it or drink it before bedtime only in a decaffeinated form. Others, however, find that coffee helps them relax, even sleep. This may have more to do with its warmth or with the fact that it signals a time to unwind. Caffeine can also help minimize the discomfort of migraine headaches and overcome dizziness in those who have low blood pressure by raising its level.

The creation of places specifically for drinking coffee has many benefits. They provide a welcoming, convivial space alongside or between the home and the workplace. Though not alone in doing this—bars, diners, beauty parlors and to some extent shopping malls play a similar role—they are less expensive and avoid the problems created by alcoholism or consumerism in some other so-called third places. Coffee shops provide an inclusive and level playing ground for people who are otherwise typecast by position, class, race or gender. In them people can shrug off their main domestic and work-related responsibilities, let go of some of their inhibitions and relax. They can socialize with others in spontaneous ways undetermined by a set agenda. In these places spirits are generally lifted—on average people laugh nine times as much in such a setting as elsewhere during the day—which means they have therapeutic value. Over time, long-term relationships involving real acceptance of others have been built up among those who visit the same coffee shop on a regular basis.

The Disadvantages of Coffee

Unfortunately, largely because of its caffeine content, coffee drinking can become addictive (see Addiction). Like chain-smokers, some people drink coffee continuously throughout the day. Also, depending on certain physiological conditions, coffee can sometimes have adverse effects. For example, people with high blood pressure can become overstimulated and should therefore limit their intake to two cups a day.

Since there is a proven link between imbibing caffeine and difficulty in conception, women wishing to become pregnant should minimize or eliminate coffee intake. There is also a link between very high coffee intake and an increased risk of miscarriage. Breast-feeding mothers should drink little coffee so that they do not overstimulate their babies. Anyone suffering from anxiety or panic disorder problems should cut back on coffee, as should those with ulcers, coronary artery disease or high cholesterol levels.

Some medical opinion specifies the number of cups of different kinds of coffee people should drink a day—generally somewhere between three to six caffeinated drinks a day. As mentioned above, the difficulty is that people’s toleration of caffeine depends on other factors and that caffeine appears in many other beverages, such as tea, soda, candy and even some over-the-counter medicines. The secret seems to be developing a less pressured lifestyle, an awareness of the way our body and nervous system react and, as in so many other areas, taking things in moderation.

» See also: Addiction

» See also: Eating

» See also: Hospitality

» See also: Sugar/Sugary

Resources and References

R. Hattox, Coffee and Coffeehouses: The Origins of a Social Beverage in the Medieval Near East (Seattle: University of Washington, 1985); C. Katona and T. Katona, The Coffee Book (San Leandro, Calif.: Bristol, 1992); R. Oldenburg, The Great Good Place: Coffee Bars (New York: Paragon Place, 1989); S. Turner, Up to Date: Poems 1968-1982 (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1982).

—Robert Banks

Cohabiting

The phenomenon of a man and woman living together under the same roof as though they were husband and wife, yet without a solemnized wedding and without regarding themselves as married, is a pervasive trend in North American society. Some researchers predict that in a few years almost all young adults will live together before marriage and that this will soon be considered the normal way of courting (see Dating) and the equivalent to engagement. This phenomenon is not unique, however, to the Western world, since many societies have marketplace marriages—that is, a couple simply decide to live as married, raise a family and avoid the expense and hassle of a huge wedding.

Frequently the church in these countries faces a difficult challenge—whether to recognize this couple as married or to treat them as living in sin and therefore in need of church discipline. Some well-meaning church leaders, anxious to get these people married, rush them to the altar, only to find that the relationship, while reasonably stable when the two were living together, sometimes becomes fragile after marriage. Sometimes the marriage ends in divorce. This raises a profound theological question: When are two people married? Are they married when they have sexual intercourse? when they cohabit and share life fully? when they make their marriage official in a public ceremony? It also raises a spiritual question, for many declared Christians have adopted this pattern either secretly (by spending weekends in each other’s apartments) or openly (all the while retaining their membership in a church).

Cohabiting as Marriage Preparation

Many people think of cohabitation as a trial marriage, without using those words per se, since it simulates fully married life and is preferable to the alternative of dating. The problem, however, is that marriage cannot be simulated. It is an unconditional covenant of belonging that is made by vows and promises, by public approval and consent (leaving one’s father and mother), and that is sealed and consummated with sexual intercourse. The only way to try marriage is to get married. Karl Barth insightfully notes that a person who enters marriage must renounce the thought of ever leaving it, which is the very thing cohabitation keeps open. So a couple is either married, unmarried or pretending. It is the pretense that makes cohabitation so illusory a way of assessing marriageability.

Living together is an unwritten contract to meet each other’s needs and to make each other happy. It is a convenient relationship without mutual cross bearing and self-sacrifice. There is always the freedom to break the contract if one does not meet the terms. What often happens when a couple who has lived together gets married, especially if they have not been prepared through adequate counseling, is a shocking change in the dynamics and politics of their relationship. A comfort factor sets in. They really belong to each other now and therefore relax some of their efforts to hold on to their live-in companion. On a deeper level, many begin to realize that they are not just lovers but husband and wife, and revert to models they have learned from their families of origin. The problem is not marriage—as is often alleged—but poor preparation for marriage through cohabitation.

Research indicates that couples who have lived together before marriage, in comparison with those who have not, express higher levels of uncertainty and assertiveness and lower levels of conflict avoidance, marital satisfaction and sharing. Rosanne Lyster notes that the absence of a true honeymoon is a significant loss to the marriage. One purpose of the honeymoon is the establishment of positive memories that can hold a marriage together through difficult times. Though most cohabiters take a trip after their wedding, it is not a time of unique sexual pleasure and mutual discovery. Neither were their first few days of living together a honeymoon, since so often moving in was not a concrete decision but just seemed to happen. Further, since most cohabiting couples believe that they are already prepared for marriage, they are more resistant to premarital preparation, even though they may need it as much as others who approach marriage by dating.

The quality of the living-together arrangement has also been the subject of research. Its conditional nature opens the door to exploitation, with the intimacy of short-term gains making it too easy to rationalize one’s behavior, to overlook or minimize things that are important to building a permanent relationship or to disregard the long-term welfare of oneself or the other person. Experience has shown that women are more easily exploited than men when it comes to living together. When conception occurs, the couple is often then faced with the decision of whether to keep their child (see Abortion) or whether to marry and give the child a permanent family shelter. As a young boy in a cartoon said to his pal, “First my mom and dad were living together. Then I came along. Now all three of us are living together.”

Are They Married?

From a biblical perspective, cohabiting rather than marrying is a stolen covenant. It is not stolen because the couple has failed to register their marriage in the town hall or pay for an expensive wedding in the church. These are important but not essential. The covenant is stolen because the benefits of marriage are being enjoyed without the presence of all three constituent parts of the full covenant, which are found in Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5 and Ephes. 5:31—leaving (public wedlock), cleaving (social unity and friendship) and becoming one flesh (sexual consummation). The abiding absence of any one of these three dimensions means that the couple is not married. They may be pretending, but there is something missing.

Marriage is a mystery (Ephes. 5:32), and Scripture raises as many questions as it answers on this issue. Jesus, when pressed on the divorce question, said, “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6). This raises the question of whom God joins together: those who have had a church wedding? those who live together? those who have had sex? If the last option were true—namely, that one is married to every sex partner—many people are polygamists or have had multiple divorces. Though Paul warns that a person who has sex with a prostitute has become one body with her—there is a transcendent bond—he does not say they are married in 1 Cor. 6:16. Sex before and outside of marriage is a marriagelike experience but still less than marriage itself.

Marriage is essentially a covenant marked by unconditional relational belonging (“I take you to be . . .”). Christians do not have a monopoly on covenant making, and many not-yet Christians, stumbling on God’s plan of leaving, cleaving and becoming one flesh, have unknowingly enjoyed the divine blessing. Some Christians, in spite of their church wedding, have never really made a covenant. They may have been manipulated into the marriage, may refuse each other sex or may fail to bless their spouse, and so they are not actually married by God. On this point Karl Barth gives wise counsel that we should always cling to God’s yes and not quickly conclude that our relationship lacks the divine blessing. So it is a mystery. As such, marriage is to be treated not thoughtlessly but reverently and in the fear of God. It is a matter of worship and faith. Marriage is a spiritual discipline.

Marriage is also a process. We err in reducing getting married to an event: the pronouncement by the pastor (“I declare them husband and wife”), the signature in the book (a legally binding agreement), the first act of intercourse (which may have occurred before the wedding or on the wedding night), the end of the honeymoon (which could have been a disaster), the conception of the first child (which might not even be physically possible). Each of the three constituent parts of the marriage covenant is a progressive and continuing challenge. Leaving one’s father and mother is a lifelong process and is rarely fully accomplished on the wedding day, even if the parents “give” their son or daughter away. Cleaving is a dynamic process, because a marriage relationship is always changing and partners find over time that their spouse is not the same person they married. Becoming one flesh is also a process, since the line between heavy petting and penetration is fine indeed and mere physical touching may lack the gift of self which is the essence of the sexual act.

So it is the intent, willingness, personal capability and action on all three dimensions of the marriage covenant—whether or not the persons acknowledge God—that makes a couple married. The abiding absence of any one of these, such as exists in cohabiting arrangements, means that the couple is not married. In the Western world, the ideal order is cleaving (friendship), leaving (formal wedlock) and becoming one flesh (full sexual union). Under the arranged-marriage system in the East, the usual order is leaving, becoming one flesh and cleaving (see Genesis 24:67). In the living-together arrangement, provided it leads to marriage, the order is cleaving, becoming one flesh and leaving. God’s grace may work through each of these arrangements, and for the couple living together there is hope for a good marriage, provided there is repentance and a willingness to prepare properly for full marriage. Some churches have found the discipline of a couple’s separating publicly for an extended period of time prior to a church wedding to be a constructive step for the couple and the church.

In conclusion, living together is not a good way to try marriage, because marriage cannot be tried. Neither is living together good marriage preparation. So the church has a unique opportunity to speak prophetically regarding a major trend in the Western world, enfolding couples living together in constructive pastoral care, all the while confessing that legal marriage or a mere church wedding does not guarantee that God has brought two people together. Marriage is a mystery (requiring faith) and a process (requiring continuous intentionality), something much more than living together.

» See also: Dating

» See also: Marriage

» See also: Promising

» See also: Sexuality

References and Resources

R. Anderson and D. Guernsey, On Being Family: Essays in a Social Theology of the Family (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985); R. F. Lyster, “Implications of Research on Cohabitation for Marriage Preparation,” Marriage Education News 8, no. 1 (Spring 1995) 1-2; J. H. Olthius, I Pledge You My Troth: A Christian View of Marriage, Family, Friendship (New York: Harper & Row, 1975); W. R. Schrumm, “Sex Should Only Occur Within Marriage” (Department of Family and Child Development, Kansas State University, 1984); R. P. Stevens, Married for Good: The Lost Art of Remaining Happily Married (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986).

—R. Paul Stevens

Comics

What part of the newspaper do you turn to first? Sports, finance, food? For many the most important item in the daily paper is the comics section. In fact, during the first half of the twentieth century 60 percent of readers surveyed admitted that this was their number-one reading priority. We want to know what horrible trick Garfield has pulled on Jon. It matters to us that Calvin is having trouble with the school bully, Moe.

Definitions

A few definitions are in order. Comics refers to an ongoing series published in newspapers of narrative cartoons with a regular set of characters. Cartoons were originally drawings used as the basis for paintings. By Victorian times cartoons referred to humorous single drawings in the newspaper. Comic books are booklets of comic strips. Originally they were collections of the weekly colored comics.

Why do we care about these little drawings? Pictures are important as signs to communicate in any culture. We doodle when we are thinking or bored. International highway signs use shorthand symbols to allow everyone to understand important information quickly.

History

Human beings have created narrative picture sequences for thousands of years. Egyptians combined painted images with hieroglyphics. The Assyrians carved low-relief stories of lion hunts in long, horizontal strips. The Bayeux tapestry, finished in the late eleventh century, described the Battle of Hastings in a band 20 inches high and 230 feet long! And in European Gothic churches stained-glass windows served as “reading” for illiterate peasants, communicating biblical truths through pictorial means.

In the Reformation, art met the new technology of printing. Printed on paper from engraved wood, and later from metal, these cheap prints at first were commonly used as propaganda for or against the Catholic Church. Both sides had their graphic artists. Hogarth, in eighteenth-century England, painted narrative sequences, which were quickly reproduced as engravings to be sold cheaply by unscrupulous dealers. Political satire became popular, mostly as single images printed in newspapers.

The first comics were developed in the last half of the nineteenth century in England. Funny Folks came into being as the first weekly comic tabloid, half text and half pictures. The first regular comic strip hero was Ally Sloper, going weekly in 1884, in Ally Sloper’s Half Holiday. Sloper had first appeared seventeen years earlier in Judy, an imitation of Punch. Comic Cats appeared in 1890. Often thought to be the world’s first regularly appearing comic, Comic Cats introduced a new element—competition. It cost a halfpenny, which was half the price of the other comics at the time.

In the late nineteenth-century United States, newspapers were divided into sections. From 1892 they included color, and comics lent themselves readily to this. By 1894 strip-sequence cartoons were appearing in the Sunday World Comic Weekly, a section of the New York World. The Yellow Kid first appeared in 1895 as one of the kids of Hogan’s Alley. A creation of Richard Felton Outcault, The Yellow Kid was part of the lower-class, immigrant population that was new to the United States. The comic strip first appeared as a single-panel cartoon and later developed to a series of panels and used balloons to indicate dialogue between characters. The Yellow Kid has gone down in history as the first comic strip (at least in North America).

Competition was already cutthroat by 1895 with William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer and other publishers outbidding one another for popular cartoonists, either buying the rights for the comic series or luring cartoonists to their newspaper. At first a cartoonist’s work would show in only one newspaper, but over the years, as publishing empires grew, comic strips were syndicated, appearing in newspapers across the country and around the world.

Comics as Entertainment and Propaganda

What are comics about? Right from the beginning they were conceived as entertainment. The ability to laugh at oneself and one’s surroundings, in good times and bad, is a healthy thing. Early on in the history of comics the colored Sunday comic supplements were called funnies, an abbreviation of funny papers.

Though the majority still are concerned with humor, or are trying to be, comics are not only funny. Comic heroes include those drawn from literature: Hercules, King Arthur, Tarzan. Various characters have had an effect on popular culture—for example, Popeye and spinach, Dagwood sandwiches and Buster Brown shoes. Batman has gone from comics to television and movies. Mickey Mouse has ended up with theme parks and a communications empire.

There is also satire: Li’l Abner, Pogo and Doonesbury. Adventures include Tarzan, Flash Gordon and Terry and the Pirates. Soap operas hit the comics long before television in Mary Worth; Rex Morgan, M.D.; and Judge Parker. And humor reigns in all of its slapstick, sarcastic joy in Beetle Bailey, Garfield, Bloom County and Calvin and Hobbes.

Comics have been used as propaganda (especially at the time of the world wars) and in advertising. They have made learning information more palatable. Reading teachers have used them for students who have been unable to learn to read. It has been found that the student is led from comics to books, something like reading Howards End after seeing the movie.

Telling the Story

At the heart of comics’ strength is narration. Comics tell stories. They can deal with important human issues in humorous ways, in a disarming fashion. Though comics are a rarity in biblical dictionaries and commentaries, publications like Christianity Today and Leadership often use cartoons with telling effect. Some comics illuminate some spiritual as well as human issue, and that with telling effect.

Calvin and Hobbes often deals with important religious issues, usually while our heroes are rattling toward the edge of a ravine in their wagon, talking about the meaning of life. B.C. and Peanuts are more explicit in their inclusion of biblical material. The former often presents Scripture in the comic strip at Christmas and Easter without apology. Peanuts has used the Bible for inspiration for over thirty years, sometimes just quoting a verse or two, but often grappling with spiritual issues in a deeper way. When Linus finds out that his sister, Lucy, wishes he had never been born, he confesses to Snoopy, “Why, the theological implications alone are staggering.” Though this has been a regular feature in Peanuts, such thoughtful additions appear less frequently nowadays. But humor in comic strips remains an effective way of introducing biblical truth to a wide audience in a disarming manner.

But should we, as Christians, be involved with the comic? Is it not a distraction? Frivolity? Comic art is mostly positive and reinforces traditional Christian values of right and wrong. Morality is underlined: “Comedy implies an attitude towards life, an attitude that trusts in man’s potential for redemption and salvation” (Inge, p. xxi). This is the comic in the larger sense of Chaucer and Dante, a look at all of life, from hell to heaven. And those who can laugh are secure.

» See also: Culture

» See also: Humor

» See also: Laughter

» See also: Storytelling

References and Resources

D. Gifford, The International Book of Comics (London: Hamlyn, 1988); M. T. Inge, Comics as Culture (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1990); J. O’Sullivan, The Great American Comic Strip (Boston: Bulfinch Press, 1990); G. Perry and A. Aldridge, The Penguin Book of Comics (London: Penguin, 1971).

—Dal Schindell

Committees

You’ll find in no park or city
A monument to a committee.
(Victoria Pasternak)

The ambivalence of some people with regard to committees can be summed up in the cartoon that shows a minister reading a story to his child, with his paraphrase going like this: “And when the pastor cut down the beanstalk, the giant committee came tumbling down, and the church lived happily ever after.” This sentiment was echoed by another pastor who described committees as one thing the devil really loves. Of course the church is only one context in which committees exist. They are present in every sphere of life, for example, workplaces, community organizations, voluntary associations and so on. Committees intersect with two social phenomena: leadership and group or meeting dynamics. Christian hesitations about the appropriateness of committees arise from both spheres.

Leadership often appears to happen in the absence of or in spite of committee work. It is true that the biblical record is weak on the role of the committee in leadership. Leadership is overwhelmingly an individual affair in the Old Testament, being regularly mediated through three types of individuals: prophets, priests or princes. This reality reaches a climax when all three roles are summed up in Jesus. We hardly think of Jesus as setting his plans by committee. In fact, he sometimes had to resist the will of the potential committee represented by his disciples (Matthew 16:21-23). Likewise, when Paul received wisdom from the majority in an ad hoc committee, he chose to ignore it (Acts 21:10-14), though this is an exceptional example. As we will see, the Bible does support the idea of setting and accomplishing goals through groups. In the New Testament especially we see people working in teams: plural eldership, Paul’s normal practice of team ministry and shared ministry in local churches.

The other hesitation comes from the actual functioning of committees, especially committee meetings. Because of sin or ignorance, meetings sometimes are very unprofitable and frustrating: time is wasted, conflict goes unresolved, decisions are not reached or implemented, people are not heard, or people are heard too much. Better, it seems, to forget committees (and especially committee meetings) and just let someone get on with the job at hand.

The Value of Committees

In the end, the deep theological rationale for committees comes less from proof texts in the Bible and more from an overall sense of the biblical plan for salvation. The plan is simply to form a people for God, a body made up of cells, individual people who have all received the Spirit. Spiritual gifts, including any gifts of leadership, are not concentrated comprehensively in individuals, whether prophets, priests or princes. Instead, the metaphor of the body suggests connection, one gift reinforcing and supplementing another, so that the whole body “grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work” (Ephes. 4:16).

This idea is the basis for using committees: the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, whether in making decisions or dividing up the tasks of a project. The latter notion is probably generally accepted: using teamwork to conquer an obstacle or exploit an opportunity makes sense. However, we are more comfortable with the model of a coach deploying the players than with the model of the players deploying themselves according to an agreed-upon strategy. Thus, we are back to the idea of a singular leader. For example, we might think of Moses dividing up the job of judging the children of Israel or Nehemiah parceling out the job of rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem. In the end, however, this does not represent committee work. Committees represent a commitment to forming policies, plans or strategies within a group. In other words, leadership is shaped and directed by a group process, in the belief that ten heads are better than one.

There are dangers in committees: an individual’s hiding behind the group to avoid personal responsibility or the group lapsing into such complex processes that decisions are never made. As a wit once observed, a committee is a group of people who individually can do nothing but as a group decide that nothing can be done. On the other hand, committees can also be very effective in avoiding dangers: manipulative leaders and foolish plans. The output and impact of a good committee are threefold: good decisions, good relationships and good leadership. The only way to make sure that these results happen is to make sure that good decisions, relationships and leadership are also the basis of every committee.

The Effective Committee

A committee is a species of small group. Like every small group, an effective committee must be based on a strong sense of what it is trying to accomplish. How will the committee know when it is doing (or has finished) its job? To what precise external end is the committee committed? The clearer the sense of purpose, and the more it shapes every meeting agenda, the more satisfying and successful the committee will be. Every committee should give more time to clarifying purpose and procedures than is usually set aside.

The purpose may be set by the group, as in the case of the “nominating committee” in Acts 1:15-26, or it may be mandated by a higher authority, as in the appointment of the Seven to manage charity toward widows in Acts 6:1-6. The latter is instructive in two other ways. First, it shows that the members of the first committee in the church, the apostles, knew they had to protect their agenda from distractions. Every group of elders in a local church today needs to take this to heart. Second, it shows a group moving beyond an advisory or animating role to actually accomplishing the plan that it formulated. A committee may be constituted to advise some external leader or animate some of its members toward action, but the most effective committee is probably the one that seeks to implement its plan together as a group. A plan worked by the owners of the planning is usually worked best.

Setting and accomplishing a purpose require a process of communicating ideas and coming to a consensus about the idea that will prevail. This requires a good base of positive relationships. Committee members need to be committed to one another as much as to their purpose. This bond is strengthened by good group dynamics: honoring the gift of each member, listening to every contribution, submitting to one another and fighting fairly. See Em Griffin’s book Getting Together (pp. 134-56) for help with conflict resolution. Good dynamics during committee meetings help to forge the sorts of relationships that produce good teamwork when the committee moves into action mode. The story of the “committee of Jerusalem” in Acts 15 provides a healthy model for a group process; note especially the careful listening.

Finally, committees need good leadership if they are to be effective. Leaders must focus on maintaining purpose and maintaining relationships. If one person cannot handle both these functions, then there should be two official leaders: one to manage the agenda and one to facilitate communication. Emphasizing one or the other aspect of committee work leads to imbalance. Most commonly, task supplants relationships. Roberta Hestenes has written a good corrective for this in Turning Committees into Communities. Good, balanced leadership during a committee meeting will release good leadership after the meeting. This is what Paul hoped for in Acts 20: he not only reminded the Ephesian elders of their purpose but also took part as they prayed, wept and embraced him.

Even though they sometimes seems to keep minutes and waste hours, committees are here to stay, both in the church and in the wider world. Christians have an excellent opportunity to help them be a true expression of the body of Christ and a positive force for kingdom purposes.

» See also: Community

» See also: Conflict Resolution

» See also: Leadership

» See also: Organization

» See also: Small Groups

References and Resources

E. Griffin, Getting Together (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1982); R. Hestenes, Turning Committees into Communities (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1991).

—Dan Williams

Communion

Baptism is the sacrament of Christian initiation; the Lord’s Supper (also called Communion or the Eucharist) is the sacrament of Christian growth and development. Both are vital. The early Christians were well aware of this and valued both highly, including regular gatherings to eat and drink in remembrance of Christ. Here again we are often impoverished by our own tradition. The very names used for it in Scripture hint at the breadth of meanings in this most wonderful sacrament. The Lord’s Supper takes us back to the upper room (1 Cor. 11:20). The breaking of bread alludes to the familiar action of beginning and having a meal (Acts 2:42). Holy Communion indicates a joint participation in the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). Eucharist (meaning “thanksgiving”) speaks of blessing God for all that Jesus has done for us (1 Cor. 11:24; Didache 9.1). (Mass, though somewhat obscure in etymology, probably means dismissal of the congregation into the world for ministry and mission. Mass is not a New Testament term, though the idea of sending out certainly is.)

Communion in the Early Church

Most early Communions did not take place in a church at all but in a home (see Church in the Home). People would begin to appear in the early evening with materials for a potluck supper. They greet one another. They are happy and relaxed; work is over. All are on one level here, men and women, Roman citizens and commoners, slaves and free. Lamps are lit. Couches are set. Feet are washed. They have a meal, reclining around a courtyard or squashed into a room. They share news. Someone produces a musical instrument, and they begin to sing. Indeed, they create new songs, snatches of which are to be found in the New Testament, like “Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you” (Ephes. 5:14) or “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come” (Rev. 4:8).

Meanwhile someone brings out the church box, which contains their most precious Christian belongings: some sayings of Jesus or perhaps a letter from an apostle. The praise is heartfelt. Speaking in tongues might well follow. There could be prayer for a healing or a specific need of one of the members. Certainly prayer, the reading of an Old Testament Scripture, the recitation of a story about Jesus and some words of encouragement from members of the community, along with joyful singing, will all feature. And as the evening comes to an end, they tell again the story of Jesus’ passion and break bread and drink wine in remembrance of him. Every scrap is finished. The prayer that Jesus taught them is recited. They move around and embrace one another with a holy kiss and then go home. All very simple. No service books. No priests. No altars. Every eye is on the unseen Lord, the bread, the wine and each other. And then—out into the night, spiritually refueled for the journey of the coming week.

What Is This Meal?

There have been many speculations. Some have seen the meal as a haburah, a special religious meal held by a group of friends. Others have sought to show that it derived from a kiddush, a Friday-evening family gathering to prepare for the sabbath. Still others have looked to pagan sources for this meal. But the clue to understanding this meal lies in the Passover of the Old Testament, as 1 Cor. 5:7-8 makes plain: “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival.”

A Passover with a Difference

The biblical scholar Joachim Jeremias persuasively demonstrated this Passover background to the Communion in his book The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, and all subsequent scholarship on the subject has been beholden to him. He points out eleven elements in the account that substantiate this Passover background. For example, the Last Supper took place in Jerusalem; it extended into the night; it was a small, intimate gathering; the participants reclined instead of sitting; a dish preceded the breaking of bread; wine, an essential at Passover, was drunk; the words of institution are an adaptation of Passover haggadah; Judas went out, ostensibly to give to the poor—a Passover custom—and so on.

Jeremias piles up the evidence that the meal was an anticipated Passover. He then deals with ten objections. There are two he does not handle. One is the absence of any mention of a lamb. Was this due to the compression of the account as Christians recited what was special about that Passover? Was it because they saw Jesus as the Passover lamb? We may never know. The other of Jeremias’s omissions was an explanation of how the annual Passover celebration turned into the weekly (or even more frequent) Christian celebration. The frequency was probably due to the well-remembered fact that the Master had made a point of eating regularly with his disciples. They had regular common meals, but all subsequent communal meals were impregnated with the meaning of this awesome night, repeated often, at his express command.

All four Gospel accounts, despite their different nuances, are agreed that Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, spoke interpretative words over it and gave it to his disciples. It is beyond the scope of this article to study in detail this meal that gave rise to the Holy Communion, but the following factors are of great importance.

First, this complete meal extended for a long time. Our accounts cover only the special Christian differentia in this Passover meal; the bread and wine were only selections from a much fuller mealtime together.

Second, the annual Jewish Passover was not a sacrifice but the memorial of the first Passover, which certainly was a sacrifice when the lambs of Israel died and their blood was painted on the door lintels to avert the angel of wrath. Equally, the Christian Eucharist is not a sacrifice but the memorial of that great sacrifice when the Lamb of God shed his blood to avert judgment on a sinful world.

Third, the words body and blood, clearly a pair, lead us back in Aramaic to the only pair that Jesus could have used: bisra udema. Both are sacrificial words. Each denoted violent death. They point to Jesus’ sacrificial death on the morrow.

Fourth, by giving his disciples the bread and the wine, Jesus gives them a share in the benefits of his atoning sacrifice, just as the Israelites who ate the Passover lamb shared not in making the sacrifice but in its benefits—rescue from bondage and death in Egypt. This is how sacrificial language came to be applied to the Communion. Properly speaking, it is not a sacrifice but a dramatic, concrete fresh appropriation of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice and a means of enjoying its benefits.

Fifth, the change in the explanatory words about the Passover is truly amazing. Normally the presider would (in obedience to Exodus 12:25; Exodus 13:8) take bread and say, “This is the bread of affliction which your fathers ate in the wilderness.” Imagine the electric atmosphere when Jesus, presiding, says, “This is—my body, given for you.” In Aramaic the saying would have gone like this, “This—my body . . . ,” leaving it open whether representation or identity was intended (an issue that has divided Catholics from Protestants for centuries). Then Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me.”

The word anamnēsis, “remembrance,” does not mean mere mental recollection, as we Westerners would interpret it. To the Semitic mind it meant re-presentation. The Jews were accustomed to saying at Passover, “This the Eternal did for me when I went out of Egypt.” They saw the past as in some way made contemporary. Similarly, Jesus seems to have intended his disciples at the Eucharist to see his death as in some way made contemporary, however many years ago it happened. Here in this service I see afresh before my very eyes what the Eternal did for me to bring me out of a bondage and a doom far worse than those which befell the Jews in Egypt. The broken bread and the poured-out wine not only dramatically reminded the early Christians of what Jesus did for them on the cross; it also showed them that this historical event has present power and relevance. They could enter into the experience to which it referred, sharing in the benefits of his death and resurrection for them.

The blood is as significant as the bread. The Passover blood was originally applied to the houses of the Israelites and brought salvation, rescue from the destroying angel who killed the first-born of the Egyptians. That is why wine (to recall the blood) was an essential part of Passover. The benediction before the “cup of blessing” in the Passover specifically praises God for that deliverance from Egypt and the covenant with his people. The praise that followed had Psalm 116 as its core, a psalm that spoke of gratefully receiving the cup of salvation. So profound associations were combined here: the blood, the covenant, the exodus, the vicariousness, the cup and the appropriation.

Sixth, the shocking language was intentional and was remembered. To eat human flesh and to drink blood were expressly forbidden in Judaism. We need to take seriously both the metaphorical and the realistic significance of this language. We feed on Christ in our hearts, really feed on him. But we do so by faith.

The Meaning of the Meal

Set in this way against the backdrop of the Passover, both historically and theologically, the depths of the Lord’s Supper begin to become apparent.

The Passover had a backward orientation. The first Passover was a sacrifice. Indeed, it was the sacrifice that constituted Israel as a people. Succeeding Passovers were not sacrifices, though they might loosely be called such, and they had no expiatory significance. Their purpose was not to take away sins. But they brought that original sacrifice powerfully before the worshiper. It is like that with the Communion. Not a sacrifice in itself, it is the representation of Jesus’ sacrifice, and we feast on the benefits he won for us through it.

The Passover has a present orientation. The first Passover had been a meal to strengthen the Israelites for their march from the land of bondage to the land of promise. This element was reenacted annually. The theme of God’s constant care and provision for them is prominent in the account of God’s mighty rescue, recounted at the meal. The eating and drinking formed a sacred bond between the worshipers; one can see from Psalm 41:9 how heinous was the breaking of such table fellowship. It was the same with the Lord’s Supper. It too has the effect of binding together all its participants into one (1 Cor. 10:17). Its fellowship cannot be violated without the most heinous sin and disastrous consequences (1 Cor. 11:19-20, 27-30). And the Lord’s Supper too strengthens pilgrims for the journey, for it feeds them on the body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16), and he is their nourishment and sustenance (John 6:51).

The Passover had a future orientation. It prefigured the ultimate feast of salvation as well as being the re-presentation of deliverance from Egypt. Passover would be the night when the Messiah would come. “On this night they were saved, and on this night they will be saved,” mused the rabbis. This forward look is integral to the Christian Passover, the Eucharist. In Luke’s account (Luke 22:7-23) it is stressed almost to the exclusion of all else. It is also there in Matthew and Mark and in the allusive language about the “true” bread and vine in John’s Gospel. It is notable in 1 Cor. 11:26, and the cry Maranatha (“Our Lord, come”; 1 Cor. 16:22 NRSV) was probably used at the Lord’s Supper, as we learn from the post-New Testament writing the Didache (10.4). Just as the Passover was the pledge of the coming of the messiah, so the Eucharist is the pledge of Jesus’ return and of the messianic banquet toward which every Communion points.

The Significance of Regular Communion

No wonder this is the central meal for Christians, the service important beyond all others. For it is the archetypal symbol of our redemption, past, present and future. We will grow deeper and deeper in its appreciation until we taste it new in the kingdom of God. This is especially the case if we ensure that our gatherings for the Lord’s Supper are regular, contain all the features that characterized the early Christian celebrations and, when appropriate, have the form of an actual meal (see Church in the Home; Eating). Our Master knew what he was doing when he left just two sacraments to his church—baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Both are incandescent with all the colors of salvation’s rainbow. The one points to its once-for-allness and its need to govern the dying and rising life of Christians. The other calls and empowers for persistence on the journey, as pilgrims climb the upward path. It lifts our eyes to the Lord, our bread and vine, and it points us toward God’s wedding banquet, when Christ will marry his bride, the church, forever, and there will be no more sorrow, no more crying, no more death. We shall see his face and share his likeness.

» See also: Baptism

» See also: Church in the Home

» See also: Eating

» See also: Fellowship

» See also: Sacraments

» See also: Worship

References and Resources

R. Banks, Going to Church in the First Century (Beaumont, Tex.: Christian Books, 1990); W. Barclay, The Lord’s Supper (London: SCM, 1967); M. Green and R. P. Stevens, New Testament Spirituality (Guildford, U.K.: Eagle, 1993), portions quoted with permission; J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: SCM, 1970).

—Michael Green

Community

The word community is on many people’s lips today and is used in many different ways. It can, for example, refer to

• any grouping of people, small or large, that springs out of organic, rather than organized, links (for example, a group of friends or people who regularly enjoy vacations together)

• a cluster of people who are in some kind of kinship relation with one another (such as an extended family or clan)

• a group of people in a locality who over time have formed some common bonds, interests or concerns (for example, a rural community or town)

• an intensive, emotional shared experience between a group of people (such as a camping community or encounter group)

• a longer-term, face-to-face gathering of people seeking to develop mutual bonds and obligations (such as a small group or house church; see Church in the Home)

• a group of people who live together and have a common mission (for example, a religious order or community house)

• a larger body of people who meet regularly and engage in common artistic, intellectual or religious activities (such as a synagogue or local church)

This wide range of meanings reminds us that we always need to be clear on how we or others are using the term. Here I shall focus on the first meaning, which has the longest history among thinkers about community, and the last meaning, which has the longest continuing usage in the church. A major article on church takes the view that community is the basic purpose of the church. The remaining meanings of the word listed above can be explored elsewhere in this volume.

Understanding Human Groupings

Over a century ago the German sociologist Ferdinand Toennies published his groundbreaking Community and Society (1887). He was building on a distinction, which had a long history in both Western and Eastern philosophy, between the kinds of groups to which people belong. In some cases there are natural links, forged through belonging to the same family or living in the same place, where people simply share a common life. In other cases they are rational, creating through joining an enterprise or club, where people are pursuing a particular purpose. The first type of relationship, a community, is an end in itself, even if other things spring out of it. The second, an association or society, is a means to some other end: it is task-oriented rather than existing for its own sake.

Other thinkers have similarly distinguished between mechanistic and organic (Émile Durkheim), familistic and contractual (Pitirim Sorokin), primary and secondary (C. H.Cooley) groups. Both kinds of groups exist in every society. But a dramatic shift occurred in the West after the Industrial Revolution, when more natural communities were broken up or weakened in favor of more planned ones. While this introduced more possibilities for achieving certain purposes, it came at the loss of close links that bound people together. This is why so many people lament the loss of community today and look back nostalgically to earlier times or rural settings when it was experienced more fully.

Community includes the home, craft guilds and the church, though over the course of time each has tended to take on board more elements of an association. For example, for many people marriage has become a contractual arrangement that can be easily broken if certain goals are not met; the workplace has become governed by contracts and regulations rather than by family links or vocational commitment; and the church in places is becoming a kind of corporation, emphasizing programs rather than the body of Christ experiencing fellowship. The communal element in family, work and church life has been further diminished through the intrusion of bureaucratic procedures and regulations.

Misunderstanding Christian Community

The distinction between community and association is also useful in differentiating between various kinds of Christian groups. It helps us understand the well-known distinction drawn between modalities (congregations) and sodalities (mission groups), between the local church and parachurch organizations, and between support groups and mission.

Failure to recognize the many differences between a community and an association has led many Christian enterprises to become confused as to their own purpose or to misunderstand what other groups are doing. Some examples of this follow:

• When something organic such as the formation of communal groups or small groups in the church is approached in too organized, contrived or programmed a way, the experience of community is undercut rather than enhanced.

• When the decision-making processes and leadership of a task-oriented enterprise are too dependent on everyone’s participation and feeling good about the outcome, inefficient management of the organization results.

• When congregations and parachurch organizations remain suspicious of one another or trespass on the limits proper to each, they generally fail to see that one is primarily about nurture for its members and outreach to its immediate community and the other primarily about mission to a diffused constituency, with the nurturing element only to that end.

• When the leaders of a program, say in Christian education, do not see that it must be both people- and task-directed, forming people spiritually and relationally as well as enhancing learning and practice, they fail to understand which category particular activities fall into and end up confusing the two.

In all these ways the distinction between community and association helps us to understand what community is and is not about. Its meaning is deepened when we see community as an expression of the communal life of our trinitarian God. We are called upon to express to God and one another the same unconditional faithfulness, self-sacrificing love and visionary hope we find in Christ. None of this is possible without the presence, gifting and fruit of the Spirit. The articles indicated by asterisks above indicate the ways in which Christians are to express and develop community.

» See also: Church

» See also: Church in the Home

» See also: Church, Small

» See also: Church Structures

» See also: Clubs

» See also: Community, Rural

» See also: Fellowship

» See also: Neighborhood

» See also: Networking

» See also: Small Groups

» See also: Society

References and Resources

P. M. Cooey, Family, Freedom and Faith: Building Community Today (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996); R. A. Nisbet, The Quest for Community (New York: Oxford University Press, 1953); G. Tinder, Community: Reflections on a Tragic Ideal (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1980); F. Toennies, Community and Society (New York: Harper & Row, 1957).

—Robert Banks

Community, Rural

The lights of rural communities and villages flicker and die as farm families desert the countryside and those remaining drive past to the larger centers. Rugged individualism seems to be replacing the traditional cooperative spirit. But earth keeping and community are still mutually essential (Genesis 2:15-18; Leviticus 25-26; Bryden and Gertner, pp. 72, 211).

The Setting

Rural out-migration began after World War II (Riedel and Wefald, p. 108). Stimulus was provided by unprecedented mechanization and other technological development, which continues unabated today. Therefore people with acquisitive attitudes were and still are able to accumulate ever larger units of primary food production (Connick, Connick and Keating, pp. 57-61; Kneen, p. 76). The prophet Isaiah described well the situation: “Woe to you who add house to house and join field to field till . . . you live alone in the land” (Isaiah 5:8). The sparsely populated countryside we see today does not conform to the Lord’s decree to fill the earth (Genesis 9:7) nor to his scattering the people over the earth (Genesis 11:8).

A significant remnant of social support remains in rural community. In Canada, for example, 57 percent of rural people are directly involved in support networks from which 90 percent benefit (Apedaile et al., pp. 8-9). These involvements still provide some local vigor and stability (Apedaile et al., p. 22). Women, through their volunteer work and social networking, are the glue that holds rural communities together (Apedaile et al., pp. 7-8). Though most have off-farm jobs (Apedaile et al., p. 11), women remain the major producers of household goods for consumption and provide on-farm support and labor (compare Proverbs 31:10-31). In the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, traditionally a grain-growing rural economy, off-farm income of farm families exceeded net farm income by a substantial margin in 1991 (Apedaile et al., p. 11). Sixty percent of farm women and 30 percent of farm men had off-farm jobs.

The Decline

Rural people have sought out urban amenities of shopping, entertainment and recreation. Other less-edifying city attractions are the possibilities of anonymity, glitz, fast living and unmitigated materialism. Farm income cannot fulfill the desire for the luxuries available to city people. That, in combination with other factors including government encouragement, has resulted in the great exodus of country folk to the city (Freudenberger, p. 81).

Not only is the number of farmers and villagers small, but they are fractionalized by social and political differences. Therefore there is diminishing contact between rural neighbors, with little reason remaining to bring neighbors together, especially when rural commuting to a fifty-mile range is common.

Individualism, fueled by greed, is a big factor in the depopulation of the countryside. Individualism is not biblical (1 Cor. 12; Marshall, p. 142; Walsh and Middleton, p. 86). In the Bible direction from the Lord is usually toward a people, not individuals (Romans 12:3-5; Ephes. 4-5; Col. 3:5-17; 1 Peter 2:9-10). The strength of community is the complementary nature of unique gifting to individuals.

Rural Vulnerability

With the industrialization of the farm and depletion of the rural population has come considerable loss of connection to the earth. A rural life keeps one in touch with the land on which we all depend for sustenance. Knowing where food is grown lends one credibility. There is wisdom derived from knowing how the weather makes the production of food an uncertain matter. Above all, we hear from God through creation (Psalm 8; Psalm 19; Romans 1:20). Too many people live an aseptic, naive, disconnected-from-creation-and-its-reality existence to be good for society as a whole (Connick, Connick and Keating, pp. 235, 242).

With the current trend toward bigger farms, residents are becoming increasingly vulnerable. Obviously, personal and farm safety is a concern. Moreover, since farmers are now between 3 percent and 4 percent of the population, they have lost political significance (Freudenberger, p. 82). This small voting bloc is the one most in touch with the land from which we all receive our food and is ignored, therefore, at the peril of the nation (Riedel and Wefald, p. 109; Kneen, p. 83; Connick, Connick and Keating, p. 235; Bryden and Gertner, p. 73). Finally, when independence is the hallmark of a society, can social, government, health and school problems be far behind?

Alternatives: The Amish and the French

The Amish are well known for their counterculture. To give their young people a reprieve from the perceived degrading influence of the predominant culture, they have devised a lifestyle that keeps their children in the community (Dobson, p. 52; Goering, Norberg and Page, p. 59). The Amish have been successful in providing a place for their children in a rural setting, in part by resisting the use of motorized vehicles. They are committed to each other, and that has a remarkable socioeconomic impact. For instance, neighbors and family gather to raise a new barn. Insurance is not needed because the community is there to help.

In his book Global Dust Bowl, C. Dean Freudenberger describes how France, beginning in the 1960s, turned the nation back to traditional agriculture. The result has been a revitalizing of the rural community, growing rural-urban solidarity and an improved “health of its countryside” (Freudenberger, pp. 94-98).

Renewal

Near large cities there has been a recent in-migration of city workers to the country (Connick, Connick and Keating, p. 69). This has been a disruptive influence on farming, hastening the demise of the very best agricultural land through country residential development. Any plan to reverse the population shift in favor of rural areas must be approached carefully. The introduction of industrial development from outside only creates problems of commuting workers and resentment from local residents over outsiders’ taking jobs. Any project must be done from within the community with careful planning and education involving local residents and government (Riedel and Wefald, p. 113; Connick, Connick and Keating, p. 250).

An international group of researchers, the Agriculture and Rural Restructuring Group (the Group), has proposed that current government aid to a depressed rural economy be replaced with a system of direct payment for rural development and sustainability by something like a tax on food (Apedaile et al., p. 23). Most urbanites are willing to help the dwindling rural population maintain roads, sustain the countryside for the enjoyment of all and provide food. Another recommendation from the Group is that, given the consolidation of farms, there is need for growth in nonagricultural activity in rural areas to help stabilize the rural economy. The context of the proposal is “re-integration of family with business interests” (Apedaile et al., pp. 24, 27). Also proposed is a change from an emphasis on the diversification of on-farm enterprise to farmer and community diversification into nonagricultural pursuits.

Conclusion

A growth in rural population coming from an increase in the number of farms and rural businesses will benefit a nation. Any such move must take into account that the country offers a different set of benefits and experiences than does the city. While some might consider it a sacrifice to live in the country, there is substantial compensation to be living where true community is more likely and where ties to creation can be renewed.

» See also: City

» See also: Community

» See also: Gossip

» See also: Hospitality

» See also: Neighborhood

» See also: Small Towns

» See also: Visiting

References and Resources

P. Apedaile et al., Towards a Whole Rural Policy for Canada (Brandon, Man.: University of Brandon, Canadian Agriculture and Rural Restructuring Group, 1994); J. Bryden and M. E. Gertner, Towards Sustainable Rural Communities (Guelph, Ont.: University of Guelph, 1994); D. Connick, N. Connick and N. C. Keating, Alternative Futures for Prairie Agricultural Communities (Edmonton: University of Alberta, 1991); R. V. G. Dobson, Bringing the Economy Home from the Market (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1993); C. D. Freudenberger, Global Dust Bowl (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1990); P. Goering, H. Norberg and J. Page, From the Ground Up (London: Zed, 1993); B. Kneen, From Land to Mouth (Toronto: NC Press, 1989); P. Marshall, Thine Is the Kingdom (Basingstoke, Hants, U.K.: Marshalls, 1984); R. Riedel and J. Wefald, “Strengthening Rural Communities,” in Farming the Lord’s Land, ed. E. Lutz (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980); B. Walsh and R. Middleton, The Transforming Vision (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1984).

—Verne M. Gleddie

Commuting

Commuting to work by private or public transportation is one of the daily realities of modern life. In previous times people generally worked in their homes or walked a relatively short distance to their place of employment. But with the advent of the train and tram, bus and automobile, along with the spread of suburbia, getting to and from work has become a more complex and time-consuming business.

A generation ago people were congratulating themselves that working hours were fewer, little realizing that in most cases these were taken up by extra time commuting. Now that working hours are expanding again, and freeways are becoming more clogged, there is a danger that commuting hours will also rise. This is especially the case for those who are unemployed and can find work only a long distance from home.

Commuting Times and Patterns

By far the greatest proportion of people commute to work by car. This varies from city to city and depends on climatic conditions, quality of public transportation and provision of cycleways. In most places, 90 percent or more of commuters travel by automobile, and somewhere between 5 percent and 15 percent travel by public transportation, mostly train or bus. Although improvements in public transportation, along with diversification of it and additions to it, in recent years have reclaimed some people from their cars, it is still used by only a small proportion of the commuting population. This is significant enough to ease some congestion on the roads, but not enough to make a wholesale difference in the quality of road or rail commutes.

On the whole, commuting time by car has remained surprisingly stable over the last couple of decades. At present the average length of car trips in the larger cities in North America is roughly equivalent. Older, denser metropolises in the East and Midwest lose what they gain by being more compact through the greater length of time it takes to traverse them. In newer, more sprawling metropolises in the South and West, traffic flows a little faster and so makes up for the longer distances between job and suburb. The majority of car trips, almost 40 percent, take about twenty to thirty minutes, 20 percent around ten to fifteen minutes less, 20 percent around ten to fifteen minutes more, and fewer than 10 percent up to an hour in length. A small but growing proportion of people—whether going by car, bus, train or ferry—travel two hours or more a day to work. There are also those who commute by plane.

Most people who commute by car travel alone. In North America car-pooling is usually defined as two or more passengers, in other countries three or more. Though the ratio of car-poolers to lone travelers varies from city to city, on average it is around one in seven but can vary from half to double that number. Those who travel by van or bus, less so by tram or train, often socialize with fellow commuters, especially in the western states. Such people build a modest level of community through regularly traveling at the same time with each other day after day. This is especially the case where longer distances are involved.

The amount of stress and frustration caused by some forms of commuting, especially traveling by car, is a matter of widespread complaint. Here and there some interesting responses to these expressions of dissatisfaction are beginning to emerge. For example, driving schools are beginning to include in their lessons to new drivers sessions on stress management as well as on how to deal with rudeness. Also, family members and neighbors intentionally or instinctively help those who are drivers among them to debrief at the end of the day, that is, to report on the dangers they have encountered, obstacles they have overcome and fatigue they are experiencing.

The amount of time people spend commuting, the fact that they mostly do it alone and, as roads get busier and trains become fewer, the tiring or frustrating nature of commuting generally raise many questions. These are worth asking in an effort to become more aware of what is at stake and what are the options with respect to commuting: When there is a choice, is it more important to live closer to work, schools and shops in less advantageous surroundings so that families and friends can have more time together, or is quality of location and residence more important? Are there additional ways in which commuting can become a more sociable, community-building activity or even a more reflective, educational one? Is it possible to handle commuting better so that it is less energy-taxing and anxiety-producing and so would give people more chance at the end of the day to socialize or engage in other worthwhile activities?

These are not the only questions. We could ask how we can improve people’s capacity to drive safely and courteously on the roads so as to reduce traffic accidents. Or we might consider the impact of commuting long distances on those who find it difficult to find or keep work. Since our adoption of the automobile has led to the deterioration of public transportation, we might consider our responsibility to older, younger, poorer or disabled people who most rely on public transportation to get around. But it is the first, basic, set of questions that will be addressed here.

Commuting Practices and Possibilities

In recent ethical thought much has been made about the importance of developing a range of character-based practices that are genuinely virtuous. Insofar as people seek to acquire good driving habits, they are developing a standard way of operating that will serve them well on the road. But what other practices might be relevant in driving to and from work, ones more related to personal well-being, community building, educational or spiritual development? And what practices might be helpful for those who do not commute by car? Are there specific practices related to being a passenger rather than a driver?

Perhaps the first desirable practice with respect to commuting is that time spent traveling to and from work be decreased as much as is realistically possible. All forms of commuting, but particularly those undertaken by car, add to our already congested, polluted and often accident-ridden transportation situation. If the time people spent commuting could be decreased, morning rush hours of between five miles per hour (in London) and fifteen miles per hour (in many American cities) would be greatly aided. Pollution—in Los Angeles every car puts approximately its own weight into the air as pollutant each year—would lessen. The awful physical, psychological and economic toll of road injuries and deaths would be significantly diminished.

But how do people go about decreasing the amount of time it takes to travel to and from work? Fortunately there is a growing tendency for people to seek work closer to home, but perhaps they should also consider moving home closer to work. It is ironic that many people move to outer suburbs because of less cost and greater safety and then put themselves on the roads at even more expense, especially if they then need a second car, and at greater risk, due to the extra driving.

When decreasing the distance between work and home is not possible, and even when it is, more commitment to car-pooling would make some real contributions. It would help develop community on the commute and so nurture an increasingly scarce yet absolutely basic resource in modern society. Many people can testify to both the short-term and long-term benefits of this. While it challenges our fetish about individual convenience and freedom of choice and requires some accommodation to others’ schedules and rhythms, we could do much more in this direction than we attempt at present.

The same case can be made for making the move from commuting by car to traveling by public transportation. People complain that commuting by public transportation usually takes longer. Since someone else is doing the driving, however, the commuter has more time for profitable and sometimes enjoyable personal activities, such as reading, reflecting, meditating, praying, keeping a journal and planning. Sometimes there can be other benefits, such as socializing with a more ethnically diverse, older and poorer range of people. (This, by the way, could help overcome some of the stereotyping and suspicion that so often go on between different racial or class groups who rarely meet.) Another benefit is increased educational possibilities. (One group of daily commuters between two large cities were instrumental in getting a continuing-education organization to conduct daily classes on the train and eventually to add a whole car especially for that purpose.) People are often surprised to find out that a move to commuting by public transportation also generally results in considerable financial savings.

Those who must commute a relatively lengthy period of time can take steps to minimize the degree of effort and anxiety involved in arduous daily travel: for example, making use of flextime arrangements so that travel to and from work can take place at other than rush hours or working a ten-hour day so that an extra day a week can be used for leisure or being at home. When a car audio system is available, and so long as it is not just a tranquilizing substitute for a more radical change in commuting patterns, playing relaxing music can also be helpful, as an increasing number of people are finding. In places where a good and pleasant bicycle-path network is provided, people can bike to work. For a small percentage of people—almost 5 percent of the population—there is also the option of walking. Another possibility, and not only for the 5 percent of people already telecommuting, is searching for ways of doing some work each week from home.

For the remainder, it is helpful to begin looking at the complexities, surprises, frustrations and delays of traveling by private or public transportation as opportunities in the Spirit to grow in patience and self-control, as well as in the creative use of time.

Conclusion

As well as individual changes, there are changes that political and urban authorities can implement to improve the commuting experience. In various cities a number of these are already in operation. They include placing a tax on businesses if a certain percentage of their employees do not car-pool or travel by public transportation, providing more bus and car-pool lanes on freeways, introducing “smart” technology to improve travel conditions and reduce commuting time, and, where they have some likelihood of being effective, proposing new public-transportation initiatives.

Employers and supervisors can also help. As is already happening in some firms and agencies, they can pay employees extra to car-pool or travel by public transportation, since this costs less than providing parking spaces at work. Even churches can make a contribution to commuting by encouraging their members to car-pool as much as possible to meetings, providing vans or buses for those who cannot or can little afford to use public transportation, siting themselves near well-served public-transportation routes, and decentralizing many of their activities to local centers or homes so that people have less distance to travel.

» See also: Automobile

» See also: City

» See also: Mobility

» See also: Neighborhood

» See also: Public Transportation

» See also: Time

» See also: Traveling

» See also: Workplace

References and Resources

D. Engwicht, Reclaiming Our Cities and Towns (Philadelphia: New Society, 1993); J. McInnes, The New Pilgrims: Living as Christians in a Technological Society (Sydney: Albatross, 1980).

—Robert Banks

Competency

In their places of work, families, communities and churches, Christians give praise to God by using their time and talents as competently as they possibly can. Their competency is a fundamental service to the world.

The book of Genesis sets the tone. At the end of each day, God looked upon the work he had done and saw that it was good. On the final day of creation “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good” (Genesis 1:31)—very good. That is the creation God gave us. And the very first command God gave to humans was “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28). To subdue is to bring under one’s control, not to destroy. The arena for this service to God is the whole of creation, not just church-related activities.

Our society is so complex and interrelated that we depend on the competency of many others to meet our needs. The airline pilot’s competency is far more important to his passengers than whether he is a Lutheran or Roman Catholic. The competency of those schoolteachers who help educate our children is much more important to us than whether they also teach Sunday school. We depend on the competency of our auto mechanics to keep our cars safe; whether they attend church conventions is secondary. We depend on the competence of our surgeon; whether she sings in the choir is incidental. So, too, competency is crucial for farmers, salespeople, bus drivers, custodians, politicians, pastors and lawyers. Each one, by doing his or her job with high competency, serves God by helping to keep creation very good.

In criticizing the church for not helping people see the importance of competency in their daily lives, Dorothy L. Sayers wrote, “The church’s approach to an intelligent carpenter is usually confined to exhorting him not to be drunk or disorderly in his leisure hours and to come to church on Sundays. What the church should be telling him is this: that the very first demand that his religion makes upon him is that he should make good tables” (pp. 56-57). If our daily work is praise of God and service to God’s creation, it is surely spiritual in nature. The term spirituality of work was first coined by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical On Human Work. In writing for the National Center for the Laity, Gregory Pierce says, “A spirituality of work necessitates orienting ourselves toward the divine through our daily activity of improving and sustaining the world” (p. 26). To see our work as spiritual compels us to execute it with the greatest of competency. No longer can a job be seen simply as a means of earning enough money with which to live.

The emphasis on total quality management in business in recent years is evidence that the American work force is not as competent as it could be. Incompetence can be found in all levels of an organization, from the CEO to the janitor. Total quality management recognizes this fact and addresses it. An example of what can be done to increase competency comes from the American automobile industry. During the 1980s Japanese and German cars got a larger share of the U.S. market due to better design, higher quality and lower prices. The trend was obvious. Either the American auto industry had to become more competent in its design, quality and costs or else it would die. Through massive changes at all levels of the industry, some of which resulted in many jobs’ being lost, the carmakers began to reverse the trend. By the mid-1990s, American-built cars were equal to or better than their foreign competitors in design, quality and cost. Aided by the low value of the dollar in relation to the yen and mark, American car prices have become the lowest in the world market. This happened because a total industry became more competent.

Organizational competency is not confined to the for-profit sector of our society. Many human-service agencies operate far below their potential simply because of a philosophy that employees cannot be evaluated with respect to competency. This is the bane of the not-for-profit organizations. It is a serious misunderstanding of the nature of voluntary work. Sometimes, in such organizations, when incompetence is recognized, managers are themselves too incompetent to deal with it. American churches have relied on voluntarism to provide money and assist in the programs and governance of congregations and judicatories. The personal involvement of competent church members is largely responsible for the greater vitality, attendance and feeling of ownership in American churches than in state-supported churches in other countries.

Not only service organizations but also educational institutions need to deal with competency issues. With colleges and universities facing reduced enrollments due to demographic factors, it is the competent educational institution that will survive. Long-time policies that rewarded seniority rather than competency in teaching are being changed in many schools.

Competency in one’s daily life is not confined to one’s paid job. A society needs competent parents to raise our children and give them values. Surely we serve God and maintain God’s “very good” creation as we bring in new lives and, in turn, educate them to use their God-given talents. The challenge has become greater as the number of single-parent families has increased and as the pattern of double wage earners in the traditional family has increased as well. Many parents are overcome with stress as they try to balance the demands of the workplace and the home, with the demands of the paid job usually taking precedence over family needs. As a result, many have an uneasy sense that they are not as competent in their parenting as they should be. Churches need to help people with their priority setting here.

Competency is demanded of us in our community activities. Surveys and polls tell us that Americans are unhappy with the competency of their elected political leaders. Yet, strangely, less than half of those eligible to vote do so, and less than 1 percent of the public ever volunteers to help in political campaigns. Competent citizenship calls for an active role in our political process, for government too can play a major role in keeping creation good. Furthermore, a unique characteristic of American society is the way in which people have volunteered their time and money for human services, the arts and other civic causes. Competent citizens are needed in order to maintain and improve our social fabric—God’s creation.

Competency in one’s job, family, community and church—this is what is asked of us. To strike the right balance in accordance with the gifts God has given us drives us to meditation, prayer and dependence on the Holy Spirit.

» See also: Ambition

» See also: Drivenness

» See also: Promotion

» See also: Success

» See also: Talents

» See also: Work

» See also: Work Ethic, Protestant

References and Resources

W. Diehl, The Monday Connection: A Spirituality of Competence, Affirmation and Support in the Workplace (New York: Harper & Row, 1991); W. E. Diehl, Thank God It’s Monday, Laity Exchange Books Series (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); W. F. Droel and G. F. A. Pierce, Confident and Competent (Notre Dame, Ind.: Ave Maria, 1987); G. F. A. Pierce, “A Spirituality of Work,” Praying, Sept.-Oct. 1983, p. 26; D. L. Sayers, Creed or Chaos? (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1949); E. F. Schumacher, Good Work (New York: Harper & Row, 1979); G. Tucker, The Faith-Work Connection: A Practical Application of Christian Values in the Marketplace (Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 1987).

—William E. Diehl

Competition

Competition is a fact of everyday life. Students compete for academic honors by scoring high marks in examinations. Athletes compete in a race, and only the first three runners past the finish line receive prizes of recognition (see Sports). Businesses compete for a market share of their products and services. Churches compete for the attention and voluntary support of adherents in the midst of a pluralistic, multireligious society. Nations compete for economic advantage in the global village. But what do we mean by competition? Is it always, or normally, negative? Can we construct a theology of competition?

The negative consequences of competition in society are easily identified, especially in business. Competition in the corporate world forces companies to reengineer in order to survive, often leading to loss of jobs (see Firing). Unionized employees negotiate for better compensation, but the prospects for job security are increasingly jeopardized by demands for greater benefits. Consumers benefit from competitive pricing, but sometimes at the expense of small businesses unable to offer the volume discount promised by chain stores in their weekly advertisements.

At the personal level, our children compete in examinations and sports. Students strive for a place at the university based on their academic achievements in high school. Undoubtedly these harsh realities affect our perspective on priorities and purposes in personal life. Should we pursue a “successful life” by embodying an unbridled competitive spirit (see Success)?

Beyond Definition?

The word competition has a history. As the Oxford English Dictionary notes, the root word compete derives from the Latin competo, which in its original sense means “to fall together, coincide, come together, be convenient or fitting, be due.” But by the sixteenth century it took on a stronger sense of engagement with another person, thus “to enter into or be put in rivalry with, to vie with another in any respect.” Subsequently, it came to be used “to strive with another, for the attainment of a thing, in doing something.” In order to achieve a certain end or goal, we strive with another person, and in the process we may overcome obstacles or challenges, whether personal or impersonal. But these definitions fail to account for the complex character of human competition as it involves biological, psychological, rational, voluntary and social factors.

A theoretical understanding of competition must consider the human situation. The field of sociobiology, represented by E. O. Wilson, distinguishes two modes of competition, scramble and contest. The former is exploitative, without universal rules of conduct governing the scramble for limited resources. The latter involves a conscious struggle for appropriating specific resources and thus permitting a winner in a contest competition. When a group of boys scramble for coins thrown on the ground, a contest ensures certain rules of behavior and predicts certain agreed-upon outcomes, such as winner-take-all. But an evolutionary model of competition that assumes the commonality of animals and humans competing for survival for limited resources appears to make some sense, but it is incomplete, especially with regard to the ambiguous motivation of human beings.

Competition has a moral character; individuals are able to exercise self-control in limiting or suspending pernicious kinds of aggressive competition. Often this is not done. Examples in the Bible of people striving with one another for personal advancement in unbridled sibling competition include Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, and James and John. The story of Joseph is especially illuminating. Joseph’s brothers schemed to eliminate him as they competed for parental attention and acceptance. Joseph was both a victim and a victor. But the biblical account suggests that a higher purpose determined the outcome (Genesis 50:20). Whereas the brothers’ attempts at destroying Joseph’s future seemed obviously malicious, the unintended consequence of Joseph’s fortune pointed to a divine drama with significant benefits for the extended family.

Inside Competition

Why is it important for human beings to act in a competitive manner? Psychological explanations point to the need to gain recognition, approval and acceptance. Along this line public demonstrations of competitive behavior are often motivated by a desire to overcome weakness, helplessness and loss of individuality. So Stuart Walker concludes that “competitors think of themselves as being primarily motivated to develop, demonstrate, and enjoy competence” (p. 4). In other words, competitive behavior is largely about winning and about public awareness, regardless of the outcome. Walker has possibly overstated the case, since it is conceivable that an individual might run a race for the sake of proving to himself a level of achievement associated with the sense of excelling in a particular field of sport rather than merely winning public recognition.

The difficulty in determining actual motivations in competitive conduct may be due in part to the ambiguities and complexities of human behavior. There is more to motivation than the individual. Greek ideals exemplified in Aristotle’s notion of human good and in Plato’s articulation of timeless virtue illustrate the potential of personal actions. Values, standards and ideals are not created in a vacuum but are shaped by social and personal experiences. Therefore, competition and cooperation are not necessarily antithetical in a given society. In fact, anthropologists like Margaret Mead have described the relative significance of both types of behavior in tribal groups. Mead concludes that

competitive and cooperative behaviour on the part of individual members of a society is fundamentally conditioned by the total social emphasis of that society, that the goals for which individuals will work are culturally determined and are not the response of the organism to an external, culturally undefined situation, like a simple scarcity of food. (p. 16)

If we accept the cultural dimension without denying the natural disposition inherent in human behavior, then we can recognize how competition and cooperation may take place simultaneously. This happens when an athlete competes with others while cooperating with members of his or her own team to challenge their opponents. What is important here is the impact of cultural and structural factors in determining the outcome for a particular group of individuals. While some societies exhibit cooperative characteristics, others appear more competitive (Mead, p. 511).

The Protestant Work Ethic

Not only culture but even religion influences competitive behavior. The classic explanation of competition was given by Max Weber. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber accounts for the impact of theological ideas on human behavior and social life. He sees the Reformation as leading ultimately to the emergence of a capitalist economy in Europe. Weber’s basic hypothesis revolves around the notion of divine election as a key theological idea that influenced the moral and ethical outlook of Protestant Christians. In particular, he suggested that the believer needed concrete confirmations for his experience of salvation. Therefore, individuals took hold of the opportunities for work, investment and industrious activity in order to produce tangible rewards of achievement that could be interpreted as divine approval. In other words, divine blessing in this life indicated positive assurance of salvation for eternity.

Participation in God’s gift of salvation demanded a conscious performance in this world—hard work, prudence, frugal stewardship and productive output. Weber was careful to highlight the affinity between a certain work ethic and the emergence of a successful middle class. While he was not necessarily arguing for a direct cause-effect relationship between the Protestant work ethic and the rise of capitalism in Europe, Weber persuasively demonstrated a strong correlation. His conclusion remains compelling: the emerging culture of capitalism was in a complex but significant way influenced by the religious idea of divine election and by the ethical orientation to competing for success in this world. In the Work Ethic article Weber’s thesis is more completely critiqued. What is needed now is to develop a fully biblical approach. Thus far, we have considered the lexical, functional, biological, psychological, cultural and religious factors influencing our concept of competition. But how does the Bible speak of competition? Can we construct a theology of competition? When is competition good, even holy?

Competition in the Old Testament

The Bible is full of competitive activity. The Old Testament stories, ranging from the exodus to the exile, depict the struggle of God’s people in the face of religious pluralism and political conflicts. The challenge of maintaining loyalty to the one true God was central to the story of covenant faithfulness. Recognizing the Old Testament drama of divine contention for Israel’s allegiance, each narrative uncovers a competitive tension between Yahweh and the diabolical schemes of Satan. The life of Job reveals a cosmic competition in which Satan is granted limited jurisdiction over the circumstances of Job and his family. Israel had to choose, time and again, the one true God and to obey his revealed laws for holy living, to give up popular myths and religious idolatry in favor of the distinct lifestyle demanded by the God of Abraham, Moses and David.

Thus incidents like Aaron and the golden calf and David and Goliath illustrate the danger of competing ideas about God. On both occasions, the people were motivated by fear, helplessness and the need for security. These motivations were largely inspired by an inadequate view of God and an inflated view of the enemy. Moses and David contested for the people’s allegiance to God as a prerequisite for competing against their enemies. Narratives such as the exodus and David and Goliath highlight the persevering character of God in demanding total allegiance in the midst of competing forces. In these instances competition in the religious life of Israel issued from this theological understanding.

Competition in the New Testament

In the New Testament Paul uses the metaphor of an athlete engaged in a race (1 Cor. 9; Phil. 3), and Jesus teaches with parables about the danger and potential of competitive behavior (Luke 16:1-8; Luke 19:12-27). The parable of the shrewd manager focuses on the resourcefulness of an employee facing malicious accusations of impropriety and eventual dismissal. By turning his employer’s creditors into friends, he transformed hostile circumstances into opportunities for survival. Competitive behavior in this instance was marked by a streetwise motivation to strive for economic security. Jesus commended the shrewd manager for his prudent actions. In the words of Eugene Peterson’s translation,

The master praised the crooked manager! And why? Because he knew how to look after himself. Streetwise people are smarter in this regard than law-abiding citizens. They are on constant alert, looking for angles, surviving by their wits. I want you to be smart in the same way—but for what is right—using every adversity to stimulate you to creative survival, to concentrate your attention on the bare essentials, so you’ll live, really live, and not complacently just get by on good behavior.

Not only does Jesus acknowledge the competitive nature of living in the world, but he recommends a streetwise approach to survival that overcomes the destructive potential of competition. For the Christian, this competitive advantage is gained by a circumspect awareness of the issues and the relationships affected by changing circumstances. Sometimes, cooperating with our competitors may produce positive results. In contrast hostile, predatory competition bent on destroying relationships and institutions often leads to unscrupulous actions. When a salesperson exaggerates the value of a product, an unwitting consumer might succumb to deceptive persuasion. However, when the product fails to deliver in performance, the reputations of both salesperson and company are greatly discredited. In the final analysis, competing for consumer confidence is more important than sales profits. Companies and employees succeed in a competitive economy by delivering quality products and services and thus ensuring customer satisfaction.

There is more in the parable of the ten minas (Luke 19:12-27) than stewardship of investments. Jesus deliberately draws attention to the character of each servant who was given a mina. The one who earned ten more was rewarded with responsibility for ten towns. Similarly, the servant who invested the operating capital and earned five more minas was recognized for his achievement. In turn, he also gained additional responsibility for five towns. Finally, the parable focuses on the servant who avoided the risk of investment. Out of fear, he opted to deposit the money in an unsecured and unprofitable place. The master condemned the foolish attitude of this servant and, in an unexpected manner, deprived him of the asset by transferring the money to the servant who gained ten.

While the narrative appears similar to the parable of the talents, what is unique about this parable is the circumstance surrounding the events. The master had to secure authorization from a distant ruler in order to return with legitimate governing powers over the region. The period of absence was marked by protests from the local citizens as well as tensions among the servants over the master’s instructions. How should they deal with local resistance to the master’s sphere of influence? At the same time, how would they invest the capital entrusted to them in the face of competition? The servants were competing with external uncertainties and with internal challenges. Each servant had equal opportunity to invest, but the social and economic circumstances were not necessarily favorable. High standards of achievement were demanded by the master, thereby increasing the pressure to perform. How do we explain the variable productivity of the servants despite equal capital investment opportunity? What accounts for the difference in results? Why did the master reward the servant with ten minas additional capital taken from the unproductive servant?

Good Competition

As the parable suggests, competition can bring out the best and the worst in each person, depending on the motivations. Jay Newman, in his study of competition in religious life, agrees with Simmel’s sociological thesis that competition “not only provides the individual with the occasion for self-realization and self-respect, but simultaneously presents him with an incentive and an opportunity to contribute to social progress” (p. 48). In other words, competition enhances the value of human relationships by cultivating the best from each person. Unlike the destructive potential of conflict, one positive outcome of competition is excellence in character and in performance.

Sports and athletic activities are usually associated with the idea of competition. In a race, every runner aims for first prize. Apart from the first three places, all other contestants are not even recognized. Paul’s metaphor of the athlete in the coliseum assumes the competitive spirit. However, he does not appeal to the unbridled side of aggressive competition. In 1 Cor. 9:24-27, Paul compares himself to an athlete in training for the games, not unlike present-day sportsmen preparing for the Olympic marathon races. It seems Paul is urging for a competitive spirit in the Christian’s life. But the metaphor of a race and the goal of winning the prize does not preclude the possibility of a marathon. In a race, only one person gets the prize. But the analogy of winning in a competition cannot be applied to the Christian in a simplistic manner. Surely Paul is not suggesting that only one Christian will complete the race and win the prize. Instead, the reference to disciplined training for the express purpose of gaining the reward points to a deep concern in Paul’s life that he will not become disqualified at any point in his race toward the end.

Paul maintains a clear vision of the ultimate reason for his Christian endeavor: “Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:13-14). Every Christian, in Paul’s estimate, is called to run in a race that has an eschatological purpose more profound and deeper than a hundred-yard sprint. We may assume that Paul exaggerates the point of winning the race in order to make the more important claim that each person “should run in such a way as to get the prize.” Therefore Paul views the competition as more of a marathon than a sprint. The difference is that everyone who completes the marathon wins.

A Sprint or a Marathon?

In the context of daily life and organizations, we may choose to regard competition as a race or a marathon. Whereas in a race only a few winners enjoy recognition, everyone who competes in a marathon and finishes actually wins. Charles Handy, a management consultant, suggests that competition “is good news for everyone, but only if everyone can win” (p. 83). He recalls the feedback from several thousand managers in America who were invited to account for the occasions when they did their best: “they did not talk about competition, but about goals that were exciting and challenging, about autonomy and ownership, high visibility and accountability, and an exciting task” (Handy, p. 85). From our earlier discussion about the definitions of competition, we recognize the basic elements in Handy’s observations that match Paul’s concept of competing in a marathon.

The quality of our goals and the challenges of the tasks before us make for a positive engagement in work and daily life. We compete by pursuing goals of excellence. When work entails a sense of ownership and accountability, each worker is given the opportunity to prove their merits. Organizations that offer incentives and motivate toward realistic goals will cultivate a healthy work force. Whereas monopolies in a market economy tend to take their products and services for granted, and internal monopolies exist through isolating or removing external challenges, people become lazy. Handy observes,

In tough competitive situations people like to be surrounded by people less competent than themselves because it gives them a better chance of winning. That is not good news for the organization. Nor do people always, or even often, take the risks or make the creative leaps which competition is supposed to encourage. The fear of failing is usually much stronger than the hope of winning, so people play safe. (p. 85)

Competition usually involves a positive effort to aim for a set of goals worthy of the individual or organization in the face of changing circumstances and varying opposition. One may do this with integrity and courage. Competition issues from a basic theological conviction that God calls each person to live out his or her full potential, which is not defined by human evolution but by what Christ has accomplished in each one (Phil. 3:12). Furthermore, competition at the personal and social levels involves risks. The ethic of excellence can transform the destructive character of unbridled, unscrupulous competition into a creative spirit of true competition; of turning races into marathons. The Christian thrives in a competitive environment through a clear vision of the ultimate purpose for living and working.

References and Resources

C. Handy, Inside Organizations: 21 Ideas for Managers (London: BBC Books, 1990); J. Newman, Competition in Religious Life, editions SR vol. 11 (Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1989); M. Mead, ed., Cooperation and Competition Among Primitive Peoples (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1937); S. H. Walker, Winning: The Psychology of Competition (New York: W. W. Norton, 1980); E. O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap/ Harvard University Press, 1975).

—Peter Quek

Compromise

Compromise is generally regarded as a dirty word. It is something to avoid. To make a compromise, to be compromised, even to accept a compromise, is to settle for second best, at worst to be involved in a shady activity. Therefore ethically inclined, especially Christianly committed, people should steer away from compromise. The difficulty with this view is that there is scarcely any situation in life in which at some point compromise is not required. This is so when a group decision has to be made by a committee, for example, since it is rare for several people to reach complete agreement. Or this is so, as in the case of social services or welfare, when limited resources mean that some have to miss out or get less than others. Or this is so in schools when conflicting opinions between parents and teachers mean that no decision is going to completely satisfy everybody. Even on the home front, juggling the sometimes competing options and demands in two-career families requires compromise—for example, when the whole family must decide to move so that one of its members can take up a job offer or promotion elsewhere. Some Christians, especially those who are very idealistic, are troubled by having to abandon what they feel is God’s will for them or in general so that they can adjust to the positions or aspirations of others. Since they are concerned to do God’s will, anything less seems a departure from God’s ideal plan for them or wider purposes.

This issue becomes particularly acute in connection with our work. It is often thought to be especially connected to certain occupations. Politics, for example, with its adversarial dynamics, is as well “the art of compromise” (a definition Luther would have found quite acceptable). This is why many people regard politics with suspicion, but nothing would take place in politics, even developing and implementing the best policies, without it. And according to the New Testament, politics is a task in which even unbelievers, if doing right, can be servants of God (Romans 13:4). It is not essentially different in the world of commerce, especially in the making of business deals. This is also the case in various professions, especially in law. In a world that is more and more culturally diverse and pluralistic, a whole range of activities inside and outside the workplace require the various parties to make concessions to one another. But making compromises in any of these areas troubles many Christians, leading them to regard themselves as second-rate Christians or to develop a growing skepticism about the relevance of biblical ideals to everyday life.

Approaching the Issue of Compromise

What do we mean by the word compromise? Generally we use it in one of two ways. First, it is used for taking a middle way between two courses of action that may be based on different principles or on different possibilities derived from the same principle. Second, it is used for a decision or action that seems to involve a lowering of standards. I want to suggest that a situation such as the first usage has in mind certainly enables us to engage in a positive or legitimate compromise. Regarding the second usage, what sometimes appears to be a lowering of standards in making a decision may not necessarily involve that. But I also want to suggest that depending on the circumstances and the decision, the first situation can lead to a negative or illegitimate compromise as much as the second.

It is also helpful to distinguish compromise from two overlapping ways of operating: between compromising and strategizing and between compromising and negotiating. Strategizing involves working out a long-term, often complex, set of tactics for reaching a desired end. This may involve all kinds of moves and countermoves, unexpected demands and apparent concessions, which initially and for some time may obscure the goal of the exercise. Such strategies are means to an end, temporary positions that are part of the larger game being played. Strategizing is broader than compromising and may involve good or bad strategies as well as good or bad compromises. A subset of strategizing is negotiating. While there may be legitimate and illegitimate, or more and less legitimate, ways of conducting negotiations, compromise is not necessarily involved here, though sometimes it is. A negotiator may make many proposals and responses in coming to an agreement without at any point yielding something basic, only appearing to do so. In the case of both strategizing and negotiating, a person may take into account people’s sensitivities, particular circumstances or specific cultural contexts, without which a good agreement—or sometimes any agreement—cannot be reached. So, to the extent that compromising is sometimes confused with appropriate strategizing or negotiating, there need not necessarily be anything negative involved in it.

What then is compromise? Is it, as is commonly thought, betraying one’s basic convictions for the sake of expediency, because it is opportunistic to do so, to relieve the pressure one is under or simply as a consequence of moral weakness? Or is it possible to make good compromises that are not a betrayal of principles so much as an appropriate, perhaps under the circumstances the most appropriate, response to them? If this is the case, how can we tell the difference between these two, and what practical steps can people take to ensure that they do not break faith with their own strongest convictions and standards or those of the institution they represent?

Toward a Positive View of Compromise

It is possible to compromise in ways that are positive and defensible from a Christian point of view. As always, the Bible provides a good place to start. There are many biblical stories in which people made decisions that seem to be acceptable to God or to even further God’s will even though these did not express all of their basic beliefs or hopes. A clear example is the meeting in Jerusalem between Paul and Barnabas, on the one hand, and the apostles and elders, on the other, to discuss the validity of the Gentile mission. There was considerable debate, and the upshot was an agreement in which the Jewish Christians endorsed Paul’s initiative in taking the gospel to the Gentiles and Paul’s missionary team accepted the condition that they communicate certain restrictions on the behavior of Gentile Christians that could be interpreted as supportive of idolatry and promiscuity (Acts 15:23-29). Another example in Acts is Paul’s apparently contradictory practice of, in one place, circumcising one of his coworkers and, in another place, refusing to do so. The first concerned Timothy, who was half-Jewish; Paul felt there was some ground for placating the scruples some Jewish Christians had about him. The second concerned Titus, a Gentile, whose circumcision, no matter how strongly certain Jewish Christians may have desired it, would have betrayed Paul’s basic convictions about Gentile Christians’ freedom from keeping Jewish observances.

But elsewhere Paul is quite outspoken about his missionary practice of becoming “all things to all people” (1 Cor. 9:22). When he preaches the gospel, he takes serious account of the religious and cultural convictions of his hearers. If they are Jews or observe the law, he accommodates them and speaks as one who respects the Jewish heritage and law himself. If they are “strong” and do not observe particular holy days or follow regulations concerning food and drink, he begins with the freedom in Christ he experiences in such areas despite being a Jew. On the other hand, if they take the opposite point of view, since he too sometimes feels “weak,” he is willing to begin from that and proceed from there. This way of operating is not restricted to Paul’s missionary endeavors; it is also his regular pastoral practice. When confronted by viewpoints at some distance from his own, unless they are being advocated in a proud, hardened or manipulative way, as much as possible he seeks some common ground and then articulates his own position and tries to draw people toward it (as with discussions on ascetic sexual and overly charismatic practices in 1 Cor. 7 and 1 Cor. 12-14). Though Paul has often been accused of compromise in the negative sense because he acted in all these ways, it is not difficult to defend him against this charge in the name of a higher consistency.

The Negative Side of Compromise

We also find in the Bible examples of poor or negative compromises that are condemned. In Paul’s letters we find the classic case of the behavior of Peter in the controversy between Jewish and Gentile Christians at Antioch. Though Peter has his own strong convictions on what is required of each group, convictions that are virtually identical with Paul’s, he bends under pressure from certain people who have come down from Jerusalem and who were probably misinterpreting the position of his fellow apostle James. Peter urges the withdrawal of the Jewish Christians from the Lord’s table because of the Gentile Christians’ different eating habits (Galatians 2:11-14). At principle here from Paul’s point of view was the gospel’s full acceptance of the Gentiles even though they did not observe all the regulations of the law of Moses. Though it was not his intention, Peter’s position was a compromising one in a seriously negative sense. This is why Paul would not yield so much as an inch.

The story of Peter’s rebuke indicates, as we know, that compromise can have serious negative effects. This is so, first and foremost, for the person who makes it. Acting in this way weakens a person’s capacity to made good compromises or other good decisions in the future. It is also unfortunate for those affected by the compromise, all of whom, not only the ones allegedly being protected, will suffer from the result. The key then is how to know the difference between good and bad, or better and worse, compromises. At this point our moral terminology can often get in the way. So long as we think only in terms of black and white, only in terms of good and bad, we are limited in our capacity to deal with such situations as discerning when good compromises can be made, what they are, when we are in danger of making a bad compromise or when no compromise should be made at all.

We can be helped here by the language of the Old Testament Wisdom literature, which expands its moral vocabulary to judge actions according to whether they are wise or unwise, fitting or unfitting, appropriate or inappropriate. There are times when it is better not to press for something that is good simply because it would not be wise to do so and we would jeopardize any possibility of its happening later. Or sometimes it may be wise to engage in an action even if it is not what we would most prefer since it is the best that is likely to come out of the situation and is far better than other choices that could be made. Other words than compromise could be used in such cases. Depending on the nature of the decision and the surrounding circumstances, terms like adjustment, accommodation, concession or conciliation could apply, again demonstrating that compromise in the pejorative sense is not necessarily in view.

In such cases the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr tended to talk in terms of our having an attitude of “delayed repentance.” That is, we make the best decision we can under the circumstances, which is often the “lesser of two evils,” then later ask God to forgive us. But if such a decision is the best compromise we can make in that situation, while we may regret that it could not be otherwise, repentance does not seem called for. Does this not mean that it is the will of God for us in that circumstance? Given the circumstances, what more could be called for? For example, when Jesus is unable to heal in a certain place because people’s faith was lacking, was it a compromise on his part? Helpful here is Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s distinction between ultimate and penultimate realities, the latter constrained by events, situations and people in this world. Sometimes the latter, to use his words, require us to “sacrifice a fruitless principle to a fruitful compromise” (pp. 79-101). The latter, though not the ultimate, is still derived from it and points toward it.

Learning How to Make Good Compromises

A legitimate or, to use Bonhoeffer’s words, fruitful compromise, then, will seek to preserve our basic faith convictions, safeguard loving relationships and retain vision for the future. If it does, this will be an expression of the will of God in its particular time, place and set of circumstances. More specific criteria include the following: Does it generate good or bad effects? Is it likely to lessen evil and wrong? Does it extend justice, particularly to those who require it most? Will it exhibit a proper regard for all persons with a stake in it? Have those involved shown throughout a genuine concern for truth in what is under discussion? Is there a recognition of the choice involved and an avoidance of talk about “having to do it”? Do both the process and the decision display the virtue of patience? Can the decision be altered if circumstances change and another decision becomes possible? Though these criteria are still very general, at least they provide a framework within which a proper decision can be reached and the appropriate compromises, if necessary, made.

What can we do to ensure as far as possible that we are in the best position to judge an issue by these criteria and work toward the best possible compromise? The following considerations are relevant whether we are dealing with issues between husband and spouse or parents and children in the family, with issues arising between friends or neighbors, with issues that we encounter in the workplace or in voluntary associations, with issues that come before us in the church or church-related ministry, or with issues of a social or political kind on which we have to cast a vote. In all these situations we should (1) continue to give first priority to maturing in our relationship with God and others, for good compromises are more likely to proceed from people who are attempting with God’s help to become increasingly good. (2) Keep the big picture in mind, never letting go of our ultimate aims and purposes, so that we can preserve a proper perspective on the issues at hand. (3) Consult closely as much as possible with other people so that we have as much wisdom as possible in making decisions involving compromise. (4) Be prepared to give way on minor issues where a major issue is at stake; otherwise, we will tend to confuse the forest for the trees and win or lose small victories at the expense of big ones. (5) Aim at a win-win rather than a win-lose, or lose-win, situation, for which lateral thinking or seeing new possibilities is really required.

If we keep these factors in mind, are serious about bringing such matters to God in prayer and meditation, and have resort to a group of supportive people with whom we can sometimes talk over these issues, we can have every confidence that God will go with us into our decisions and help us discern how best to respond.

» See also: Business Ethics

» See also: Conflict Resolution

» See also: Integrity

» See also: Negotiating

» See also: Values

References and Resources

D. Bonhoeffer, Ethics (New York: Macmillan, 1955); J. Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J. T. McNeill, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960); W. J. Diehl, The Monday Connection (New York: Harper Collins, 1991); K. E. Kirk, Conscience and Its Problems (London: Longman, 1933); H. R. Niebuhr, The Responsible Self (New York: Harper & Row, 1979); W. Temple, Christian Faith and the Common Life (London: Allen & Unwin, 1938); H. Thielicke, Politics, vol. 2 of Theological Ethics (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969); W. Ury, Getting to Yes (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981); H. F. Woodhouse, “Can Compromise Be the Will of God?” Crucible, January-March 1982, 22-30.

—Robert Banks

Computers

Humans have used computing devices for millennia. The abacus is a common example, but the fact that we use a base-10 numbering system surely indicates that the fingers predated even that as a tool for computation. Through the years we have invented an amazing array of machines to help us compute things more rapidly and more accurately.

Basic Character

The digital computer (which is what we now mean by “computer”) is not simply another computing device among these machines. Only a few decades ago International Business Machines estimated that the total American demand for digital computers was about a dozen. This estimate was not the result of a mere miscalculation but based on a very basic misunderstanding: IBM falsely thought that digital computers were just another computing device.

In spite of the fact that we routinely call these machines “computers,” they only began their lives that way. They are not simply computing devices. Though computation is at the core of many operations that computers do, they are really not computers but “rememberers.”

As never before, digital computers offer us devices to remember information. From the invention of writing and before, humans used the means at their disposal to record information in hopes that it would be remembered. But merely recording is itself insufficient. In order to remember and reuse information, it must be retrieved as well as recorded.

Computers have given us this capability to store information so that it can be easily retrieved and reused. Monthly credit card bills are mundane examples of computers’ role as rememberers. So are the reams of “junk mail” sometimes generated by attempts to recycle the information that computers remember for us.

As more and more information becomes available to us over computer networks, the role that computers play as rememberers will become ever more significant. Not only will they be the means by which we store and retrieve information; they will also be the tools that allow us to navigate around the world’s enormous information stores to find just the knowledge we need.

Rapid Proliferation

Counting the embedded systems that control our automobile engines, VCRs and telephone systems, there are more computers in the United States than people. Even the number of recognizable computer systems like the one I am using to write this article numbers in the millions.

The demand for computers, and their power, seems to know few bounds. The state-of-the-practice computer from my college days, the IBM 370, cost a great deal, could be used only in a controlled environment and could be approached only from a distance, punched cards in hand.

One watershed came in the early 1980s when significant computing power could first be reduced to a small set of integrated circuits. These “personal computers” were first popular with hobbyists but came into more mainstream use when software such as Lotus 1-2-3 and WordStar made them capable of doing significant business tasks like budgeting and correspondence. This confluence of relatively inexpensive hardware and software that made it easier to do standard business tasks began to bring computers out of the laboratories and into everyday life.

As computers have become more powerful, most of that power has been expended making them more accessible. Cryptic commands, and before them setting control panel switches, have been replaced by icons that perform basic functions. The early personal computers responded to the command pip (peripheral interchange program) to copy a file. Now they respond to “dragging and dropping” a file icon onto a disk icon. Soon they will respond to the spoken command “Copy my file to the disk.” This increasing ease of use has made computers more accessible and has itself contributed to their omnipresence in modern life.

Current Uses

If computers have become our chief rememberers, it should be relatively easy to list the tasks they perform. This is far from true. Any simple categorization of current uses of computers seems to leave out important segments of their domain. And even complete lists become rapidly incomplete as new applications for computing power are discovered. Consider, however, this list, which a mainstream business user might put together: numeric projection and accounting (spreadsheets); transaction and information tracking (database); communication and messaging (electronic mail); text editing and publishing (word processing); drawing and image manipulation (graphics).

This list is based on the content of software “suites” which claim to offer a well-rounded set of resources for business. Several aspects of this list are remarkable. First, only one of these functions has directly to do with computing narrowly defined. Spreadsheets are the contemporary number-crunching functions of computers. The other functions, although they may be highly numeric under the surface, have entirely to do with storing, manipulating and retrieving other types of information.

Second, the list leaves out one of the most widespread uses of computers—information presentation. This domain includes computer-based training but is much broader. Computers drive much “kiosk” information display, designed to communicate to casual passersby rather than dedicated students. In this case too, however, the intent is to inform and instruct, and computers do the job for us.

Social Impact

As digital computers have become ubiquitous, they have transformed social life in many remarkable ways. Of course one must be “computer literate” to be considered educated, but that is one of the least important social impacts of computers. The significant ways in which they are transforming society are often much more subtle.

First, consider the kinds of information we can easily communicate to each other using traditional means. The book you are now reading, like many books, is trying to communicate information. But books are very good at communicating only certain kinds of information. Information that is “linear,” where one piece builds upon the previous piece, can be easily rendered in books. So can information that is hierarchical or layered.

What about information that is networked together arbitrarily? The only way books can render such information linkages is with cross-references. Most readers find cross-references annoying because they are so inconvenient to use. But when information is rendered using computers rather than printed books, hyperlinks allow readers to conveniently go back and forth across cross-references. This opens up whole worlds of information that, while they may have existed before, were virtually inaccessible because they were so inconvenient to use.

Second, computers make all information, whether we could easily communicate it before them or not, more available. When cashiers ask me for some sort of ID, as I let my wallet disgorge all the pieces of plastic and paper that tell who I am, I sometimes joke that I am one of the most thoroughly identified people in the world.

The truth of the matter is that the widespread use of computers has caused us all to be more thoroughly “identified” than we might like. Credit history, affiliations and police records for each of us are all out there on computers. This wealth of information is far more available than ever before, even when it is kept relatively confidential. Computers have made our thorough identification what it is.

Third, because computers have made so much information available to so many people, we will soon be forced to use them to sort through all that information. This role is very different from the one they play now as rememberers. When information is relatively limited, storing and retrieving it is adequate. When it becomes relatively unlimited, as it is becoming today, we must begin to use computers to filter it.

Filtering is different from retrieval because when computers retrieve information for us they do so in response to our specifications. Filtering, however, requires us to train computers to do our specifying for us. The available information will soon be so vast that, in order to find anything at all, we will have to trust computers to sift through things for us and return with what we need.

From one point of view, a computer is just another tool that can be used for both good and evil. And so it is. Such tools, however, always put their stamp on our activities and change them whether we like it or not. As our computers remember more and more information, we ourselves suffer from acute information overload. What are we to make of the power that inexpensive computers put into the hands of many of us? Clearly, they make many tasks easier; they also make some more complex. In some cases, they add a much-needed medium of personal communication, e-mail, that enables us to keep in touch with each other. In some cases, they add an impersonalness even to our personal communications. Now, after all, it’s possible to get form letters from your family.

The challenge we face as Christians is to make use of our computers to enhance our communication with others and our abilities to negotiate our lives successfully. But enhancing life and communication is not part of the “out-of-box experience” of unpacking a new computer. We add that capability to the machine or allow the machine to take it out of the activities we use it for. Our task is to direct these resources in ways similar to the direction we give to writing by hand or any other tool we use for tracking and communicating. Computers do the same things so much faster, but they require the same deliberate management as do lower technologies. There are further Christian reflections on the mixed blessing of this technology in the article on Information Superhighway.

» See also: Computer Games

» See also: Principalities and Powers

» See also: System

» See also: Technology

References and Resources

N. Negroponte, Being Digital (New York: Knopf, 1995)

—Hal Miller

Computer Games

Though most computers are actively used for relatively pedestrian activities like accounting and word processing, a remarkable amount of their resources is devoted to simple diversion. Games and puzzles account for a significant portion of younger people’s interactions with computers; indeed, supervisors of many adults who work with computers might be surprised at the amount of gaming that goes on with these “business machines.”

The original computer games arose almost as soon as computers were powerful enough to do anything remotely “interactive” with humans. Though they were rudimentary, puzzles like Wumpus and forerunners of arcade games like Pong set the stage for the more sophisticated games of today. These games began to define the kinds of games computers could be “good at,” that is, activities providing fun for their human companions. Computers quickly became both interesting playmates and challenging opponents.

The current generation of computer games may use dedicated hardware (the Sega and Nintendo units, or complex joysticks for input), but they can often be operated on general purpose machines with corresponding input devices. In these cases they are impressive for the sheer quantity of computing resources they require. A machine that will comfortably run the most demanding business software sometimes grinds to a halt when asked to run gaming software. Complex video and audio requirements that are standard for contemporary computer games have become an important factor in making increasingly robust computers available at a reasonable cost.

Similarities to Traditional Games

With some important exceptions, computer games fall into all the categories of traditional games. There are games of skill, usually called arcade games from their origins in pinball arcades. While these games are hardly aerobic, in other ways they are very much like traditional games of skill such as athletic contests or pocket billiards. Arcade games generally require speed and coordination in the use of input devices from their players. Current arcade games couple these demands with the color and sound distractions used to complicate pinball games for decades. Common examples of arcade-style games include various chase games and flight and driving simulations.

Related to arcade games are the action games, which require arcadelike skills but use those skills in a more or less continuous series of battles. The violence of these battles may be quite graphic at times. Indeed, the excesses in violence and gore of some action games led to the current system of voluntary rating of computer games by the industry.

A third category of computer game is solitaire games or puzzles. In these games, computers bring a fresh capability that revitalizes the game itself. Computers selflessly shuffle the cards or set up the pieces, leaving only the play to the human partner. Computer versions of crosswords allow you to erase the same word an unlimited number of times without making the paper illegible. In these cases, the difference of medium is an enhancement to the game itself.

We have also developed computer versions of traditional games that use boards or manipulatives. Chess and checkers, for instance, are based on relatively simple sets of determinate rules. But both games are endlessly rich in their strategic and tactical variety. In these cases, computer versions provide portable partners but also do something more significant. Here, computer games can become serious contests between people and machines. It is a point of pride that chess programs cannot at present consistently beat the best human players, although they can now do so with increasing frequency. How long we can expect this to continue is a matter of speculation, but the research behind development of these games has illuminated a great deal about the processes the best human players use.

A final category of computer game is adventure games, including the newer interactive story. These games have fewer counterparts among traditional games, although the scavenger hunt is a reasonably close analogy. Adventure games require players to follow a thread (or one of several threads) through a story. Along the way, problems arise that the players need to solve, often using materials they have gathered in the course of the adventure.

Adventure games run the gamut in their premises and plots. Some require fights of various kinds, some are set in magical fairy-tale worlds. The themes may be overtly sexual or romantic, or they may be dominated by black magic or warfare. Overall, adventure games are much like novels or movies and cover the same range of themes. They also require similar guidance from parents.

Significant Differences in Computer Games

Although in most ways computer games are simply traditional games thrust into a new medium (with all the changes in speed and dimension that brings), they are qualitatively different from traditional games in three important ways.

First, computer games have strongly contributed to blurring long-standing distinctions between gaming and education. In the past few years we have begun to hear this described by the neologism edutainment. Edutainment—and many computer games, especially those aimed at preteenagers, are excellent examples of edutainment—is shorthand for the loss of easy differentiation among the so-called content industries, such as schools, media companies and publishers.

Twenty years ago it was easy to distinguish music from movies and learning from playing. Now MTV and video gaming have made those conventional distinctions less compelling. Skillful teachers have always known that their job was at least part entertainer. That knowledge is now mainstream in the sense that it is often difficult to tell which part of an activity is the instruction and which the entertainment.

Edutainment presents information or drills on skills in the context of a game or, alternatively, creates a game which requires players to master certain information or skills to succeed. Contemporary analyses of edutainment are also hobbled by the fact that the widespread use of computers has revolutionized the types of skills required for success in the working world. In some sense just being “computer literate,” a skill players on standard desktop machines often develop merely to tune their gaming environment, is itself an important educational achievement. The edutainment phenomenon has been driven in large part by the evolution of computer gaming, but its influence on traditional educational goals is far from complete.

A second way that computer games are qualitatively different from traditional games is the way they can transport the player’s senses. Unlike almost all traditional games, many computer games give the player a change of scenery. Computer games give you travel opportunities. The ability to explore strange buildings or cities or worlds is one of the novel fascinations of the computer game.

Of traditional games, only golf comes even remotely close to this aspect of computer gaming. But even in golf, the terrain you can explore is limited by such parameters of the game as the dimensions of the course and the other players on it. In a computer game, the cities of the world (Where in the World Is Carmen San Diego?), a fantasy island (Myst) or a postholocaust building complex (Doom) is yours to explore. Computer games allow, and often reward, simply “poking around” in unknown places. In this particular they correspond much more to other rewarding human endeavors like natural science than do any traditional games.

Third, computer games are qualitatively different from traditional games in their graphic portrayals. A most instructive comparison here is between traditional chess and a computer version called Battle Chess. Chess is of course about war, and war is about killing. Yet chess hides all that carnage behind stylized game pieces and their moves. When a pawn is captured by a knight, what has “actually” happened in the reality represented in the game is that the footsoldier has been slaughtered by the horseman. Yet in the game, the wooden pawn is bloodlessly removed from the playing surface. Battle Chess, however, does away with this antiseptic distance between the game and what it represents. When the queen captures the bishop in Battle Chess, you watch on the screen as she slips out a stiletto and slides it between his ribs. The other pieces are no less violent in their activities.

Part of the “realism” of computer games, and the violence and gore that sometimes come with it, is a mere change of aesthetic. Photorealism has its seasons in art of all kinds, as do less representational forms. Traditional games were forced to stylize what they were portraying. With the computing resources currently available to games, this limitation is no longer in force.

Partially, however, the change from mere representation to more graphic realism is in the social role of the game. Traditional, less representational games are played at a distance of abstraction from their theme that computer games deliberately avoid. Chess may be about war, but it is a very abstract kind of war. Many action games are simply about killing, and the closer they come to the sensory reality of killing (it seems) the better. This difference gives traditional games a refinement and finesse that many computer games do not even try to achieve.

This change in portrayal may be only a stage in the evolution of computer gaming, but it has the same net effect as the evolution from screen kisses to graphic sexual encounters in movies. When mysteries like these are unveiled, a certain innocence is lost that cannot easily be recovered. The ultimate effect this will have on computer gaming remains to be seen, but it is an important development to watch.

» See also: Computers

» See also: Entertainment

» See also: Games

» See also: Leisure

—Hal Miller

Conception

When a sperm and ovum unite, usually as the result of a loving embrace, they become “one flesh” literally as a unique conceptus “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14 KJV; see Psalm 139:13-16; Eccles. 11:5). New reproductive technologies now allow conception to occur outside the confines of the human temple, creating ethical dilemmas and evoking the need to restore reverence to our idea of conception and dignity to personhood.

Evolving Ideas of Heredity and Origins

Biblically and anthropologically there is a rich tapestry of philosophies that dovetail with evolving science. When Genesis describes the creation of Adam, the material of his body is completely and utterly earthy (Psalm 90:3; Psalm 103:14). This contrasts with other creation myths, where humankind is extrapolated from blood or tears spilled from the gods. In the Bible, the first man is the result of clay formed by the hands of God and invested with spirit and life through the transforming breath of the potter. In life man works this soil in intimate relatedness, returning to it in death (Eccles. 12:7). There is speculation and some evidence that humble clay crystals may have served as the original catalysts for the formation of the hereditary molecule of life, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), in the first simplest life forms.

DNA has the unique ability to replicate itself, dividing and preserving a blueprint from one cell division to the next that maintains the form and function of the cell and communally the organism. During replication the DNA spiral staircase cleaves equally, like a zipper parting. Components of the complementary ladder rungs reassemble based on strict exclusive pairing in a lock-and-key fashion analogous to male and female union in marriage (Genesis 2:24). It is this monogamy that preserves the sequence and meaning of the code, ensuring the correct translation into the intended gene product and faithful replication from one generation to the next (Psalm 100:5).

That moment of divine spark in which matter is brought to life is in no way demystified by progress in the understanding of origins. Science serves to enhance, not diminish, the wonder of God’s signature in matter, be it the whorled pattern of a fossil shell, Bach’s mathematical harmonies or a dandelion seed aloft in the breeze. Seeds are mentioned in Genesis 1:11 inextricably associated with the first living entities; plants created some three and a half billion years ago are wondrously capable of capturing the sun’s energy for food, so providing nourishment and oxygen for animal life to follow. Genesis and evolution are integrated in describing the sequence of created life.

Biblically, semen and seed are used interchangeably and intersexually. Note the allusion to the female seed made in Leviticus 12:2, “to sow a seed,” and in Hebrews 11:11, “Sarah received power to have [literally] a seminal emission.”

Historically views were often opposing. The traditional notion that the mother was not the begetter but only the nurse of the newly sown embryo conflicted with observable patterns of heredity whereby children resembled both parents. In Job 10:10 we are given the image of human creation as the pouring out of milk that curdles into cheese: the development of a firm embryonic body from milky semen. From the sixth century b.c. women were known to possess ovaries, although they were referred to as testes. Pre-Socratic philosophers defended the view that female semen is also necessary for procreation, hence menstrual blood was regarded as the female contribution to embryogenesis.

There was also great debate concerning theories accounting for the sex of the child or the dominant resemblance to mother or father. Novel proposals having to do with which partner’s semen was most abundant or emitted first at the time of coitus, or the influence of temperatures and the position of the seeds in the uterus, testified to the creativity and curiosity of the human mind. The ancient principle that the seed of either parent can be “overpowered” is preserved in modern understanding of sex determination and gene dominance over recessiveness.

The ovum and sperm each contain half of the genetic material necessary for human life. The male has two varieties of the sex-determining chromosome, designated X and Y. Thus there are two forms of sperm existing in the semen with regard to this one characteristic. Ovum, however, contain exclusively an X chromosome; the mother has a pair of X chromosomes from which to donate, one originating from each of her parents. It is the type of sperm, then, that engenders the sex of the conceptus. Either the Y “maleness” chromosome overpowers the X, resulting in a male offspring, or the presence of another X chromosome from the sperm complements the X that is already in the ovum to produce a female offspring. In Genesis the creation of Eve from the rib of Adam has been metaphorically linked to the taking of the X chromosome to create out of man “flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone.”

Scientifically, the division of labor for directing characteristics as diverse as eye color, predispositions for disease, personality and even addictions is a complex interaction of multiple genes. The conceptus carries half the genetic material of each parent, but any possible ratio of grandparents’ DNA may be represented. The diversity that sexual reproduction offers, analogous to reshuffling a deck of cards, serves as fuel for gradual changes that occur in species over time, imparting incentive and wisdom to adapt generationally to changing conditions.

As the thread of life, the DNA molecule not only epitomizes the biologic link between form and function but suggests metaphors for contemplation. An impossibly simple molecule in the form of a spiraling staircase, DNA contains the language to flesh out such diverse creatures as the towering cedar tree spanning a millennium and the transient intricate mouse, attesting to the universality of a spiritual language that knows no bounds of race or religion. If DNA is the self-propagating molecule of life, then love is the expanding universal message of the spirit. Simple in concept, but indomitably extensive, it forms a genetic fingerprint that identifies paternity or even culpability for crime. From only one cell, a strand of unwound DNA would stretch to the moon and contains the equivalent of three billion bytes in a computer program.

The double helix of DNA spirals cyclically (or seasonally) but directionally counterclockwise in defiance of time’s entropic and decaying forces. Life, with its increasing order and complexity, is a back eddy against the natural flow to disintegration and chaos. The Creator’s nudgings are acknowledged even in the scientific community as “creative explosions” that occurred “against all odds” in the evolutionary saga. God’s sovereign hand has prompted us toward mindfulness of Creator and is beneath us despite threat of extinction and genetic deterioration (Deut. 33:27). The consequences of mutations (errors in replication of the DNA molecule as a result of radiation or toxins) is usually disease and only very rarely an improvement. Life as we know it is precariously balanced on the knife edge between order and chaos, a grand compromise between structure and surprise. “Too much order makes change and adaptability impossible; too much chaos and there can be no continuity” (Kaufman, in Nash, Time 95, p. 46). With increasingly specific knowledge about our genes and how they manifest themselves in sickness and in health, the wonder of our innate complexities magnifies as we attempt to discern “God’s creative thoughts after him” (Isaac Newton).

Conception Evokes Consummate Wonder

Consider the sperm, an enveloped package of DNA that has a means to propel itself through the female reproductive tract. Its limited energy resources give it a decidedly finite time frame of several days to complete the task of navigation and penetration. The sheer number of sperm provided (five hundred million) demonstrates the magnitude of the undertaking and the competitive strain that ensures the best is rewarded with success.

If maleness has been associated sometimes pejoratively with that which is “set apart,” we need to reaffirm these qualities that are the father’s conception gift—metaphorically, as he provides a sheathing, an overcoat around the soul. This envelope comprises heroism, liveliness, impulse, intensity, incentive and a warrior’s imperative for self-sacrifice whether defending the higher ethic or protecting his loved ones. For the adopting father they become, through modeling, a birth gift in parallel to that of a genetic father.

In contrast, the ovum is the nutritive home initially for the woman’s genetic material, “frozen” in time from her own intrauterine life. Sensing the monthly hormonal prompting, it will ripen and be released. Having internal rhythms synchronized with a lunar calendar gives women a sense of constancy and connectedness to the natural world (see Menstruation). Once penetration by that first sperm has occurred, there is a miraculous change in the outer coating of the ovum. Instantaneously it changes its structure, preventing another sperm from entering even before the two nuclei have fused—a paradigm of betrothal and monogamy. Hence, the exact amount of genetic material necessary to make up a new human individual is present and preserved from the moment of conception as the two halves become a whole.

The parental genetic material has cleaved and unified, finding in its complementarity a wondrously unique potentiality: “male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27).The image of God is a composite of male and female. The female attributes of God were downplayed out of necessity, considering that Judeo-Christianity arose against the backdrop of fertility goddess worship that curiously resembles New Age spirituality with its mother-earth worship. It is interesting to explore symbolically the spherical ovum, roughly the size of the dot of an i, a hospitable planet for the sperm’s delving, a refuge for the conceptus and the initial provider of nutrients to flesh out the designs held in the DNA. As the already fertilized ovum is propelled by hairlike cilia through the fallopian tube, it becomes a spherical clump of dividing and differentiating cells that plunges into the fertile soil of the womb. Putting down placental roots that absorb nutrients from maternal blood, the conceptus sends chemical messengers to lull the mother’s immune system to accept its intrusion and signal the presence of the pregnancy, now detectable by lab tests. Even after birth the nutritive and protective memory of the egg is visited in the domed hut or cathedral, the spherical breast (see Breast-feeding) and later the bowl.

God’s provision and comfort is like that of a mother who hears the cries of her children and responds to their needs. We are reassured in Isaiah 63:9 that “shekinah” (the Hebraic female “presence of God”) empathizes with us in our distress. “As a mother comforts her child, so will I [God] comfort you” (Isaiah 66:13), mirroring our first experiences of tangible love as persons.

The Soul of Personhood

Although the exact definition of when personhood begins eludes us, the scientific knowledge we have confirms our deepest conjectures that soul, spirit and body are integrated in some wondrous way from the moment of conception of a genetically distinct individual, even prior to implantation, even prior to acquiring full consciousness and rationality. T. W. Hilgers is correct when he asserts that “once conception has occurred an individual human life has come into existence and is a progressive, ongoing continuum until death ensues” (quoted in Hui, p. 6).

Soul—that dimension of personhood that makes us God-conscious and expressive—and body (or physicality) are so interdependent that one cannot think of a person having a body without a soul or a soul without a body. Contrary to Greek philosophy, which created a schism between spirit and matter, the Judeo-Christian view is that we are fully integrated as ensouled bodies or embodied souls. Understood in this way, conception is not merely the formation of physical shells for persons but is the cocreation with God of a person.

The element of development and “unending becoming” is a distinctive quality of human experience throughout life. When children begin to grapple with the notions of death and spirit, they find the concept of eternity as simple and understandable as the circles they draw in the sand—a universal symbol of infinity, no beginning and no end. Pointing to a wedding picture of their parents, children are very unsatisfied by a finite answer to the question of where they were when the picture was taken: “You weren’t in Mommy’s tummy yet.”

“But where was I?” they press on, satisfied only by the reassurance that “you were still with God” until conceived.

We are more than DNA living on in our offspring. What is this pearl that persists beyond flesh’s fragility, the élan, the part of us that smiles and sings, worships and loves? God has “set eternity in our hearts” (Eccles. 3:11, author’s trans.). In contemplating the infinite, there is the distinct possibility that spirit was in the form of sheer energy somewhere with God and after being transformed into matter and nudged into consciousness will some day (with all due respect to the theory of relativity) find itself again with the ultimate source of all energy, love and matter.

In contrast to these truths “revealed . . . to little children” and “hidden . . . from the wise and learned” (Matthew 11:25), consider technology’s fruition in controlling the origins of persons.

» See also: New Reproductive Technology

Resources and References

P. Teilhard de Chardin, The Appearance of Man (New York: Harper, 1965); Edwin C. Hui, Questions of Right and Wrong (Vancouver: Regent College, 1994); M. J. Nash, “How Did Life Begin?” Time, October 11, 1993, 42-48; M. J. Nash, “When Life Exploded,” Time, December 4, 1995, 38-46; L. Nilsson, A Child Is Born (New York: Dell, 1993); P. van der Horst, “Did Sarah Have a Seminal Emission?” Bible Review, February 1992, 35-39; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974).

—Carol Anderson

Conflict Resolution

Conflict is a natural part of life. Although many people think conflict means open controversy, a truer definition might be the absence of peace—which can be obtained in its most complete sense only from God. Whenever people interact with one another, there is a potential for a difference in opinion or purpose. Most people are able to deal with minor differences. When major conflicts arise, however, many people do not know what to do. They fear conflict, react defensively or have difficulty negotiating just agreements. As a result, valuable relationships are damaged or destroyed, time and money are wasted, and promising businesses and careers fail.

In American culture today, litigation in civil court has become a common substitute for direct personal interaction. As a result, conflicts may be resolved as to substantive issues but are almost never resolved as to personal relationships. A focus on satisfying individual rights has supplanted concern for the good of the whole community. In some other cultures there continues to be reliance on the judges at the gate (Ruth 4:1-12), but in America’s increasingly anonymous society the perceived cost-benefit of resolving conflict between individuals amicably has been skewed in favor of keeping the conflict unresolved.

Popular Christian Attitudes Toward Personal Conflict

Some Christians are more vulnerable than other people to conflict, this vulnerability arising from a misunderstanding about what it means to be Christlike. For example, some Christians believe they always should “turn the other cheek,” without realizing that unless one does so freely, without resentment, this is no true reflection of Christ’s peacemaking character. Such actions are like the Pharisees’ carrying out the letter rather than the spirit of the law. Further, giving in may be inconsistent with God’s Word, which includes also the concepts of justice, restitution and personal accountability. Others imagine that they should carry out God’s justice. They may appoint themselves as God’s avenging angel, even though Jesus instructed us not to do so (Matthew 7:1-2). Such an attitude is precisely the opposite of how God approaches discipline, which is with a loving and expectant heart (Hebrews 12:1-13). Finally, some Christians spend a great deal of energy on broader matters of peace and justice. Although these are important, such people sometimes pay scant attention to resolving their own interpersonal conflicts, failing to recognize the broader community implications of individual discord.

All these attitudes can lead to confusion, abuse or pent-up anger. In contrast, to seek resolution of disputes according to biblical principles means seeking both personal reconciliation and the just settlement of substantive issues, not only for the purpose of human unity but also to bring praise and honor to God (1 Cor. 10:31). Jesus specifically urged peacemaking among his followers as a personal attitude that brings blessing (Matthew 5:9).

God’s Interest in Conflict Resolution

As well as giving us the ultimate model of reconciliation—Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:10)—the Old and New Testaments are full of direction and action from God on the reconciliation of persons to himself. There are many pictures of unilateral forgiveness and provision for sacrifice as a substitute for judgment. It is obvious that complete, direct, personal reconciliation is one of God’s major preoccupations (Hebrews 2:1-4). God’s method of resolving conflict serves both as a model for our own behavior and as a reminder of our own utter dependence on God as the source of all good we hope to achieve.

By studying the ultimate conciliator at work, certain guidelines emerge for dealing with conflict in our daily lives:

1. Conflict allows us to grow to be more like Christ (2 Cor. 12:7-10).

2. Peacemaking starts with our own personal attitude, which in turn comes from a focus not on the conflict but on God (1 Peter 3:13-15).

3. It is possible to reconcile oneself unilaterally, but only if the past is forgiven completely (Phil. 4:2-9).

4. Resolving conflict may require different methods at different times and places (1 Samuel 25:26-35; Esther 7:1-6; Proverbs 6:1-5; Acts 16:22-24; Acts 22:22-23, 29).

5. Differences of opinion are inevitable and usually are acceptable (1 Cor. 12).

6. Reconciliation does not necessarily require giving up or giving in, especially when someone is being hurt by ongoing conflict; loving confrontation may be preferable (Galatians 6:1-5).

7. God reconciled all to himself through sacrifice and forgiveness, but we must pass this gift on to others to realize its full benefits (Ephes. 4:29-32).

8. Resolving conflict God’s way may require us to accept consequences and to alter our behavior (Ephes. 4:22-32).

9. Justice is God’s, not ours (Luke 6:27-39).

Biblical peacemaking involves an active commitment to restore damaged relationships and develop agreements that are just and satisfactory to everyone involved (1 John 3:18). A spirit of forgiveness, open communication and cooperative negotiation clear away the hardness of hearts left by conflict and make possible reconciliation and genuine personal peace. True biblical vulnerability, honesty and forgiveness can restore a person’s usefulness, both to God and to others, and lead to complete restoration of relationships (Galatians 6:1-3; Ephes. 4:1-3, 24).

Resolving Conflict as Believers

The Bible contains two basic messages about how believers should seek to resolve conflict in their daily lives. First, as with most things in life, God’s Word contains promises, principles and practical steps needed for resolving conflict and reconciling people. Second, it is clear that peacemaking is an essential discipling ministry of the local church, not a task reserved for professional counselors or lawyers.

See it as an opportunity for obedience and witness. Sometimes we wonder why God has allowed a certain conflict to come into our lives. Instead of viewing conflict as a painful burden, Christians can learn to see it as an opportunity to please God and to draw attention to God’s wisdom, power and love (1 Cor. 10:31-33). God has promised to use even our conflicts for good (Genesis 50:19-20; Romans 8:28). This perspective allows for a positive and confident response to conflict as we ally ourselves with the most powerful peacemaker in the world.

Examine your own part in the conflict first. This includes not only your actions but also your attitudes, motives, acts and omissions. Because it reveals our sinful attitudes and habits and helps us to see where we need to change, conflict provides an opportunity for us to grow to be more like Christ (Psalm 32:3-5; Psalm 139:23-24; 1 John 1:8-10). This growth takes place when we follow Jesus’ command to accept responsibility for our own contributions to a problem before pointing out what others have done wrong (Matthew 7:5).

Look for steps you personally can take. Few things in the Bible are as clear as the steps we are to follow when seeking to resolve conflict, particularly within the body of believers. Each of us is commanded to make the first move when in disagreement with another (Matthew 5:24). One opportunity provided by conflict is to serve others. Sometimes this can be done through acts of kindness and mercy (Proverbs 19:11), but at other times it requires constructive confrontation (Matthew 18:15). Recall that Jesus confronted people not simply by declaring their sins to them but by engaging them in conversation designed to make them arrive at the same conclusion on their own (Matthew 7:12; Luke 5:27-28; John 4:7-26).

Accordingly, if someone is angry with you, go to them immediately (Matthew 5:23-24), even if you believe the other’s anger is unjustified. If you are angry with someone else, first ask yourself if the issue really is worth fighting about and check your attitude—are you actually looking forward to the confrontation? If an offense cannot be overlooked, go privately and express your concerns. But do not assume that the other knows or understands your feelings; explain what you are concerned about but also why (Matthew 18:15). Be sure to affirm the relationship and your desire to work things out lovingly before launching into a discussion of the issues (2 Cor. 2:5-8).

Making the first move does not mean that someone else has done something wrong or bad. An otherwise innocent word or act can cause an unexpected negative reaction in another, leading to serious disagreement (James 3:5-7). One can apologize for the trouble such miscommunication has caused simply because one regrets the result. Too often, however, our own sins have played a part either in creating the conflict or in escalating it (James 4:1-3).

Call on the church for help if necessary. Private confrontation is a preferable first step, so long as we can speak the truth in love (Ephes. 4:15). But if after sincere good-faith efforts to work things out you are unable to resolve the issue or mutually forgive each other (Proverbs 19:11; 1 John 3:16-20), then seek out the assistance of a few “witnesses” (Matthew 18:16). These are present not to provide evidence or accuse the parties but to act as supportive advisers to both sides and help restore peace (Phil. 4:3). This can be done informally with a respected relative, friend or other adviser trusted by both parties or more formally with a pastor, church-appointed committee or trained conciliator.

If someone will not listen to you and the witnesses, then, as we are instructed, “tell it to the church” and allow it to decide the matter for the parties (Matthew 18:17) as a matter of church discipline. This is preferable to filing lawsuits in civil court (1 Cor. 6:1-8). Today, as in Paul’s time, our churches (and most believers) have abdicated this authority to the legal system, yet the courts do not focus on restoration of personal relationships, only on the disposition of tangible assets and liabilities. The church should model God’s view that discipline is an act of love and shepherding (Hebrews 12:6).

Going to court is a possible last resort. Finally, if a party will not listen to the church, then we are commanded to treat the other as an unbeliever (Matthew 18:17). Does this mean that now we are free to sue in court? Yes, but our decision to do so should depend on the nature of the dispute and the consequences to us or others in our care if we do not pursue our claims (Phil. 2:3-4).

Even though Paul’s admonition about lawsuits is directed at believers suing believers, it only makes sense to tie God’s conflict-resolution principles back to witness through reflection of Christ’s character. Christ’s approach was to be merciful even while directly confronting a harmful attitude or act. Whatever the choice, our attitude needs to remain one of obedience to and reliance on God, and the aim should be peace with others, even unbelievers (Romans 12:17-18; 1 Cor. 10:31-11:1).

Because Jesus loved and sought out unbelievers even as he tried to both correct and heal them, we can at least attempt to work out differences with unbelievers using the same progression of steps as we would with believers (1 Peter 2:12). Serving an angry lawsuit on an unbeliever, before trying to work out things another way, may not be the defendant’s best introduction to God’s redemptive plan!

Some believers use the steps in Matthew 18:15-20 as a substitute for civil legal processes but demonstrate the same vengeful zeal and advocacy as if in court. The key to effective use of Matthew 18 is to appreciate it as God’s detailed direction to us on how to keep peace on earth—our attitude should be one of caution, prayerfulness and thanksgiving.

» See also: Church Discipline

» See also: Compromise

» See also: Conflict, Workplace

» See also: Forgiveness

» See also: Justice

» See also: Listening

» See also: Negotiating

References and Resources

E. Dobson et al., Mastering Conflict and Controversy (Portland, Ore.: Multnomah, 1992); R. Fisher and W. Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (2nd ed.; New York: Penguin, 1991); J. Hocker and W. Wilmot, Interpersonal Conflict (3rd ed.; Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown, 1991); Institute for Christian Conciliation, 1537 Avenue D, Suite 352, Billings, MT 59102, (406) 256-1583; B. Johnson, Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems (Amherst, Mass.: HRD Press, 1992); S. Leonard, Mediation: The Book—A Step-by-Step Guide for Dispute Resolvers (Evanston, Ill.: Evanston Publishing, 1994); G. Parsons and S. Leas, Understanding Your Congregation as a System (Washington, D.C.: Alban Institute, 1993); K. Sande, The Peacemaker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991).

—David Augsburger

Conflict, Workplace

Conflict is so common in the workplace that one can safely say, “It goes with the territory.” But the types of conflict are varied.

Many Kinds of Conflict

The most commonly recognized workplace conflict is between labor and management. The dwindling power of American labor unions has not lessened tensions between those who manage and those who produce, especially in those organizations that have retained a hierarchical structure. Management wants to minimize unit costs; labor wants to maximize compensation and benefits. Finding creative ways to increase productivity can sometimes meet the wants of both groups. But when increased productivity is achieved by fewer persons doing the same amount of work in the same way, the physical and psychological effect on the work force can be devastating.

Pity those persons who daily work at the interface of labor and management: the first-line supervisors. These are the persons who are called upon to see that management’s plans or directives are carried out—sometimes against their own convictions. These are the persons who are called upon by the work force to communicate its complaints and wants to a management that is sometimes not interested in listening. To make matters worse, the highest-ranked labor representative, who gets paid on an hourly rate for overtime, can often have more take-home pay than the lowest-ranked management representative, who works the same number of hours but gets no overtime pay because he or she is a salaried employee.

There can be conflicts in the workplace when an employee whose style is collegial works in an organizational culture that is very autocratic. For a long time there has been conflict over dress codes, but that is changing as younger employees keep pushing back the boundaries. Even IBM, whose male executives and sales personnel always wore dark suits, black shoes, white shirts and a conservative tie, is starting to weaken. But observe the dress of most male business travelers at airports; they still are invariably clad in dark suits, black shoes and, perhaps, a colored or striped shirt.

A great source of workplace conflict arises from tensions between work and family. The percentage of parents who are holding down a full-time job continues to climb. Approximately two-thirds of married American women are in the paid work force. Single parents, most of whom are women, have little choice about work: either enter the work force or be dependent on family or society for support. The need to care for family while holding down a full-time paid job creates tensions that spill over into the workplace. And the demands of the workplace create tensions that spill over into the family. What does a working parent do when a child develops a sudden illness and will not be accepted by the normal caregiver? Or suppose an employee’s aged parent falls at home and needs immediate help? Does the employee take a vacation day? call in sick? In either event, the employee’s supervisor is confronted with an unexpected staffing problem. Work must be reassigned, and there is resentment among all affected. If the family emergencies happen too frequently, conflict develops.

Most employers have yet to find ways to reduce the work-family tensions that nag so many of their employees. In the case of the birth of a child, U.S. federal law now mandates that employees be allowed to take unpaid leaves of absence. But companies do not look upon such leaves with favor. Early reports show that while mothers will take leaves beyond their employer’s normal maternity policies, fathers seldom take any leave. Why? The workplace views an unpaid leave of absence as proof of the father’s lack of commitment to the organization.

In short, much of the American workplace is still not “family friendly.” When an employee puts the family ahead of the job, there is conflict at the place of work.

Add to the family-work tensions the fact that many people are working longer hours, either by choice or by job demands. In her book The Overworked American, Juliet B. Schor deals with the strange fact that although the standard of living of the American worker has increased significantly since the 1950s, the per capita hours worked have gone up instead of down. From 1969 to 1987 the annual hours of paid employment in the American labor force increased 163 hours, equal to four extra weeks of work per year. Schor suggests that our insatiable desire for more material possessions may be the reason we choose to work more hours. A more likely cause, however, is that the drive for greater productivity and the downsizing of the work force in many organizations have put greater demands upon a smaller number of people. Whatever the reason, when the workplace gets more time, the family gets less.

Conflict can break out as coworkers compete for promotions. There is conflict when a boss takes credit for the ideas or contributions of his or her workers (see Office Politics). Conflict arises when an employee has been given an unfair performance appraisal (see Firing). When senior employees hog all the best weeks for vacations, there is conflict.

Women in the workforce bear additional burdens of conflict over those listed above. Women continue to be overrepresented in those jobs that are lower on the pay scale. Retail sales, fast-food outlets, nursing homes, clerical support for managers and professionals, child care and domestic services are all heavily populated by women, and they generally do not pay well. To make matters worse, women generally still receive less pay than men for the same job or one of equal value. It is unjust and makes for conflict in the workplace.

The advancement of women into managerial jobs, law partnerships, directorships and CEO positions has been very slow, despite more than a generation of highly capable women in the work force. To the term glass ceiling has been added an even more devastating term for women—the sticky floor. Not only is there an invisible barrier preventing women from ever reaching top positions, but many women are glued to jobs at the bottom of the pay scale. With more injustice, there is more conflict.

To top it all off, women at every level of the work force constantly must be alert to sexual harassment or discrimination. It can be intentional and as blatant as being asked to trade sexual favors for job advancement. Or it can be unthinking, as when all the men in a work unit go out for a drink late on Friday afternoon but forget to invite the one female associate of equal rank.

What has been said about women in the work force applies also to African-Americans, Latinos and persons from Asia. Hard as it is to believe, Jews still suffer from discrimination in some sectors of the American work force. Conflict arises as minority persons constantly overhear jokes that demean their race, sex, color or religion.

A Christian Response

What is a Christian to make of so much conflict in the workplace? How is the Christian to deal with so much injustice and conflict? Several fundamental truths about conflict and work will help Christians answer these questions.

First, conflict is a part of life; it is not peculiar to the workplace. The Bible is filled with stories involving conflict. Jesus told his disciples that to follow him could result in conflict of fathers against their children and brothers against brothers (Matthew 10:21). Conflict is a manifestation of humans’ self-centeredness, that is, original sin.

Second, the place of work is part of God’s creation and is just as much under God’s care as the place of worship. What goes on in the place of worship on Sunday is intended to help us deal with the place of work on Monday. Churches can help their members deal with conflict by providing adult-education programs on conflict resolution, personal time management, discrimination and ways to bring about change. Some congregations encourage small groups to meet regularly in order to share conflict issues in their daily lives and receive suggestions and support from other Christians. Many church judicatories have professional mediation resources available to assist in specific conflict situations.

Third, we need to recognize that the place of work is where we respond to God’s call in our lives. As baptized Christians, we affirm that God calls all people into ministry. We respond to God’s call through faithful ministries in our places of work, our homes, our communities and our church. With the assurance of God’s presence, we are confident in facing conflict wherever it is encountered.

Fourth, we use the gifts we have been given by God to deal with conflict in the workplace. Some types of conflict call for reconciliation between parties. Some types of conflict call for education and new ways of doing things. Where conflict is the result of injustice, we may have to immerse ourselves in deeper conflict in order to correct the injustice.

Finally, we need to remember that the place of work does not define us or own us. We are children of God and are owned by God. That is our identity; our identity is not our job. It is difficult to remember this in the heat of daily work, but when we take the time to reflect on our lives, we will know that no matter how much conflict there may be in the workplace, it cannot separate us from a loving God.

» See also: Conflict Resolution

» See also: Listening

» See also: Justice

» See also: Management

» See also: Multiculturalism

» See also: Office Politics

» See also: Power, Workplace

» See also: Stress, Workplace

—William Diehl

Confronting

Confrontation is giving a report on another person’s behavior, offering feedback on the other’s role or response, providing a second person’s perspective on one’s way of being, acting or relating. Its goal, in a counseling setting, is to bring the counselee face to face with avoided aspects of behavior or emotional life. In everyday life it less ambitiously seeks to offer an alternative experience of the person’s self-presentation or actions. We shall look at (1) confrontation in biblical and theological perspectives, (2) methodology for effective confronting and (3) desired outcomes.

Confrontation in Biblical and Theological Perspectives

The Pauline letters describe the blend of confrontation and caring necessary in effective communication. The most cited passages are Ephes. 4:15, “Let us speak the truth in love; so shall we fully grow up into Christ” (NEB), and 1 Cor. 13:5, “Love keeps no score of wrongs; does not gloat over other men’s sins, but delights in the truth” (NEB). For Paul the balance and unity of love and truth are essential to wholeness in both personhood and community. Truth (confrontation) and love (support) should not be divided. The Gospel of John sees this balance as a central element in the self-presentation of Jesus: “So the Word became flesh; he came to dwell among us, and we saw his glory . . . full of grace and truth. . . . Out of his full store we have all received grace upon grace; for while the Law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:14, 16-17 NEB).

Throughout the Scriptures the balance of support and judgment is visible in the prophets such as Jeremiah (the weeping prophet), whose confrontation is legendary, or Micah, who links doing justice, loving mercy and walking humbly (Micah 6:8). Jesus, in the prophetic tradition, is moved by both compassion (Matthew 9:36) and anger (Mark 3:5) to be caring to the offender and offended (John 8:1-12) as well as confrontative to the blind (Matthew 23:1-39). The commitment to be both prophetic and priestly, just and loving, shapes a biblical theology. A context of caring must come before confrontation; a sense of support must be present before criticism; empathy must precede evaluation; trust is needed before risk; understanding opens the way to disagreeing; affirmation undergirds assertiveness; love enables us to level with each other.

Methods for Effective Confronting

A person’s ability to offer the necessary amount of information about his or her part in a relationship with no unnecessary threat to that relationship—the maximum data with the minimum threat—is a skill to be learned. Effective confrontation is invitation: it invites another to consider change but does not demand it. It is not diplomacy, tact or smoothness of tongue; it is simplicity in speech, empathy in attitude and honesty in response. General guidelines for confrontation follow.

Focus feedback not on the actor but on the action. Comment not on the person but on the behavior in question. To criticize the person stimulates feelings of rejection; to critique the behavior can affirm the other’s freedom to change and offer options for future situations.

Focus feedback not on your conclusions but on observations. Comment not on what you think, imagine, hunch or infer but on what you have actually seen or heard. Statements of inference, whether conclusions or rumors, can be made by anyone at any time without any personal experience. But statements of observation, firsthand reporting, must be limited to what one has seen and can be made, obviously, by only the observer. Restricting oneself to personal knowledge grounds the feedback in a more mutual reality and opens potential understanding between giver and receiver. Focus the feedback not on judgments but on descriptions.

Focus feedback not on quality but on quantity. Comment on the amount of feeling expressed, not the kind; on the degree of action taken, not the evaluative labels; on the extent of the behavior, not the categories or cubbyholes you might use to name it. Use adverbs that tell how much rather than adjectives that tell what kind; use terms denoting more-or-less rather than either-or, which says, “Case closed!”

Focus feedback not on advice and answers but on ideas, information and alternatives. Offer data, enrich with options, and open further possibilities, rather than narrowing the right way down to a single choice and offering advice on which direction should be taken.

Focus feedback not on the amount available in you the giver but on the amount that is useful to the receiver. Do not vent; contribute. Do not overload the emotional circuits or overtax the other’s ability to listen and absorb.

Focus feedback not on the time, place, schedule or needs you feel but on the best time and the optimal situation for the receiver. You are not confronting for your own benefit, release or discharging of emotion. Your goal is focused on the interests of the other and of the enduring relationship.

The focus, when placed on the action, on observations, on description, on quantity, on information, on alternatives, on the amount useful and on the best time and place, will invite both parties in the conversation to meet each other with the best degree of understanding possible in an anxiety-prone communication.

Desired Outcomes

The goal is to deepen understanding by increasing the shared information base, to move behavior that is largely unconscious into consciousness, to bring what was in the blind zone into the open arena for conversation. When this is accomplished well, the risk taken deepens the trust, and the dialogue achieved grounds the relationship in actual, honest, lived experience. As this is practiced gently, caringly, constructively and acceptingly it enriches community.

» See also: Accountability, Relational

» See also: Church Discipline

» See also: Conflict Resolution

» See also: Justice

» See also: Listening

» See also: Love

» See also: Speaking

References and Resources

D. Augsburger, Caring Enough to Confront (Ventura, Calif.: Regal, 1973); J. Powell, Why Am I Afraid to Tell You Who I Am? (Los Angeles: Argus Books, 1969).

—David Augsburger

Conscience

Søren Kierkegaard once explained his attack on “Christendom” in this way: “There is something quite definite I have to say, and I have it so much upon my conscience that (as I feel) I dare not die without having uttered it” (Lowrie, p. viii). Conscience is not just evident at crucial turning points like this but is also a part of everyday life, though we seldom reflect on what we mean when we speak of it. We say things like “Let your conscience be your guide”; “My conscience is clear”; or “I was troubled in my conscience.” When children exasperate their parents with forbidden behavior followed by remorse, the parents sometimes comfort themselves with the fact that “at least they have a conscience.” Forensic psychiatrists sometimes deal with criminals who appear to have no conscience at all. What is our conscience? How does it work? Why does it sometimes deceive us? How is it possible to have a clear conscience?

Conscience in Contemporary Thought

Psychologists offer various theories to describe the almost universal experience of having an internal monitor of thought and behavior. Profoundly influential in this matter has been the thinking of Sigmund Freud, who proposed that the conscience is a subsystem of the superego. This subsystem produces feelings of guilt when society’s demands are not met and when the person does not conform to what he or she “should be.” Social learning psychologists link conscience development to the parenting process. Behavioristic psychologists view conscience as a result of conditioning by rewards and punishments so that patterns of self-criticism develop and persist even when the punishers are no longer present.

In contrast to these theoretical frameworks, theologians propose that conscience is not socially developed but “built in” as a God-designed capacity to put human beings in touch with the moral code of the universe. The Bible itself does not expound on the concept. Words for conscience are almost completely absent in the Old Testament, and are infrequently used in the New.

Conscience in the Bible

Conscience became a popular concept only in the first century b.c. in the Greek world to describe “the judge or witness within” or “knowing oneself,” both phrases translating Greek words for conscience. It was part of the Greek segmentation of the human person into sections, with the outer shell, the body, being the least valuable.

But the Hebrew view of the human person was different. Persons are integrated wholes. In the Old Testament there are only six instances of conscience in the English NIV, and in each case the word translates the general word for “soul” or “heart.”

The word conscience, for example, is not used in the text of Genesis 3:7 when Adam and Eve sinned because their whole persons were alienated from God and filled with shame. When Job declares, “My conscience [literally, heart] will not reproach me as long as I live” (Job 27:6), he is claiming his complete conviction that he is free from condemnation in relation to God; none of his sins can explain his suffering. It is not until the first Christians were called on to address the Greek world that biblical authors began to use a specific word for conscience. So in Acts and the New Testament letters we find references to “good” conscience (Acts 23:1), “weak” conscience (1 Cor. 8:7), “clear” conscience (1 Tim. 3:9), “seared” conscience (1 Tim. 4:2), “corrupted” conscience (Titus 1:15) and “cleansed” conscience (Hebrews 10:22). In Romans Paul says that the Gentiles are inexcusable for not reverencing God and that on the day of judgment they will find their consciences bearing witness to this by either “accusing” them or possibly “even defending them” (Romans 2:15).

Significantly Paul tells the Romans that his “conscience confirms . . . in the Holy Spirit” that he is speaking the truth (Romans 9:1). This last witness is especially insightful because the New Testament authors used conscience to describe the whole person in relation to God, not an independent witness built into human nature with or without God. The author of the letter to the Hebrews elaborates on this profoundly. Human beings have a guilty and polluted conscience which cannot be cleansed by sacrificial offerings in the temple, and even the ritual of the Day of Atonement offered only temporary relief (Hebrews 9:9-10). But the “once for all” sacrifice of Jesus results in a permanent cleansing that empowers us to enter the presence of God and serve all the time and every day.

Misguided Conscience

Not all condemnation is the result of the Spirit witnessing to our consciences that something is wrong. Satan “accuses” Christians day and night (Rev. 12:10). Sometimes we serve Satan’s purposes by doing our own accusing of ourselves. Worse still, we judge one another. Albert Camus once made the shrewd comment that he would wait for the final judgment by God resolutely because he had known something far worse: the judgment of human beings.

Sometimes our conscience is like a sundial operating under moonlight. It gives a reading, but the wrong one! Letting our conscience be our guide is usually bad advice. God is our guide, and conscience is only one dimension of witness to God’s guidance, but not a witness in isolation (see Guidance). Conscience gives us a false reading when we experience socially induced shame (despising our very persons) and false guilt (feeling bad for things that were not actually wrong or were not our fault). Paul deals with this in 1 Cor. 8:4, 7-8, addressing the problem of Christians who are inhibited from enjoying something for which they can truly thank God. In some cultures such shame is more pervasive than guilt. But it comes from people, not from God. Sometimes we feel no guilt for genuine sins of commission or omission. Or we condemn ourselves when God has already justified us. As John says, God is greater than our consciences. By dwelling in love “we set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything” (1 John 3:19-20).

A conspicuous blind spot of evangelical Christians has been our lack of social conscience. We have too easily been acculturated to a privatized religion that lacks the passion of the prophets and Jesus for social action and justice. This conspicuous omission shows how deeply our consciences are affected by social conditioning even in the church.

Once again Paul’s statement that his conscience confirms in the Holy Spirit that he is speaking the truth (Romans 9:1) is significant. Self-consciousness is an accurate witness when we are in the Spirit, in right relationship to God. Luther rightly said, “My conscience is captive to the Word of God.” It should not be captive to culture, to peer groups, to advertising, to our judging brothers and sisters. Conscience is not a free-standing authority within us but rather dependent on and built up through capturing every thought and making it obedient to Christ (2 Cor. 10:5), submitting to Word and Spirit, relying daily on the cleaning of Christ’s forgiveness and daily feeding our souls on the revelation of God’s Word.

We need the community of God’s people not only for this essential mutual nurture of our souls but also to gain perspective when we feel falsely accused or when we have actually sinned. James says, “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed” (James 5:16). When we have a guilty conscience we should turn to Scripture and seek prayerfully the mind and will of God in the company of God’s people. But in their company we can also rejoice that we are spiritually alive, that our consciences are not “seared” (1 Tim. 4:2) like scar tissue without any feeling and that we are wonderfully and gloriously forgiven.

» See also: Forgiveness

» See also: Soul

» See also: Spiritual Formation

» See also: Spiritual Growth

References and Resources

J. Coakley, “John Henry Livingston and the Liberty of the Conscience,” Reformed Review 46, no. 1 (Autumn 1992) 119-127; J. A. Davis, “The Interaction Between Individual Ethical Conscience and Community Ethical Conscience in 1 Cor,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 10 (December 1988) 1-18; W. Lowrie, trans., Kierkegaard’s Attack upon “Christendom” (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1944); C. A. Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1955); C. Pinnock, “Conscience,” in Baker’s Dictionary of Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973) 126-27; C. Words-worth, Bishop Sanderson’s Lectures on Conscience and Law (Oxford: James Williamson, 1877).

— R. Paul Stevens

Consumerism

The word consumerism is occasionally used to denote the consumer movement and advocacy on behalf of consumers vis-à-vis the producers of consumer products. The term is also infrequently used to refer to the economic theory that maintains the growth of consumption is always good for an economy. Normally, however, consumerism is lamented as a significant behavioral blemish in modern industrial society. It suggests an inordinate concern—some might say an addiction—with the acquisition, consumption and/or possession of material goods and services. Consumerism implies foolishness, superficiality, triviality and the destruction of personal and social relationships by means of selfishness, individualism, possessiveness and covetousness. The prevalence of consumerism suggests a general contraction of the compass of modern culture.

Interpreting Consumerism

It is often suggested that consumerism is simply the necessary complement, on the side of consumption, to the modern capitalist economy’s dramatic expansion of production. Consumerism, from this first perspective, is largely engineered by the producers of products. It is the result of the artificial stimulation, principally by means of manipulative advertising, of an ever-increasing need for mass-produced consumer products. The ready availability of consumer credit in modern society, often financed by manufacturers, buttresses the plausibility of this (principally neo-Marxist) interpretation.

Consumerism has also been interpreted as a principal means of defining class and status boundaries in modern industrial society. Thus an individual might identify himself or herself as a member of a particular group by consuming, as the term status symbol suggests, the requisite products and services. As new consumer products and services are constantly being introduced, however, the specific indicators of class and status are constantly changing, in effect forcing individuals to continually consume new and different products. From this second perspective, consumerism does not have to do with greed or manipulation so much as with the ratio of what one thinks one ought to possess relative to others against the backdrop of constantly changing shopping opportunities.

A third interpretation combines the first and second perspectives to suggest that consumerism is simply the behavioral reflection of a fundamentally new kind of culture. Within this new culture need has, in effect, become a new religion, and advertisers and other specialists have become priestly mediators of new, and predominantly materialistic, virtues and values.

Historians point out, however, that many of the features of modern consumer culture, including manipulative advertising and the deliberate stimulation of desire, had already begun to emerge in the eighteenth century and so antedate the modern revolution in production by almost a century. This has led British social historian Colin Campbell to suggest that the roots of modern consumerism may not lie in the advent of modern production techniques so much as in Romanticism’s emphasis on heroic individualism and self-creation. Consumerism’s relentless “desire to desire,” in other words, is not simply foisted on consumers by producers of consumer products but stems ultimately from a romantic ethic in which the individual is bound to realize himself or herself in the experience of novelty and more or less immediate gratification. This ethic has been amusingly summarized in the quip “I shop, therefore I am.” It was this romantic ethic, Campbell suggests, that stimulated subsequent developments in production. The emphasis on self-creation by means of the consumption of things and experiences continues to animate much of contemporary culture.

Religious Consumerism

The rise of denominational, and now religious, plurality in modern societies has led to a situation in which we are increasingly encouraged to “shop for,” and so to be consumers of, religion itself. The consumption of religion, furthermore, suggests a fundamental change in the meaning of religious belief such that it has increasingly less to do with conviction and more and more to do with personal preference. Many churches and religious organizations have responded to the changing meaning of belief by obligingly repackaging religion to make it conveniently and easily consumable. Such trends have contributed to the emergence of a kind of religious marketplace in which modern consumers are faced with a veritable smorgasbord of religious options.

Christian Reflections on Consumerism

Understood as a preoccupation with the consumption of material goods and services, consumerism has little to commend it from a Christian point of view. In the first instance, it suggests a kind of mindlessness on the part of modern consumers. As essayist Wendell Berry observes in a provocative piece entitled “The Joy of Sales Resistance,” the contemporary preoccupation with marketing, salesmanship and consumption could arise only in a society whose members are expected to think and do and provide very little for themselves. More seriously, exorbitant Western consumption habits have undoubtedly contributed to the degradation of the natural environment and the rapid depletion of natural resources. Consumerism has also been blamed for the exacerbation of poverty, both domestically and in the developing world.

As a behavior, consumerism betrays significant confusion about the nature of the human situation. More specifically, it discloses confusion about the dangerous logic of need. One of the desert fathers, Saint Neilos the Ascetic (d. 430), is said to have advised his disciples to remain within the limits imposed by our basic needs and to strive with all their power not to exceed them. “For once we are carried a little beyond these limits in our desires for the pleasures of this life,” Neilos warned, “there is no criterion by which to check our onward movement, since no bounds can be set to that which exceeds the necessary.” Neilos went on to outline the sorts of absurdities that inevitably result from attempting to satisfy material desires beyond the reasonable limits of need, and in so doing he described something very much like late twentieth-century consumer culture. And it is certainly the case that much of the dissatisfaction and disappointment that so pervade modern life owes to the insatiable logic of need in consumer culture. The “more is better” attitude of modern consumer culture makes it very difficult to say, “Enough is enough.” Of course, from a Christian point of view, the logic of need is insatiable simply because such things as pride, covetousness, lust, gluttony, envy and sloth are unlimited in the fallen situation.

The preoccupation with consumption may also betray a fundamental misunderstanding of one’s own identity before God. To identify oneself only by the things one is able to consume is, in effect, to lack a true sense of one’s self. This is the point of Jesus’ simple, yet penetrating, questions: “What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matthew 16:26). To imagine that we can create or sustain ourselves by means of our possessions or consumption habits, Jesus suggests, is tragically mistaken. It is also stupid, for such things have no lasting future. If we stake our identities—our selves—to these things, then we will pass away with them.

Yet beyond folly, consumerism also tends toward idolatry. To the extent that we seek security in consumption, we in effect worship another god, thereby arousing the anger and jealousy of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Recall, in this connection, the apostle Paul’s equation of greed and idolatry (Col. 3:5), as well as the prophetic warning that the fate of idolaters is to become just as worthless as the gods they worship (Jeremiah 13:1-11). Of course, it is not difficult to trace the connection between the fragility and ephemerality of many people’s sense of themselves and the essentially restless and ephemeral nature of the gods of consumption.

Responding Christianly to Consumerism

The Christian response to consumerism is already suggested in the theological criticism of this behavior, but it may also help to recall that the original meaning of consume is “to burn,” “to exhaust” and “to destroy completely.” The object of our response to consumerism is to try—with the Lord’s gracious help—to avoid destroying ourselves in this behavior and to try to prevent our neighbor from being destroyed by such behavior as well (see Simpler Lifestyle). Our first duty, then, as Wendell Berry insists, is to “resist the language, the ideas, and the categories of this ubiquitous sales talk, no matter from whose mouth it issues” (p. xi).

It may also help to juxtapose the modern obsession with acquisition, grasping and possessing with the Christian virtues of gratitude, generosity and hope. Far from encouraging us to accumulate or consume as much as we possibly can, the Scriptures exhort us to view our lives as a gracious gift from God for which we are to be grateful. We are further exhorted to express our gratitude by giving ourselves generously away in the love of God and in the love of our neighbor (1 Tim. 6:18).

Finally, because the plausibility of consumerism depends entirely on the apparent permanence of life in this world, we must continually remind each other—and ourselves—that this world and its lusts are indeed passing away (1 Cor. 7:30-31). “Sell your possessions and give to the poor,” Jesus says to us. “Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys” (Luke 12:33).

» See also: Advertising

» See also: Money

» See also: Need

» See also: Pleasure

» See also: Shopping

» See also: Shopping Mall

» See also: Simpler Lifestyle

» See also: Stewardship

References and Resources

W. Berry, “Preface: The Joy of Sales Resistance,” to Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community, (New York: Pantheon, 1993) xi-xxii; C. Campbell, The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987); A. T. During, How Much Is Enough? The Consumer Society and the Future of the Earth (London: Earthscan, 1992); J. F. Kavanaugh, Following Christ in a Consumer Society: The Spirituality of Cultural Resistance (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1991); L. Shames, The Hunger for More: Searching for Values in an Age of Greed (New York: Times, 1989); T. Walter, Need: The New Religion (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1985).

—Craig M. Gay

Contraception

Contraception, unlike many everyday matters, has been a matter of theological and ethical debate, largely among Christians. There is good reason for this: it is concerned with something profoundly awesome, the conception of a human being. Contraception, or birth control, is the voluntary prevention of the conception of a child by human intervention. In this article we will explore the matter scientifically, scripturally and theologically.

Methods of Contraception

Today there are a number of methods of contraception available to people. The most primitive method is coitus interruptus, in which the male withdraws before ejaculation. This method has a 20 to 30 percent success rate in avoiding pregnancy. Next are the barrier methods, which employ creams, foams, jellies, caps, diaphragms or condoms to prevent the sperm from reaching the ovum. These methods are about 75 percent effective in pregnancy prevention. Hormone-based contraceptives include oral contraceptives, which contain fixed or variable doses of synthetic estrogen and progestin, Depo-Provera injection, and Norplant, which is a sustained-release contraceptive system implanted under the skin that acts continuously for five years.

The hormonal contraceptives all work through one of the following mechanisms: (1) by thickening the viscosity of the cervical mucus, making it hostile to sperm, (2) by inhibiting ovulation via interruption of a crucial feedback loop between the pituitary gland and the ovaries, or (3) by making the lining of the uterus hostile to the implantation of any newly fertilized ovum that “breaks” through the first two lines of defense. The current low-dose pills most likely operate through this third mechanism, making them in fact abortifacient (that is, they achieve birth control through early abortion). Other examples of abortifacient methods are surgical abortion, IUDs and RU-486 (mifepristone); these are not considered contraceptive devices, because a new human life in the form of an embryo is being destroyed. The use of low-dose hormone pills does carry high moral risks. Hormonal birth control has a theoretical effective rate of 99 to 100 percent and a 97 percent user-effective rate.

Permanent sterilization procedures are often performed for contraceptive purposes. For the female, two procedures are available: (1) tubal ligation, in which the fallopian tubes are tied and severed so that the sperm will not reach the ovum, and (2) hysterectomy, which makes conception impossible by removal of the womb. For the male, the method of permanent sterilization is vasectomy, tying the vas deferens (a small tube that transports the sperm from the testes to the prostate gland) to block sperm from entering the ejaculate. Tubal ligation, vasectomy and hysterectomy have a 99 to 100 percent pregnancy prevention success rate. Tubal ligation and vasectomy can be surgically reversed with a 30 percent and 50 percent success rate, respectively, in achieving a subsequent pregnancy.

Recently a new educational approach to birth control called Natural Family Planning (NFP) has been advocated primarily by those who do not want to engage in pharmacological or surgical contraception. It is a day-to-day method based on self-diagnosing the day of fertility in the woman’s cycle, giving the married couple the choice to abstain from or enter into sexual intercourse at that time depending on their intention with regard to possible pregnancy. This is considered a true method of family planning in that it can be used to achieve or to avoid pregnancy. Some couples report a recurring honeymoon effect with this method. Four studies in the United States and two in the Third World claimed a 96.4 percent and 99.2 percent effectiveness rate, respectively, in using these methods to postpone, delay and avoid pregnancy.

Attitudes Toward Contraception

Even though contraception was known in ancient Egypt and throughout the ancient world some four millennia ago, it was not widely practiced. Both the Hebrew and the Chinese cultures highly valued childbearing, and contraception had very little, if any, appeal. Greeks and Romans encouraged reproduction in order to populate the state, and contraception was specifically condemned by the Stoics. The question of the legitimacy of the use of contraception arose in the early church, when Christian free women who married Christian slaves wanted to avoid pregnancy in order not to bring more slaves into the world. The church responded by condemning contraception as sinful while affirming the basic equality of all human beings in the eyes of God, in whose image every man and woman is created. Historically, opposition to contraception has basically been the position of the church until the twentieth century. Church leaders including Augustine, Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley are all on record as condemning contraception. The Comstock Act of 1873 in the United States, prohibiting the distribution of birth control information, reflected the rejection of contraception by North American Protestants. These laws were not repealed until the 1960s.

The change in attitude toward contraception came at the same time that people gained better understanding of the physiological processes involved in reproduction. Prior to the nineteenth century most people thought that new life was transmitted in the male semen and the role of women was to receive and nurture it. The ovum was discovered in 1827, and the relationship between ovulation (the production of a fertilizable egg) and the menstrual cycle was completely worked out in the late 1920s. As a result, the calendar rhythm method was introduced in 1932. This coincided with the growth of the birth control movement, which grew due to the perceived imbalance between population growth and available resources. For some Christians the break with the traditional opposition to contraception began at the Anglican Lambeth Conference in 1930, when the bishops recognized a moral obligation to limit parenthood and allowed for the use of contraception in certain limited circumstances.

The Roman Catholic Church responded with “On Christian Marriage” (1930) and “Of Human Life” (1968). These affirmed that the unitive meaning of the sexual act (in which the married couple grows in love and fellowship) and the procreative meaning of the sexual act (in which the potential of childbearing is actualized) are both inscribed by God into the very act of sexual intercourse and cannot be separated without serious moral consequences. Periodic abstinence is the only permissible course of action for couples who wish to delay conception.

Protestant writers, on the other hand, see “the completion of marital fellowship” as the “first essential meaning” of sexual intercourse; from the standpoint of this fellowship, then, it may not be generally and necessarily required that it should be linked with the desire for or readiness for children (Barth, p. 269), and readiness for children should include both procreation and education of offspring. Contraception is therefore acceptable as a means to achieve “responsible parenthood,” especially in cases where the mother’s physical and psychological welfare may be jeopardized as a result of getting pregnant or where other problems exist, such as an already overcrowded family. Such factors are held to preclude a decent environment to ensure a proper upbringing of the child as a gift from God.

Contemporary Responses of Christians

The first response, which we may call the majority position, accounts for 90 percent or more of modern Christian couples and favors the practices of temporary contraception and permanent sterilization. This response emphasizes the importance of human responsibility and takes stewardship seriously. It tends to downplay God’s sovereignty in this matter and clearly believes that the unitive and procreative meanings of the marriage covenant and act need not be maintained in every sexual intercourse.

A tiny minority, less than 1 percent of Christians (both evangelical and Catholic), rejects every form of contraception, sterilization and even Natural Family Planning. This second response we might call the minority or fundamentalist position. These Christians insist on God’s sovereignty in procreative matters and do not accord human responsibility and freedom any significant role in procreation within the sexual/marriage act. They do not see the unitive and procreative meanings of the marriage covenant and act as two separable aspects.

Third, a small but growing number (3 to 4 percent) of Christians are learning and practicing Natural Family Planning. This approach is seen to combine respect for God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, seeing that God’s love and our stewardship are meant to be intertwined. It is an acknowledgment of God’s gifts and our responsible stewardship of them. When sexual intercourse is experienced, it does not contravene the total openness of the marriage act but trusts in God’s providence for any outcome. And when sexual intercourse is abstained from for good reasons, the couple’s sacrifice and self-control are considered a gift of the Holy Spirit and an integral component of Christian life.

A Christian Evaluation of Contraception

Undoubtedly, contraception has brought many positive benefits. Many women have been able to relax during sexual intercourse without the fear of annual pregnancies. It has helped some couples take more responsibility for bringing children into this world. But there has been a downside as well.

Looking back at the promise being made for the different approaches to contraception, we must admit that they have not solved the population problems nor made happier marriages. In fact the divorce rate skyrocketed from 25 percent in 1960 to approximately 50 percent in 1975, when contraception had reached saturation levels in North American culture. In contrast, the divorce rate for those practicing Natural Family Planning is said to be approximately 2 to 3 percent. Furthermore, contraception has not decreased the demand for abortion. In fact, every country that has accepted contraception has had to pass abortion laws to take care of any failure in contraception, as there are no 100 percent effective contraceptive methods.

There are many factors involved in the alarming statistical trends we observe in today’s Western world. Near-perfect and universally available contraception is certainly one. There has been an explosion of abortion from below 50,000 per year before 1960 to 1.5 million per year in the United States today. The reality of unwanted children has not been eliminated either, as child abuse statistics have also skyrocketed in this time period. It is well known that the advent of contraceptive technology coincides with the devastating social consequences of unleashed sex outside of marriage, promiscuity, adultery, sexually transmitted diseases, infertility, value-free sex education and teenage pregnancy. Furthermore, many believe that contraception, by separating the unitive and procreative dimensions of the marriage covenant and act, has managed to reduce women and men to mere objects, seen as means of giving pleasure rather than as total persons with their fertility intact. This objectification of women is at the root of the increased abuse and violence against women in our society.

Toward Responsible Contraception

First, even if we do not agree with the Catholic Church’s position on artificial contraception as intrinsically immoral, it must be admitted that contraception has contributed a great deal to the immorality of our society. Any Christian endorsement of the use of artificial contraception must be accompanied by an unequivocal condemnation of those immoral consequences that run against all fundamental Christian teachings on humanity, sexuality and marriage. Teenagers especially must be taught that parental use of contraceptives does not amount to justification of premarital sex.

Second, even though the Bible does not directly address the subject of contraception, throughout the Old and New Testaments children are considered a great blessing from the Lord. In the Old Testament barrenness is considered to be a lamentable state. In Genesis 1:28 the command to be fruitful and multiply is seen to be integral to the meaning and stewardship (responsible parenthood) of the marriage union in creation. Eve’s statement “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man” (Genesis 4:1) reveals God as integral to the creation of each new life. In conceiving and bearing children we are cooperating with God. Every birth is a sign of God’s ongoing commitment to creation, work in redemption and extension of the kingdom. At the dawn of salvation history, it is the birth of a child that is proclaimed as joyful news, and the joy that accompanies the birth of the Savior is seen to be the foundation and fulfillment of the joy that should be experienced as every child is born into the world.

Third, in the light of New Testament teaching that other concerns, such as service to God’s kingdom, can take precedence over marriage and family (1 Cor. 7), the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28) need not be interpreted to mean that parents always have to bear the maximum number of children. Rather, the objective of marital partners must include cultivating an environment that is conducive to the growth of partner-fellowship between the couple and an optimal number of children who may receive adequate nurturing, attention and education. If this involves the assistance of artificial contraception, we should use it responsibly and with caution.

Fourth, it is a different matter if a Christian couple decides at the beginning of their married life to be permanently childless by the use of contraceptive devices. Here caution must be exercised. Some argue that the decision to be childless is similar to the decision to be celibate in order to be freed for a higher calling and thus the use of contraceptives should be allowed. Others link sexual intercourse to the kingdom of God. “The line of reasoning goes this way: Families are for the Kingdom of God. Marriage is for families. And therefore, since sex is for marriage, sex is for the kingdom of God” (Smedes, p. 167). Even though we agree that the reproductive meaning of sexuality need not be fulfilled in every instance of the sexual act, the link between the unitive and procreative aspects of sexual intercourse should be respected by insisting that all marriages should be open to the hope of bearing children at some point.

» See also: Abortion

» See also: Birth

» See also: Conception

» See also: Family

» See also: Miscarriage

» See also: Parenting

» See also: Sexuality

References and Resources

C. Balsam and E. Balsam, Family Planning: A Guide for Exploring the Issues (Liguori, Mo.: Liguori, 1986); Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 3/4 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1961); R. A. Hatcher et al., Contraceptive Technology (New York: Irvington, 1994); J. T. Noonan Jr., Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, 3d ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap/Harvard University Press, 1986); Pope Paul VI, Of Human Life (Humane Vitae) (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1980); M. Pride, The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1985); C. D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control (Monongahela, Penn.: Zimmer, 1989); L. B. Smedes, Mere Morality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).

—Edwin Hui and Michael Maloney

Contracts

In a typical day, most of us enter into several contracts, usually without giving them much attention. When we buy a newspaper, get a haircut, take a ride on a bus or make a long-distance telephone call, whether we know it or not we are entering into a contract. Our contracts can be verbal or written. They may be direct or implied, simple or complex. The purchase of a carton of milk at the local grocery store is an example of a simple, implied and verbal contract. A person takes his or her purchase to the counter, the store clerk asks for a sum of money, and the customer tenders the required sum and takes the milk out of the store. It is understood by both the customer and the store owner that there is to be an exchange of money and goods by which the customer will come to own the milk and the store will get to keep the money. A bus ride is a more complex transaction. Posted on the vehicle are lengthy written terms related to payment, risk and proper conduct. By entering into the bus, the passengers are assumed to have read and agreed to all of those written terms. Similarly, if we purchase goods using a credit card, we are expected to have read and accepted all the terms set out in the agreement that accompanies the issue of the credit card.

At another level, the law will imply certain terms and conditions into a sale of goods, such as “merchantability” and “fitness for description.” The implied term of merchantability means that if the milk we purchase at the grocery store turns out to be sour, the store will be required to replace the carton or refund the purchase price. The implied term of fitness would give the patron of the hair salon the right to a remedy if she asked for an auburn tint and ended up with flaming orange hair.

Understanding Contracts

It is no accident that contracts are an everyday feature of our lives. Alongside covenantal forms of interconnecting, the contractual form of transaction is one of the basic forms of human interaction and relationships. Moreover, contract is the building block of our legal and social structures. It is therefore important for the Christian to understand what contracts are all about, how and when to enter into contracts, biblical principles regarding contractual behavior, how to respond when contracts are broken, and under what circumstances and in what relationships the contractual model would be inappropriate.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines a contract as “an agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing. Its essentials are competent parties, subject matter, a legal consideration, mutuality of agreement and mutuality of obligation.” The above definition alludes to certain basic contract essentials, in the absence of which there would be no enforceable contract at law. Of course, we all enter into agreements that are not intended to be legally enforceable, such as an agreement with a child to read her a story if she helps set the table for dinner. Such an agreement would not be a contract at law because the child could not be considered “competent” as a minor. The first essential to contract is that the parties be legally competent, meaning of legal age and of sound mind. Undue influence or duress upon one of the parties can also defeat a contract.

A second contract essential is the existence of an offer and the acceptance of that offer by the person receiving the offer. An offer can be made in writing or verbally, directly or implicitly. Stores implicitly “offer” to sell their wares by displaying merchandise with a stated price, and customers “accept” the offer by tendering cash, check, credit card or debit card to the store clerk. At a garage sale, the buyer may make an “offer” to the seller to buy a particular object for a stated price, which may be “accepted” or rejected by the seller. In the earlier example of a bus ride, the transit company offers to provide a transportation service and sets out the terms of its offer in writing either at the bus depot or on the vehicle itself. The passenger “accepts” the offer by purchasing a ticket or by boarding the bus and paying the fare.

A third contract essential is the concept of “consideration”: an exchange of rights and obligations between the contracting parties. While the law does not attempt to regulate the value or inherent fairness of what rights go back and forth, nonetheless if all of the rights flow only in one direction, there is no contract and thus nothing to enforce at law. By way of example, an agreement to sell an entire city block for a mere ten dollars is enforceable, whereas an unsolicited promise to give a stranger a free book is not enforceable.

Finally, it is important to have “certainty” about the contract. The basic terms of the contract must be sufficiently clear to allow for a common understanding of the rights and obligations between the contracting parties. An agreement to build a cabin for a specified amount may fail as a contract if there is nothing said about when the work is to be carried out or completed. There would also likely not be an enforceable contract if the owner and builder had failed to agree on the specifications of the cabin to be built. On the other hand, failure to specify the exterior color of the structure would not be considered fatal to the contract, as color is not an essential term of the contract.

Entering into Contracts

While some of our contracts are routine and even seemingly mindless, there are many times when we enter into contract as a result of negotiations. Negotiation styles and skills are acquired at an early age and often do not change in adulthood. We learn to negotiate positionally by determining what we want and assessing what we are prepared to give up in order to obtain what we want. If what we want overlaps with what the other party is prepared to give up and vice versa, then a bargain is achieved and a contract can be entered into. The problem with this negotiation strategy from the Christian’s perspective is that it is inherently selfish. Christ commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves (Luke 10:27). Is it possible to live out Christ’s Great Command as we enter into contracts? The answer is a definite yes.

There is an entirely different approach to negotiations, which is “interest-based” as opposed to positional. In interest-based negotiations, both parties look at each other’s interests (consisting of wants, needs and fears), and together they attempt to create an agreement that meets as many of those interests as possible. Where interests are mutually conflicting, the parties attempt to find some external objective criteria to help them in choosing between those conflicting interests. Not only does this approach lead to collaborative and relationally healthful negotiating, but also it increases the likelihood that agreement will be achieved and that the agreement will be a mutually satisfactory one. Consider the following situation: Susan very much wants to buy John’s car but can afford to pay only $2,000. John has his eye on another vehicle and needs to get at least $2,500 for his old car. Positional bargaining results in no deal and leaves both of the parties irritated with each other. However, if John and Susan had entered into interest-based negotiations, they may have discovered that Susan operated a daycare service and that John had been looking for an opening in a daycare facility for his son. By exchanging $500 worth of services, Susan and John could have reached an agreement on both the car and day care, and both would have been very satisfied with the result.

Christians should carefully consider their contract-negotiating style. There are a wealth of resources on interest-based negotiations. Consider Paul’s admonition to the Philippian church: “Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4).

Conduct in Contracts

There are numerous examples in both the Old and the New Testament of God’s people entering into contracts:

• the owner of the vineyard contracted with workers to buy their services (Matthew 20:1-16);

• Joseph was sold by his brothers to Midianite merchants for twenty shekels of silver (Genesis 37:28);

• the “shrewd manager” contracted with his master’s debtors to greatly reduced their debts in exchange for early payment (Luke 16:1-9);

• Moses contracted with Pharaoh to pray to God for relief if Pharaoh released the Israelites (Exodus 8:8).

While there are few direct references to contracts in scriptural teaching (Leviticus 25 perhaps comes the closest to articulating rules of contracting), there are many relevant scriptural principles to guide the Christian in contractual relationships. The Christian should be fair in agreements and not take advantage of others (Leviticus 25:14). Special consideration should be given to the poor (Leviticus 25:25, 35; Proverbs 28:28). Exhortations to honesty and integrity in all business dealings appear frequently throughout the Bible. God’s people are to use honest scales and measures (Leviticus 19:36; Deut. 25:13; Proverbs 11:1). “Woe!” says the prophet Micah to those who act in a fraudulent manner (Micah 2:2). Isaiah laments the lack of integrity of his people (Isaiah 59:4). The book of Proverbs contains several principles that would be applicable as Christian behavior in a contractual setting: generosity, restraint, special care for the poor, honesty, acting without deception and keeping the law (see also Romans 13).

Another common theme, especially in the Old Testament, is justice. The Christian should not use contracts for unjust gain or to take advantage of those who are disadvantaged or disempowered. The law allows the courts to strike down contracts that are considered to be “unconscionable.” How much higher, then, the standard for Christians who, in following Christ, are to act and live out of love in all dealings and relationships.

When Things Go Wrong

In our imperfect and fallen world, commitments made in contract will from time to time fail to be carried out, sometimes intentionally and sometimes for reasons beyond the control of the defaulting party. How is the Christian to respond when others fail to carry out their contractual obligations? First, we are encouraged in Scripture to be patient and long-suffering. Indeed, patience is one of the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). Tolerance and a willingness to give others a second chance ought to characterize the Christian’s response to broken contracts. We are also told not to repay evil for evil (Romans 12:17). Thus, our response to another’s default ought never to be an act of vengeance or “evening the score.”

But when the breach of contract is serious or repetitive, what is the Christian to do? Again, as with the process of entering into a contract, the normal choice is between a positional approach and an interest-based approach. A positional approach may be to confront in an attacking manner or perhaps to seek legal recourse in a court of law. An interest-based approach would be to deal directly with the other party in the manner described earlier, seeking to bring out the needs, wants and fears of the parties to the contract. This may be very difficult when the relationship has been strained through a breach of contract. Fortunately there are professional mediators skilled in interest-based negotiations who can assist the parties toward a collaborative resolution (see Conflict Resolution). The interest-based approach is appropriate for Christians both because there is a scriptural admonition against lawsuits (1 Cor. 6:1-8) and because the positional adversarial approach is usually antithetical to the response of love commanded in the Gospels.

When the Contractual Model Is Not Appropriate

While there are no general or specific biblical prohibitions on contracting, there are situations and relationships where it would be inappropriate for the Christian to act or think in contractual terms. Our relationship with God is clearly not to be thought of in contractual terms. Such a view would lead quickly to a doctrine of justification through works: if one obeys God’s commands, then one can earn God’s love. But, argues Paul, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:23-24). God has chosen not to contract but rather to covenant with his people. Whereas a contract involves an exchange of rights and duties, the biblical notion of covenant involves a unilateral act of love and promise on the part of God and a promise that all can appropriate. This results in a loving and grateful desire on our part to live according to God’s purposes, priorities and values.

The covenantal model of relationship is the New Testament standard not only for God but for his followers. We are instructed by Jesus to love our neighbor not on a contractual basis (an equitable exchange of one’s rights and duties) but on a covenantal basis, out of response to being first loved by God. That is the point of the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matthew 18:23-35). The best that the state can legislate is mutual tolerance toward each other: that is all that public law can accomplish. But God’s call to love one another is a much higher standard. We understand this in our relationship with our children. Our love for them is not conditional upon their behavior. In our marriages we make vows or covenants to behave in a certain way regardless of the response of our spouse. Now the challenge is for followers of Christ to act and behave covenantally in all of their relationships and bring his covenantal grace into our contractual relationships.

» See also: Integrity

» See also: Justice

» See also: Law

» See also: Promising

—Peter Mogan

Conversation

Conversation is basic to daily life. Throughout the day, in a wide variety of settings, we relate to others through talking informally with them. Originally the word referred to “a way of life”; now it means “a type of discourse.” Conversation overlaps but can be differentiated from discussion. Though one can easily move into the other, discussion is generally more focused and structured.

The Complexity of Conversation

Though conversation appears to be a simple activity, it is actually quite complex. First, not all conversation is the same. It is governed by unwritten conventions or codes particular to the settings in which it is taking place. We talk about conversations as being formal and informal, polite and frank, freewheeling and directed. What we talk about with a friend, and the way we talk, differs from the way we converse with a client or boss. Conversation at a party differs from what we talk about at a business lunch or over the dinner table at home. Face-to-face conversation differs in certain respects from that conducted over a telephone or a modem.

Second, women and men tend to converse differently. Men tend to discuss matters more abstractly, women more concretely. Women tend to discuss in order to connect with other people, men to express their point of view. Men tend to be more preoccupied with ideas about which they sometimes feel strongly, women with the cognitive content of their feelings. Women tend to listen and ask questions better, men to give answers and cut off others, especially women. One should not make too much of these tendencies, because they also occur between members of the same sex, because most, if not all, may be socially conditioned, and because people all too quickly erect gender stereotypes around such differences. In any case, all of these ways of talking are valid ways of conversing.

Third, cultures as a whole have different conventions governing how people converse. Among Australian aborigines, members of a group wait to speak until the most respected person among them has spoken or indicated that others may do so; women will wait until the men have spoken or given them the permission to do so; and each one will pause before speaking to examine whether he or she has something worthwhile to say. Even between Western societies there are noticeable differences. Most Americans speak more loudly and in a more uninhibited way than most Canadians. Australians are more democratic and colloquial in their conversations than most British people. There are even significant differences within countries, as between southerners and northeasterners in the United States.

In spite of these various conventions, conversation is the most spontaneous, versatile and open-ended way of communicating that we have. We enter into conversations with our partners, children, relatives and friends, as well as with fellow car-poolers, colleagues, salespeople, counter clerks and total strangers, sometimes even ourselves! We do it one on one and in small groups, casually and by arrangement. We chat about trivial matters yet also about major personal or social concerns. In prayer we converse alone or in company with God.

The Importance of Conversation

Conversation is fundamental to social life. It is central to (1) acquiring the necessary information to help us find our way around places or carry out our daily activities; (2) relating to other people in order to develop an understanding of who they are and how they function; (3) resolving problems that we find difficult to deal with individually; (4) enjoying the company of others and, through the “play” of conversation, just having a good time; (5) helping to determine our basic worldview, commitments and priorities. Conversation is so pervasive and common that it is easy to overlook its importance. This is especially true in relation to learning or teaching.

We seldom regard conversation as having educational value. We assume that serious or substantial learning can take place only in a formal teaching situation or in an educational institution. Interestingly, studies of lecturing suggest that a speaker is mainly effective when there is a conversational element or style in the address. In fact it is through conversation that infants primarily come to know and cooperate with others. Older children prepare for adult life by “playing grownups,” whether through conversing with adults or talking to each other like adults. It is by spending large amounts of time “hanging out” with their peers or talking over the telephone that teenagers formulate their views and develop their relationships. Popular television and radio programs—whether sitcoms or dramas, talk or talk-back shows—reflect life more than we acknowledge. As adults, many of our views on work, social issues and politics are formed by conversation with families, colleagues and friends. Studies suggest that the most effective evangelism also flows from informally sharing our experience with people we know.

The importance of conversation has been gaining serious academic attention. As a result of monitoring staged conversations in laboratories, psychologists began to categorize and quantify the various components and consequences of conversation. Over the last twenty years conversational analysis of ordinary exchanges between people—which always contain some level of theatricality—has undergone considerable development. Such analysis can be undertaken by any competent person, not just experts, recognizing that every detail in a conversation, such as utterances, exclamations, expressions, gestures and stance, is important.

Conversation in the Bible and History

In the Bible, conversation is not only central to the way people relate to each other but also characteristic of the way we learn about God. The Old Testament contains a number of conversations between God and key figures in the divine drama. For example, God converses at length with Abraham (Genesis 18:22-33), Moses (Exodus 3:1-4:17), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 14:1-15:2) and, in a more one-sided way, with Job (Job 38-42). These conversations range over a wide number of concerns—the fate of people involved in wrongdoing, the nature of a call to ministry, why difficult times have come upon the nation and the point of apparently innocent suffering.

In these writings conversation is also central to the way the people of God were to pass on their faith. For example, the people of Israel should not only memorize or recite the Ten Commandments to their children but “talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road” (Deut. 6:7; compare Deut. 6:20-25). At the Passover the meaning of this basic ritual was to be discussed with children during the meal (Exodus 13:1-10). In fact, conversations were to take place within families about the whole range of God’s instructions to Israel (Deut. 6:20-21).

The Bible also contains numerous conversations that consciously or unconsciously reveal people’s motives, attitudes and intentions; their beliefs, standards and practices; their problems, fears and longings. Others focus on God’s character, actions and purposes. In many of the psalms—especially those that take the form of a conversation between the worshiper and God—we find a combination of the two (explicitly in Psalm 32; Psalm 81; and implicitly in many others, for example, Psalm 85; Psalm 89); sometimes we also come across the psalmist having a conversation with himself as well as God (Psalm 42; Psalm 77). Elsewhere people fulfill God’s wider purposes through engaging in conversations with influential people (compare Neh. 2:1-8; Esther 5-7).

In the New Testament we often find Jesus talking with his disciples as they ate a meal together or journeyed from place to place. Sometimes outsiders generate a discussion on some important topic (Matthew 19:1-12); sometimes one or more of the disciples generate it (Matthew 20:20-27); sometimes Jesus himself generates the conversation (Matthew 16:13-28). After Jesus’ death we read of two disciples on the road to Emmaus whose conversation about the events of the past week Jesus joined, though it was only later that they realized how much their hearts burned within them as he “talked” with them and opened up the Scriptures to them (Luke 24:13-32).

In the early church purposeful conversation continued to play an important role. The only narrative we have of an early church meeting describes Paul as first dialoguing with (not preaching to) the people at length and then conversing with them after their common meal (Acts 20:7, 11). In those days both the sermon and the Lord’s Supper had a strongly conversational character, one that was lost in the following centuries as churches got larger and clergy emerged as a separate group. Paul also trained people such as Timothy, Titus, Priscilla and Aquila for missionary service largely through working and talking with them on his various journeys, not through formal classes in an educational institution.

Although in subsequent Christian history more formal approaches to learning and teaching tended to predominate, key figures continued to affirm the role of conversation in Christian formation and education. In the third century Clement of Alexandria instructed his students through both informal conversation and more structured discussion. Augustine taught mainly through dialogue with his students in informal surroundings and sometimes even out of doors. Martin Luther’s collected Table Talk shows how he supplemented his formal lectures with regular theological and practical conversations over meals. Dietrich Bonhoeffer followed a similar pattern at his underground seminary in Germany during the Nazi era, as reflected in a discussion of the ministry of listening and communicating in his book Life Together.

During the Reformation influential converts in the universities were won over to the Protestant cause initially through conversation in taverns and pubs. In the eighteenth century it was through conversations initiated in one household after another that John Woolman induced Quakers throughout America to abandon slavery, just as later in England regular and lengthy conversations over many years in the homes of William Wilberforce and other members of the Clapham Sect formed the basis for the antislavery movement there. During and after World War II, the regular conversations among members of the Inklings group, which was made up of C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, Owen Barfield and others, played a seminal role in shaping the books for which they have become famous. These are just a few examples of many that could be given.

The Demise of Conversation

For at least two main reasons conversation today has fallen on difficult times. It is a victim of the increased busyness and noise that afflict modern society. We have less and less time for others generally, whether extending hospitality to them or visiting with them, and so less time for simply talking together in a regular or leisurely way. Settings where we could talk have become too noisy with traffic or Muzak. The individualism and fragmentation of people in the West are also a problem. A century and a half ago the French social commentator Alexis de Tocqueville commented that Americans do not so much converse as speak to one another as if they were addressing a meeting. Instead of conversation there is either a discussion with a particular shape and goal or a series of individual presentations by people more interested in expressing their own ideas than participating in a genuine group experience in which people take their cues from one another.

Busyness, noise, individualism and fragmentation make it all the more important to recover conversation in significant areas of life. In this matter we can learn from those who are marginal in our society. For different reasons African-Americans, women and children all seem to converse easily with one another: the first perhaps because they have become skeptical of discussions, the second because they are less linear and more person-oriented, the third because they are so unself-conscious. There are excellent examples of people conversing in literature—from Shakespeare’s plays to A. R. Gurney’s theater pieces. But these are carefully contrived artifices and therefore do not provide the best models of ordinary conversation.

Recovering Conversation

Restoring conversation to a central place in life has many advantages.

For repairing marriages and families. Psychologists suggest that the main problem in marriages today is the lack of communication between the partners. This stems partly from people’s inability to talk with and hear from one another, partly from issues arising in which highly emotive factors take control, and partly because people do not spend enough time talking with one another (less than twenty minutes a week in meaningful conversation, according to one Australian study!). Time spent by parents with their children has also decreased, as the preoccupation with spending quality, rather than quantity, time with children testifies.

Behind such problems lie poor modeling and training during people’s upbringing, the overly volatile place financial matters occupy in our lives and the emphasis on achievement in both school and workplace at the expense of personal and relational growth. When couples and families reorder their priorities, and where necessary learn some communication skills, the threat of marriage breakdown and of the generation gap diminishes. One step in reordering is to restore the evening family meal to its rightful place, free from the intrusion of television and telephone. Also helpful are regular opportunities for partners, while walking or relaxing, to talk about their dreams and frustrations, ideas and feelings.

For understanding and relating the Christian faith. When people engage in conversation about an interesting book, a film or a program, they tend to become enthusiastically caught up in discussion. They talk about how wonderful, exciting, stimulating or moving it was, what part they liked most or least or just didn’t understand, who or what they really identified with. They may also talk about the values or ideas it was projecting and how it challenged or confirmed certain attitudes or convictions. The same degree of involvement and excitement can be generated in studying the Bible or learning about the Christian faith.

Though not as ordered an approach to learning as more formal study of the Bible, church history or theology, good conversation does lead to greater understanding and self-challenge. It can bring to life stories and figures from the Bible, as well as ones that come out of the pages of church history. Even the lives and writings of Christian thinkers, past and present, can come alive in people’s minds and wills if they are approached in this way. Formal classes or structured programs are not necessarily the best way for most people to learn and apply the basic elements of the Christian faith.

For deepening and extending the church. Small groups have brought into church life a more relational, supportive and practical dimension. But in comparison with early Christian meetings and our own contemporary needs, they are still too structured and limited. Most commonly these groups are led and directed by one person and thus do not provide opportunities for all to share with and care for one another according to their God-given gifts and experience. They generally meet for an hour or an hour and a half and do not provide time for extended interaction or in-depth bonding. If they met longer and focused on dialogue or Christian conversation, more holistic learning and community building would take place.

Part of the answer is building into such gatherings a full meal—preferably carrying the full significance of the Lord’s Supper—during which conversation on a wide range of concerns, small and large, to individuals and to the group as a whole, can take place. But recovering the importance of a meal, this time with unbelievers rather than believers as guests, is central to the task of extending as well as deepening the church. The early church grew largely through the act of ordinary Christians extending hospitality to others in their homes. It was around the dining-room table in a conversational way that the gospel was most effectively shared. This is a challenge and a direction for all Christians and churches that are serious about evangelism today.

Conversation is a multisided phenomenon with multiple uses. Though often familiar or standardized, and in turn both comfortable and comforting, it is also full of the most extraordinary possibilities and consequences. As Erving Goffman says, “The box that conversation stuffs into us [or that we present to others] is Pandora’s” (p. 74).

» See also: Fellowship

» See also: Gossip

» See also: Listening

» See also: Speaking

» See also: Storytelling

References and Resources

W. R. Baker, Sticks and Stones: The Discipleship of Our Speech (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996); E. Goffman, Forms of Talk (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981); R. Hattox, Coffee and Coffeehouses: The Origins of a Social Beverage in the Medieval Near East (Seattle: University of Washington, 1985). G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); C. Lasch, The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy (New York: Norton, 1995) 117-28; D. Roger and P. Bull, Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Approach (Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters, 1988); D. Tannen, You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (New York: Ballantine, 1990).

—Robert Banks

Counseling, Lay

The widespread use of paraprofessionals or lay counselors gained momentum especially during the 1960s. This occurred because of a shortage of professionally trained personnel to cater to a steadily increasing demand for mental health services, especially from the socioeconomically disadvantaged population (Tan 1991a).

Lay counseling has become a significant part of Christian ministries today, especially in the context of the local church, but it extends to other contexts like parachurch organizations and mission groups. Since lay-counseling services are usually offered free of charge, it is also an important means of delivering mental health services, particularly to those who cannot afford to see mental health professionals. In some states in the United States it may be necessary to use terms like lay helping, lay caring, lay helpers and lay caregivers, rather than lay counseling and lay counselors, because of particular licensing laws that limit the use of the term counseling or counselor to those who are professionally trained and licensed (usually with at least a master’s degree). But can laypeople do this work effectively?

Effectiveness of Lay Counseling

Over the last twenty years several important reviews of the research literature have attempted to determine whether paraprofessional helpers are as effective as professional therapists (Tan 1991a; Toh and Tan). The results were somewhat equivocal, with no clear indication of which group appeared superior. The majority of studies, however, indicated that lay counselors are often as effective as professional therapists. What is not so clear is “the conditions under which their contributions can be maximized—the types of interventions and patients for which this resource is most appropriate” (Lorion and Felner, p. 763).

A similar observation was offered more recently by researchers in the area of therapeutic effectiveness (Lambert and Bergin, p. 171). An even more recent review found that more trained and experienced therapists tended to have better therapy outcomes than less trained and experienced therapists, but the differences were modest (Stein and Lambert).

In summary, the question of the comparative effectiveness of these two groups is still not fully settled. This outcome brings to mind a statement made by Jerome Frank in 1982 after reviewing the therapeutic components shared by all psychotherapies: “My own hunch, which I mention with some trepidation, is that the most gifted therapists may have telepathic, clairvoyant, or other parapsychological abilities. . . . They may, in addition, possess something . . . that can only be termed ‘healing power’ ” (Frank, p. 31).

So while training and research are important, we need to perhaps pay attention to therapists’ qualities that go beyond credentials. Paraprofessionals (that is, those without the training, education, experience or credentials required to be professional therapists) may also be therapeutic if they have been identified with this healing power and trained to utilize this potential.

Given the empirical support behind the usefulness of lay or paraprofessional counselors, the idea of utilizing them as mental health providers has been accepted and championed by some mental health professionals and researchers. The rationale for their position is sound: (1) their effectiveness has been regularly documented; (2) the need for mental health services cannot be met by professional therapists alone since current estimates suggest that only 20 percent of diagnosable mental disorders obtain treatment; (3) because managed health care is becoming more prominent in medical care in the foreseeable future and an estimated 37 million Americans do not have insurance coverage at all, a cost-effective treatment offered by paraprofessionals may be valid or appropriate with perhaps mild versions of a disorder or as adjuncts to professionally administered approaches; and (4) many people already consult nonprofessionals such as clergy and physicians (Christensen and Jacobson).

The Rise of Christian Lay Counseling

Several other studies involving Christian paraprofessionals have also begun to document the effectiveness of Christian lay counselors (Tan 1991a). The most recent and well-designed study to date was a controlled outcome study that evaluated the effectiveness of Christian lay counselors working at a church-based program (Toh and Tan). These lay counselors were selected and trained for one year by professionals. Supervision after the training was also provided by professionals. Incoming counselees were screened at intake, and only individuals with temporary adjustment disorders subject to short-term, solution-focused counseling were candidates for this lay-counseling program. Individuals with suggested diagnoses of character or serious personality disorders were referred to a network of professional counselors associated with the church. The treatment group comprised twenty-two subjects, who received ten sessions of individual lay counseling, while twenty-four subjects were in the no-treatment, waiting-list control group (the majority of these randomly assigned counselees were later found to be highly committed Christians who attended church often and regularly). The results indicated that the treatment group reported significantly more improvement than the control group on all outcome measures and maintained their therapeutic gains one month after termination.

For this reason, and given the increasing demand for affordable mental health services, Christian lay-counseling programs should also be considered as a viable mental health service to churches and the community at large. The potential for church-based counseling is enormous. The church is a large, benevolent community, with unique resources in prayer and the Scriptures for those who are open to the spiritual dimension, a facility often absent from secular approaches.

Starting a Lay-Counseling Ministry

The first step is to recognize the biblical basis for lay counseling (e.g., see Romans 15:14; Galatians 6:1-2; Col. 3:16; 1 Thes. 5:14; James 5:16) and its therapeutic potential. In 1 Peter 2:5, 9, Peter affirms the priesthood of all believers: the work of ministry is not only for the pastor and church staff but for all Christians (see Laity). In line with these and other passages that speak about the development and use of believers’ spiritual gifts to build up the church (for example, Romans 12; 1 Cor. 12; Ephes. 4; 1 Peter 4), there should be training of appropriately gifted laypeople in various church ministries, including lay counseling.

The second step is to choose an appropriate model of lay-counseling ministry. To do this, the goals of the ministry must be identified. Who are the people to be reached, and what resources are available to provide this service? The program subsequently would be enhanced if an ethos, or distinctive character, was established by giving it an appropriate name.

There are basically three major models of lay-counseling ministry (Tan 1991a): the informal, spontaneous model; the informal, organized model; the formal, organized model. In the informal, spontaneous model, lay counselors may or may not receive any systematic training in counseling skills. Yet counseling may take place in spontaneous and informal interactions that already exist in natural settings, such as restaurants, homes, classrooms, neighborhoods and businesses, as well as in religious, social and community meeting places. In this model ongoing supervision or formal organization and direction of counseling attempts are not provided. In the informal, organized model, informal or natural lay counseling takes place but in the context of a well-organized, regularly supervised and intentional helping ministry or activity where training is provided for the lay counselors. In the formal, organized model, lay counseling is conducted in an organized and well-supervised way (including training of lay counselors) but in more formal settings, such as a church counseling center, community clinic, agency or hospital.

The third step is to obtain full support for the idea and model of lay-counseling ministry selected from the pastors, pastoral staff and church board. Such a ministry should be seen as an extension of pastoral care and counseling in the church and as an essential part of the priesthood of all believers.

The fourth step is to screen and select appropriately gifted and qualified lay Christian counselors from the congregation. Important selection criteria should include the following: spiritual maturity; psychological stability; love for and interest in people (including empathy, genuineness, warmth and respect); appropriate spiritual gifts for helping relationships (such as the gift of encouragement mentioned in Romans 12:8); some life experience; previous training or experience in people helping (desirable but not essential); age, gender and ethnic/cultural background relevant to the clientele of the lay-counseling program; availability and teachability; and ability to maintain confidentiality (Tan 1991a).

Guidelines for screening potential lay counselors include (1) a brief written statement about his or her reasons for being interested in lay-counselor training and involvement in a religious context (this statement should also include agreement with the doctrinal positions or beliefs of the local church in order to function well in that context); (2) letters of recommendation from two or three people who know the potential lay counselor well; (3) an interview with the appropriate leaders of the lay-counseling program; and (4) psychological testing, if conducted by qualified and licensed mental health professionals (Collins). The fifth step is to provide an adequate training program for the lay counselors. The final step is to let the lay counselors see actual counselees, but with ongoing supervision and further training provided.

Training and Supporting Lay Counselors

Training programs vary widely in approaches (for example, Rogerian, psychodynamic, cognitive-behavioral, systems), modalities (for example, individual, couple, family or group) and length (from several weeks to several months). Most programs, however, include a minimum of twenty-four to fifty or more hours of training in basic listening and helping skills (Tan 1992). The number of trainees is usually limited to relatively small numbers (for example, ten to fifteen) with regular training sessions (for example, weekly or biweekly for two to three hours each time).

In any good training program for lay Christian counselors, the following content areas should be covered: basic Bible knowledge, especially that which is relevant to people-helping ministries; knowledge of counseling skills (with opportunities for experiential practice); understanding of common problems (for example, depression, anxiety, stress or spiritual dryness); awareness of ethics and dangers in counseling; and knowledge of the importance and techniques of referral.

A good training program also usually includes the following components: clear, practically oriented presentations; reading assignments; observation of good counseling skills modeled or demonstrated by the trainer or professional counselor; experiential practice, especially through role-playing. Most training programs emphasize basic counseling skills (for example, listening and relationship building), but some have also provided training in more specific counseling methods, such as cognitive-behavioral and problem-solving interventions, marriage and family counseling and even insight-oriented skills (Tan 1992).

Lay counselors should receive ongoing and regular supervision after their training and once they begin seeing counselees in helping relationships. As far as possible, the supervisor should be a licensed mental health professional. If the supervisor is not a licensed mental health professional, he or she must have access to such a professional as a consultant.

Most supervision sessions occur weekly for at least an hour, either individually or in small groups. The client load of counselors is also usually limited to only a few each week. An alternative supervision format that has been used involves biweekly supervision meetings of about two hours’ duration for small groups of lay counselors, with individual supervision provided when necessary.

Good supervision includes both skill training (that is, the supervisor teaching or modeling specific counseling methods or interventions) and some discussion of process issues or dynamics (that is, focusing on what is happening internally in the lay counselor and interpersonally between the lay counselor and the counselee). Some observation of the lay counselor’s actual counseling work is essential, whether it be through audiotapes or videotapes of counseling sessions, through direct observation through a one-way mirror or through cocounseling (where the supervisor and the lay counselor conduct the counseling together).

An awareness of legal and ethical issues related to both the supervision of lay counselors and lay counseling itself is crucial for those involved in these activities. For example, lay counselors should be taught to recognize the limits of their skills and knowledge and should know when and how to refer counselees to appropriate professionals. Lay counselors also need to obtain permission from their counselees, preferably by written consent, to share information from counseling sessions with their supervisors and others, especially if group supervision is used. Such information should be kept confidential by those involved in supervision sessions.

Christian lay counseling or people helping, including peer counseling (Sturkie and Tan 1992, 1993), has grown and mushroomed in recent years. It is a ministry that should be conducted in a Christ-centered, biblically based and Spirit-filled way, as well as ethically, effectively and efficiently, so that many lives can be touched and blessed, to the glory of God.

» See also: Discipleship

» See also: Emotions

» See also: Healing

» See also: Listening

» See also: Pastoral Care

» See also: Spiritual Growth

References and Resources

A. Christensen and N. S. Jacobson, “Who (or What) Can Do Psychotherapy: The Status and Challenge of Nonprofessional Therapies,” Psychological Science 5 (1994) 8-14; G. R. Collins, “Lay Counseling Within the Local Church,” Leadership 1, no. 4 (1980) 78-86; J. D. Frank, “Therapeutic Components Shared by All Psychotherapies,” in Psychotherapy Research and Behavior Change, ed. J. H. Harvey and M. M. Parks (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1982) 9-37; M. J. Lambert and A. E. Bergin, “The Effectiveness of Psychotherapy,” in Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, ed. A. E. Bergin and S. L. Garfield (4th ed., New York: Wiley, 1994) 143-89; R. P. Lorion and R. D. Felner, “Research on Mental Health Interventions with the Disadvantaged,” in Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, ed. S. L. Garfield and A. E. Bergin (3rd ed. New York: Wiley, 1986) 739-75; D. M. Stein and M. J. Lambert, “Graduate Training in Psychotherapy: Are Therapy Outcomes Enhanced?” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 63 (1995) 182-96; J. Sturkie and S. Y. Tan, Advanced Peer Counseling in Youth Groups (Grand Rapids: Zondervan/Youth Specialties, 1993); J. Sturkie and S. Y. Tan, Peer Counseling in Youth Groups (Grand Rapids: Zondervan/Youth Specialties, 1992) 431-40; S. Y. Tan, “Development and Supervision of Paraprofessional Counselors,” in Innovations in Clinical Practice: A Sourcebook, ed. L. VandeCreek, S. Knapp and T. L. Jackson (Sarasota, Fla.: Professional Resource, 1992); S. Y. Tan, Lay Counseling: Equipping Christians for a Helping Ministry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991a); S. Y. Tan, “Religious Values and Interventions in Lay Christian Counseling,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 10 (1991b) 173-82; Y. M. Toh and S. Y. Tan, The Effectiveness of Church-Based Lay Counselors: A Controlled Outcome Study (forthcoming).

—Siang-Yang Tan and Yiu-Meng Toh

Craftsmanship

Craftsmanship is an attitude and a quality possessed by people enabling them to make things that give pleasure to themselves and others. The work of their hands is the very best that they can do, and the fabricated objects possess both utility and beauty. Those who make things, one of a kind or mass-produced, vast in scale or minute, permanent or temporary, for profit or for pleasure, are going to be judged on their craftsmanship. There are good reasons for this.

God as Craftsperson

One thing we know about God is that God makes things and is pleased with what he makes (Genesis 1:31). Human beings made in the image of God are like God when they make things and are pleased with the results of their labor. If this logic holds, superior craftsmanship is a form of godliness. This is not a trivial observation. To understand the essence of craftsmanship, we must start with our Maker, whose image all craftspeople bear.

Perfect conception and supreme skill are the essence of divine craftsmanship. All who have marveled at the order, complexity and beauty of nature are giving tribute to the Master Craftsman, even when they obtusely credit it to the twin gods of adaptation and genetic mutation. We, as created beings (and fallen ones at that), possess neither God’s omniscience nor his omnipotence. We lack the ability to conceive the perfect object and the skill necessary to craft it—even if we were given the blueprint. Fortunately God works with us, enabling us to be subcreators, or craftspeople, an ability that anthropologists have identified as one of the characteristics that sets humankind apart from the rest of creation.

The Bible and Craftsmanship

The Bible has little to say directly about craftsmanship. We can infer from Proverbs that many of the virtues extolled there are essential for craftsmanship. Diligence, discipline, patience, honesty, discernment, teachability and humility are just some of the qualities for which the true craftsperson strives. These qualities are what we might call the foundational qualities for true craftsmanship. Proverbs 22:29 offers a promise as well:

Do you see a man skilled in his work?
He will serve before kings;
he will not serve before obscure men.

In addition, the spiritual and moral principles of the Gospels and the Epistles are important, but they are conditions of godliness for everyone, whether craftsperson or not. But faith and closeness to God are not conditions of high craftsmanship; craftsmanship is not an exclusive preserve of Christians. Nevertheless, true spirituality ought to give the Christian a “leg up” when it comes to acquiring the foundational qualities of craftsmanship because pride has been put in its place. Unbridled pride found in a “maker-of-things” would almost certainly be unfertile ground for growth in the virtues mentioned in Proverbs and other Wisdom writings.

Inherent in the concept of craftsmanship is the idea of meaningful and joyful work. This is not a simple matter. Solomon confessed,

My heart took delight in all my work,
and this was the reward for all my labor.
Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done
and what I had toiled to achieve,
everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind;
nothing was gained under the sun. (Eccles. 2:10-11)

The craftsperson cannot ultimately be satisfied solely by making beautiful things, for he or she must find a place in the community. So to establish a spirituality of craftsmanship, we must examine the role of “makers-of-things” in the story of God’s redeeming love toward humanity.

Crafting Cities and Idols

Most references to tradespeople and craftspeople in the Bible occur in two contexts: on one hand, building cities and making idols, and on the other hand, building a dwelling place for God and crafting articles of worship. In the former, craftspeople aid and abet humanity’s rebellion against God; in the latter, craftspeople build a place for communion with God. The tower of Babel, a collective task of tradespeople, was the result of a conspiracy to supplant God. From the biblical perspective cities (the spiritual descendants of Babel) and those who build them are always tainted with idolatrous motives. Throughout the prophetic writings all the great cities, centers of human power in the Middle East, are fated to be reduced to rubble by the jealous hand of God. In stark contrast to the city as a monument to human pride are the tabernacle (later the temple) and ultimately the church, each of which successive “structure” is a dwelling place for God. These two opposing spiritual realities provide the biblical context for craftspeople, but they also pose the primary dilemma. Will the hands of the craftsperson make something for the glory of humankind or for the glory of God?

The first craftsperson identified in the Old Testament was Tubal-Cain, who “forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron” (Genesis 4:22). This is all we know of him. But the story of two other crafts-people from the wilderness years of Israel’s journey to the Promised Land is more revelatory. When the Lord gave Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai, he also gave him detailed instructions for sacrificial ceremonies and the structure and articles necessary to fulfill those rites. The Lord concludes these instructions with the following:

I have chosen Bezalel . . . and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts—to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in wood, and to engage in all kinds of craftsmanship. Moreover, I have appointed Oholiab . . . to help him. Also I have given skill to all the craftsmen to make everything I have commanded you. (Exodus 31:2-6)

In fact, Bezalel is the first and only person in the Old Testament who is described as being filled with the Holy Spirit. Others received empowerment for specific situations, but the craftsman Bezalel and his coworkers were especially privileged with divine “in-Spirit-ation” to exercise their skill in the building of the tabernacle. Their empowerment foreshadowed Acts 1:8, where Jesus tells his disciples they will be empowered by the same Spirit to spread the gospel and in so doing to begin to build and craft the church (1 Cor. 3:10-15; Ephes. 2:19-22).

The Spirituality of Craftsmanship

This empowering carried and still carries with it responsibilities, one of which is to keep pure bodies (1 Cor. 6:19). If sexual immorality defiles our bodies, our eyes and hands will be equally violated by employing them for unworthy ends. The wilderness story is clear about this. Before Bezalel and his fellow craftsmen ever received their orders, at the instigation of the people Aaron made an idol in the shape of a golden calf. It was to be the first of many false gods made by misguided craftspeople throughout Israel’s history. These craftspeople prostituted their skills in the making of all manner of idols: everything from simple wood and stone forms to elaborate bejewelled gods of gold and silver. Surely there is a strong note of sarcasm in Israel’s identification of the makers of those idols as skilled craftsmen (Isaiah 40:19-20).

Perversion akin to the Israelites’ continues into the present day. Today nothing is more distinctive of Western society than an ability to craft things. Other cultures have equaled or exceeded ours in poetry, art and literature, but none has come close to ours in the making of such a bewildering array of things. These things have become the idol form of materialism, the underlying philosophy of our culture. The bumper sticker “He who has the most toys when he dies, wins!” is simply declaring the unspoken credo of the dominant religion of our time.

So the turn-of-the-millennium environment presents a special dilemma for Christian craftspeople. How do we remain pure and as dedicated as Bezalel when the products of our employment (to one degree or another) feed the same appetite as Solomon’s?

I denied myself nothing my eyes desired;
I refused my heart no pleasure. (Eccles. 2:10)

The making of Communion cups and church furnishings surely cannot define the scope of the Christian craftsperson’s skills.

There is, of course, no simple answer. One of the things we must do is to keep reminding ourselves that our crafting of things is subordinate to the building of the holy temple of the Lord, the body of Christ. It is a great honor for craftspeople to be the metaphor for that greater reality. Our participation in that spiritual crafting is what will keep the metaphor of our material craftsmanship pure and vital.

The other thing we must do is to heed Jesus’ promise “If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you” (John 15:7). “Walking in the footsteps of Jesus, the carpenter’s son,” is a phrase we accept as a Christian truism, but there is no question that the closer we keep ourselves to Jesus, the easier it will be to define the line between worthy tasks and unworthy tasks that we will not cross (easier, but never easy!).

An important lesson that Jesus can teach the craftsperson is that nothing is merely a means to another end. All things have some value as an end in themselves. Thus Christian craftspeople must always distinguish themselves from those for whom work and wages are simply necessary evils to procure the necessities of life (hopefully with enough left over for pleasure and material gain). Christian craftspeople must be continually asking Jesus whether the objects they are making can be made to the glory of God and, if they can, challenging themselves to craft them to the very best of their “in-Spirit-ed” skill.

Surely there is merit in Solomon’s judgment that there is nothing better for a people than to “find satisfaction in [their] work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God” (Eccles. 2:24). But this hope must be purged of Solomon’s pessimism. In my experience crafting homes, boats and furniture, there is no better way to do that than to emulate the persona of Wisdom in Proverbs 8. Wisdom is at God’s side at the creation of the world, a partner:

I was the craftsman at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
rejoicing always in his presence,
rejoicing in his whole world
and delighting in mankind.
(Proverbs 8:30-31)

This is what it means for the craftsperson to walk in the footsteps of Jesus. True craftsmanship is subcreativity, indeed even cocreativity. That partnership produced the world we live in. Dare we expect some small measure of that divine fulfillment in the things we make?

» See also: Art

» See also: Technology

» See also: Trades

» See also: Work

References and Resources

R. Banks, God the Worker: Journey into the Mind, Heart and Imagination of God (Valley Forge, Penn.: Judson, 1994); E. L. Smith, The Stones of Craft: The Craftsman’s Role in Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981).

—Graeme Smith

Creation

One of the central themes of Christian theology is that God is the Creator of the world. This has a number of important implications for our understanding of the everyday world and our place in it, as well as for our experience of the environment.

God the Creator

Belief in God as Creator has its foundations firmly laid in the Old Testament (e.g., Genesis 1-2). The continuing importance of the Old Testament for Christianity is grounded in the fact that the God of which it speaks is the same God revealed in the New Testament. The Creator and the Redeemer God are one and the same. In the past this has been challenged. For example, Gnosticism mounted a vigorous attack on both the authority of the Old Testament and the idea that God was Creator of the world.

Gnosticism, in most of its significant forms, drew a sharp distinction between the God who redeemed humanity from the world and a somewhat inferior deity (often termed the demiurge) who created that world in the first place. The Old Testament was regarded by the Gnostics as dealing with this lesser deity, whereas the New Testament was concerned with the Redeemer God. As a result, belief in God as Creator and in the authority of the Old Testament came to be interlinked at an early stage. Of the early writers to deal with this theme, Irenaeus of Lyons is of particular importance.

Another debate centered on the question of whether creation was to be regarded as ex nihilo (“out of nothing”). In one of his dialogues, the classical Greek philosopher Plato developed the idea that the world was made out of preexistent matter, which was fashioned into the present form of the world. As well as being taken up by most Gnostic writers, this idea was adopted by early Christian theologians heavily influenced by Platonism, such as Justin Martyr. They professed a belief in preexistent matter, which was shaped into the world in the act of creation.

For these writers, creation was not ex nihilo; rather, it was seen as an act of construction on the basis of material that was already at hand, as one might construct a boat from wood, an igloo out of snow, or a house from stone. The existence of evil in the world was then explained in terms of the difficulties in working with this preexistent matter. God’s options in creating the world were limited by the poor quality of the material available. The presence of evil or defects within the world is thus not to be ascribed to God but to deficiencies in the material from which the world was constructed.

In part, however, the idea of creation from preexistent matter was discredited by its Gnostic associations; in part it was called into question by an increasingly sophisticated reading of the creation narratives. Writers such as Theophilus of Antioch insisted upon the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, which became the received doctrine within the church from the end of the second century. Believing in and relating to God as Creator has several major implications.

Created but Not Divine

We must distinguish between God and the creation. From the earliest times Christian thinkers have resisted the temptation to merge the Creator and the creation. This is clearly stated in the opening chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans, which criticizes the tendency to reduce God to the level of the world. According to Paul, there is a natural human tendency, as a result of sin, to serve created things rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25). A central element in a Christian theology of creation is to distinguish God from the creation while at the same time affirming that it is God’s creation.

This process may be seen at work in the writings of Augustine and also in the works of Reformers such as Calvin. The Reformers were concerned to forge a world-affirming spirituality in response to the general monastic tendency to renounce the world that was evident in writings such as Thomas à Kempis’s Imitation of Christ.

There is a dialectic in Calvin’s thought between the world as the creation of God and the world as the fallen creation. In that it is God’s creation, it is to be honored, respected and affirmed; in that it is a fallen creation, it is to be criticized with the object of redeeming it. A similar pattern can be discerned in Calvin’s doctrine of human nature, where—despite his stress on sin and the Fall—he never loses sight of the fact that it remains God’s creation and is to be valued for that reason. This encourages a critical world-affirming spirituality, in which the world is endorsed but not idolized or treated as if it were God.

The importance of this point has been stressed by more recent writers, including Lesslie Newbigin. Elements of creation can easily become demonic, through being invested with the authority and power which properly belong to God alone. They can come to usurp a place to which they have no right, the place which belongs to Christ and to him alone. They can, as we say, become absolutized, and then they become demonic.

A proper understanding of creation prevents this process of demonization from taking place by insisting that creational elements may be good but are never divine. It thus provides a framework by which we are protected against the usurpation of divine authority by any aspect of the creation—whether it be a person, a set of values or an institution.

Divine Ownership, Human Stewardship

Creation implies God’s authority over and possession of the world. As the Dutch Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper once affirmed, “There is not one square inch of creation about which Jesus Christ does not say: ‘that is mine.’ ” We are a part of that creation, with special functions within it. The doctrine of creation leads to the idea of human stewardship of the creation, which is to be contrasted with a secular notion of human ownership of the world. The creation is not ours; we hold it in trust for God. We are meant to be the stewards of God’s creation and are responsible for the manner in which we exercise that stewardship. This insight is of major importance in relation to ecological and environmental concerns, in that it provides a proper foundation for the exercise of human responsibility toward the planet.

This has important consequences for our everyday behavior. We have been placed within God’s creation to tend it and take care of it (Genesis 2:15), as we do in gardening, craftsmanship and town planning. We may be superior to the rest of the creation and exercise authority over it (Psalm 8:4-8), but we remain under the authority of God and so are responsible to the Creator for the way in which we treat the creation. We hold it in trust. There is a growing realization today that past generations have seriously abused that trust by exploiting the creation and its resources. There is a real danger that we will spoil what God so wonderfully created.

Reflecting on our responsibilities as stewards of God’s creation is the first step in undoing the harm done by past generations. It matters to God that vast areas of our world have been made uninhabitable through nuclear or toxic chemical waste. It matters that the delicate balance of natural forces is disturbed by human carelessness. Sin affects the way we treat the environment as much as it does our attitude toward God, other people and society as a whole. This article of the creed is the basis of a new—and overdue—attitude toward creation.

World-Affirming Spirituality

The doctrine of God as Creator implies the goodness of creation. Throughout the first biblical account of creation, we encounter the affirmation “And God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:10, 18, 21, 25, 31). The only thing that is not good is that Adam is alone. There is no place in Christian theology for the Gnostic or dualist idea of the world as an inherently evil place. This is not to say that the creation is presently perfect. The world as we see it is not the world as it was intended to be. Human sin, evil and death are themselves tokens of the extent to which the created order has departed from its intended pattern.

For this reason, most Christian reflections on redemption include some idea of restoring creation to its original integrity, so that God’s intentions might find fulfillment. Affirming the goodness of creation also avoids the suggestion that God is responsible for evil. The constant biblical emphasis on the goodness of creation is a reminder that the destructive force of sin is not present in the world by God’s design or permission.

Our Worldly Calling

The doctrine of creation has important implications for our everyday living. It allows us to feel at home in the world. We are here because God wants us to be here. We are not alone but are in the very presence of the God who made and owns everything. We are in the presence of a friend who knows us and cares for us. Behind the apparently faceless universe lies a person.

This conviction calls into question the Western distinction between sacred and secular. To describe one area of our lives (such as teaching a Sunday school) as sacred and another (such as working in an office) as secular implies that only part of our life is dedicated to God and that only part of the creation belongs to God. In contrast, the Protestant Reformers strongly affirmed the priesthood of all believers and as a corollary the idea of being called to serve God in the world. All Christians are called to be priests to the world, purifying and sanctifying its everyday life from within. Commenting on Genesis 13:13, Luther stated this point succinctly: “What seem to be secular works are actually the praise of God and represent an obedience which is well pleasing to him.” Luther extolled the religious value of housework, declaring that although “it had no obvious appearance of holiness, yet these very household chores are more to be valued than all the works of monks and nuns” (see Chores; Homemaking).

Underlying this new attitude is the notion that God calls his people not just to faith but to express that faith in quite definite areas of life in the world. One is called, in the first place, to be a Christian, and in the second, to live out that faith in a quite definite sphere of activity within the world. Whereas medieval monastic spirituality generally regarded the idea of vocation as a calling out of the world into the seclusion and isolation of the monastery, Luther and Calvin understood it as a calling into the everyday world. The doctrine of creation thus leads to a strong work ethic, in the sense that work in the world can be seen as work for God.

Not Our Final Home

Yet this attitude of being at home in the world needs to be qualified. We are to see ourselves as passing through the world, not belonging there permanently. We are, so to put it, tourists rather than residents. In his Geneva Catechism Calvin suggests that we should “learn to pass through this world as though it is a foreign country, treating all earthly things lightly and declining to set our hearts upon them.” In other words, we are encouraged to enjoy, respect and explore the world—while realizing that it is not our home.

All things that are connected with the enjoyment of the present life are sacred gifts of God. If we abuse them, however, we pollute them. Why? Because we always dream of staying in this world—with the result that those things which were meant to help us pass through it instead become hindrances to us, in that they hold us fast to the world. So it was not without good reason that Paul, wishing to arouse us from this stupidity, calls us to consider the brevity of this life and suggests that we ought to treat all the things of this life as if we did not own them. For if we recognize that we are strangers in the world, we will use the things of this world as if they belong to someone else—that is, as things that are lent to us for a single day.

One of the finest statements of this attitude may be found in Jonathan Edwards’s sermon “The Christian Pilgrim,” in which he affirms that “it was never designed by God that this world should be our home.” Speaking with the eighteenth-century situation in New England in mind, Edwards declared:

Though surrounded with outward enjoyments, and settled in families with desirable friends and relations; though we have companions whose society is delightful, and children in whom we see many promising qualifications; though we live by good neighbors and are generally beloved where known; yet we ought not to take our rest in these things as our portion. . . . We ought to possess, enjoy and use them, with no other view but readily to quit them, whenever we are called to it, and to change them willingly for heaven.

Conclusion

Today people speak of “nature” rather than “creation,” thus suggesting that our environment is something free-standing to be “used” rather than a sacred trust bearing the stamp of the Creator. Further, many Christians without knowing it are profoundly influenced by Gnosticism. For them working with the stuff of this world, whether through farming or dealing with stocks and investments, is less “spiritual” than preaching and evangelism. Really “spiritual” people have as little as possible to do with this world. We are in a situation analogous to the one the great Reformers faced. Recovering a biblical view of God as Creator and the world as created will assist us to serve God wholeheartedly in everyday matters. While this world is not our final home, a new heaven and a new earth are our ultimate destiny. It has been wisely noted that Christianity is the most materialistic of all faiths.

» See also: Calling

» See also: Culture

» See also: Ecology

» See also: Pollution

» See also: Work

References and Resources

I. S. Barbour, Religion in the Age of Science (New York: Harper & Row, 1990); J. N. Hartt, “Creation and Providence,” in Christian Theology, ed. P. Hodgson and R. King (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); P. J. Hefner, “Creation,” in Christian Dogmatics, ed. C. E. Braaten and R. W. Jenson (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 1:269-357; R. J. Lyman, Christology and Cosmology: Models of Divine Activity in Origen, Eusebius and Athanasius (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993); G. May, “Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of Creation Out of Nothing” in Early Christian Thought (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995); J. Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985); A. R. Peacocke, Creation and the World of Science (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979); M. Schmaus, Dogma 2: Creation (London: Sheed and Ward, 1969); L. White, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” Science 155 (1967) 1203-7.

—Alister E. McGrath

Credit

“Having lost its value, money may no longer be the root of all evil: credit has taken its place.” (Dalton Camp, Saturday Night Magazine).

Credit is a controversial topic and not just in Christian circles, as the quotation by Dalton Camp illustrates. Nevertheless, credit has become a way of life for most North Americans. In Canada, for instance, there are more VISA cards and MasterCards combined than there are adult Canadians. According to the office of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, credit cards in Canada in 1990 were used for more than a half billion transactions, with interest charges totaling approximately $1 billion.

Attitude Toward Credit

For most people the controversy lies in the abuse of credit, but there are some Christians who feel that credit is inherently wrong. Those who are strongly opposed to the use of personal credit might say that credit cannot be used wisely, but only with differing degrees of foolishness. A study of the typical criticisms of credit use raises many of the theological dimensions of financial life and stewardship.

Credit is inherently wrong. One cannot come to a conclusion about the acceptability of credit without first determining the biblical teaching concerning debt. A brief summary follows (see Debt).

Two kinds of debt are discussed in Scripture: (1) consumer debt, which was usually associated with some kind of personal misfortune such as crop failure, and (2) commercial investments, where a well-to-do Israelite might get involved with a traveling merchant.

With respect to the first kind of indebtedness, God’s people were to be generous in meeting the needs of covenant brothers and sisters (see, for example, Deut. 15:7-10; Matthew 5:42). Israelites with means were to lend whatever was needed to the poor to fend off temporary misfortune and to restore the borrower and his family to financial stability. No interest (usury) was to be charged, and insignificant collateral was to be demanded. Borrowers were obliged under normal circumstances to repay their debts. However, if a debt remained unpaid by the sabbatical year, it was to be forgiven. As was typical with all aspects of the covenant relationship, no one’s poverty was to be taken advantage of by better-off Israelites (Isaiah 5:8).

Commercial debt is hardly mentioned at all. Israel was an agrarian nation and little involved with commercial life. However, such transactions were permitted, and unlike the case of poor covenant brothers and sisters, interest could be charged. Israelites were warned of the dangers of being in debt to another who might well exploit them (Proverbs 22:7).

To summarize, debt was not inherently evil but could be dangerous if the moneylenders were unscrupulous, as they often were. The purpose of consumer debt was not to cater to self-indulgence but rather to ease a person through temporary misfortune and to restore the family unit to stability. Debts were forgivable at legislated intervals (that is, every sabbatical year) to achieve some higher purpose, such as the preservation of the family unit.

Credit is a temptation to materialism. A further criticism of credit is that its easy availability is a temptation to make purchases one cannot afford at this time, or do not really need at all. Businessman and author Jake Barnett puts it very well: “Credit’s main function is to serve materialism” (Barnett, p. 164). Doubtless this is an astute observation. North Americans have realized an increasing standard of living over the past many decades. But with that improving standard has come a greater readiness to take on a larger debt burden. Levels of consumer credit have exploded since the early 1950s. Much of this, of course, is attributable to population growth and inflation. But with these effects removed (in other words, when indebtedness is measured in constant as opposed to current dollars), we are still vastly more prepared than our grandparents were to use, and abuse, credit in larger and larger amounts. In Canada, for instance, per capita increase in the use of credit between 1950 and 1985 was fivefold using constant dollars.

An analysis of consumer bankrupts done by Consumer and Corporate Affairs of Canada in 1982 revealed much disturbing data about the abuse of credit. First, consumer bankrupts tended to be younger than the adult population generally. About 63 percent of these bankrupt individuals were under age 35, a disproportionate number as only 43 percent of Canadians were in this age group. Only 8 percent of consumer bankrupts were age 50 or older. Second, a disproportionate number of personal bankrupts lacked employable skills. Managerial and professional people represented 9.8 percent of the Canadian labor force, but only 2.9 percent of consumer bankrupts. At the other end of the spectrum, unskilled clerical, sales and service personnel and unskilled manual labor constituted 23.4 percent of employees but a whopping 38.8 percent of those who declared personal bankruptcy. Third, and most important for our purposes, the major cause of personal bankruptcy was consumer debt. The median indebtedness of those in the study was $10,865, while median assets were about $400. A breakdown of their creditors is rather interesting. Finance and insurance companies were the major source of credit (74 percent of bankrupts owed these institutions at least one debt), followed by Canadian chartered banks (61 percent), department stores and other retailers (46 percent and 41 percent, respectively) and bank credit cards (30 percent of bankrupts reported money owing on such cards).

A senior employee of an accounting firm specializing in bankruptcies addressed this issue of why younger people who lack good occupational skills and financial prospects are so prepared to burden themselves with consumer debt.

Bankruptcy is very much an attitudinal thing, a commitment to one’s obligations. It takes very little to be technically in a situation of going bankrupt. . . . Many use bankruptcy as a tool to avoid paying debts, especially younger people who believe that they have the right to a certain standard of living without putting out for it. (Sutherland, p. 51)

In summary, we have fueled the rising standard of living with greater and greater amounts of consumer credit. Clearly we are not content to live at the level of previous generations, nor are we prepared to improve our standard strictly through earnings. While income levels have increased in recent decades, debt burden has increased even more. Being able to afford more material things has given many a hunger for an even greater accumulation of goods than can be provided through earnings. Credit as an impetus to materialism is wrong.

To be truly effective, a Christian must be debt free. While this statement sounds plausible, it does ignore the fact that for many, many North Americans the wise use of credit in its various forms has put them on the road to long-term stability and effectiveness in their families, careers, churches and communities. Had I not taken out student loans, I might have avoided a level of indebtedness for some time, but I would have never graduated from either university or seminary. Were it not for my mortgage, I would never have owned a home. Most businesses have relied at least in part on credit to get started or to meet short-term working capital and long-term expansion requirements. The careful use of credit can be a tool toward long-term effectiveness. But the many perils associated with the use of credit must be avoided.

We have established that while credit can be greatly abused, it is not inherently wrong. Used wisely, credit can be a highly effective tool in establishing long-term stability for a family or a business. The issue that remains then is how to use credit properly.

The Right Use of Credit

Incurring debt is a decision to pay for something you bought in the past, rather than saving in order to buy something in the future. Given the cost of credit charges, it usually makes better financial sense to save. However, there are important exceptions, such as purchasing a home or financing an income-producing asset. Therefore, principles concerning how and when credit should be used must be established.

Setting your own credit limits. Merchants are always happy for customers to use credit. Over half of retail sales are made this way. Credit often provides a tie between a merchant and a customer if a person is using the store’s credit card, charge account or installment contract. Consequently, the last place to which you should look for advice in setting your own credit limits is the institution granting the credit. Lenders consider two things when granting any particular level of credit: your total earnings and your other debts. They never ask you what your personal financial objectives are. Unfortunately, many Christians have not taken the time to set such objectives either. This must come first! How is it done?

First, Christians must see their financial resources as gifts from God with which they have been entrusted (see Stewardship). Too many Christians assign this view strictly to the tithe (not that most Christians actually tithe, but that is another story). It is pointless to talk of financial objectives without first accepting that our resources are from God’s hand and that we are accountable to God for their use. This attitude provides a check on materialistic impulses.

Second, calculate net family income, that is, total gross family income minus all the usual deductions plus other costs of earning that income, such as day care, necessary additional clothing, running a car and so on. Then basic necessities of life must be calculated, for example, mortgage or rent payments, utilities, groceries, clothing and so on. As Christians, we should consider a regular schedule of offerings to further the work of God’s kingdom as part of these necessities. All long-term savings needs must be considered as well. These include investments and capital goods, such as a car or a down payment on a home. Noncapital purchases can be anticipated and saved for also, for example, property taxes, Christmas presents and this year’s family vacation.

Finally, ask yourself how much money you can afford to take out of your net family earnings to pay back credit charges that will in no way hinder meeting your financial objectives. This constitutes your personal credit limit.

Deciding what kind of credit to use. This is a complex subject, and the reader is urged to consult the many fine books on the subject of personal finances, including those written from a biblical perspective. Such books are legion. A visit to any decent bookstore will reveal dozens of books on personal finance often tailored to specific situations. What follows are a few brief remarks about some of the most common forms of credit.

The most significant debt that most borrowers will ever experience is a mortgage. Aside from interest rates, features of mortgages vary greatly from lender to lender, for example, how much can be prepaid without an interest penalty. Do not limit your comparison shopping to the interest charged. In addition to the purchase of a home, income-producing assets may rightly be purchased on credit, especially if the interest on the loan is deductible from the taxable income generated.

Items that do not appreciate in value offer fewer advantages as credit purchases. The consumer must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of purchasing via credit, in order to have immediate use of these goods, versus postponing the purchase until sufficient savings are accumulated.

As far as credit cards are concerned, it is best to limit the number you possess because multiple cards only increase the credit limit your lenders have decided is yours and because their availability increases the likelihood of impulse purchasing. In addition, use them only when you can repay the charge within the interest-free period. If you are unable to do this, then you should resort to a cheaper consumer loan from your bank. As with mortgages, shopping around for bank loans is highly recommended. Terms differ greatly.

Conclusion

Credit is often wrong—when it is an impetus to materialism or when it undermines carefully thought through financial objectives. But like many other aspects of material life, credit is amoral. It can be used wisely, or it can be abused. The challenge to the Christian is to see credit in its proper context—as one way of utilizing the resources with which God has entrusted us.

» See also: Credit Card

» See also: Debt

» See also: Investment

» See also: Money

» See also: Stewardship

» See also: Wealth

References and Resources

J. Barnett, Wealth and Wisdom: A Biblical Perspective on Possessions (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1987); J. R. Sutherland, Going Broke: Bankruptcy, Business Ethics and the Bible (Waterloo, Ont.: Herald, 1991).

—John R. Sutherland

Credit Card

More than half of North Americans have a credit card in their wallet or purse. It is a handy way to obtain consumer credit for the purchase of goods or services without carrying cash or making payments instantly, especially while traveling. This American innovation became popular in 1938, when oil companies set up a national system to honor one another’s cards for the purchase of gasoline. But it was not until the 1950s, with the development of the computer, that credit cards became almost universal, since this new technology permitted accurate and fast accounting. The debit card, a variation on this, instantly withdraws the money from one’s bank accounts and does not extend the usual thirty-day credit. Credit cards produce profits to the institution granting them by direct user fees, by high interest rates on unpaid balances and through payments from retail establishments, or some combination of these. Many cards now offer further incentives by giving points that can be redeemed for airline travel (see Traveling) and penalizing, so it seems, the use of cash or checks.

As with all forms of credit, the credit card is based on the trust expressed in an individual by a bank or lender. The word credit comes from a Latin root meaning “faith” or “trust.” An individual’s credit rating is a measure of trust placed in him or her by a financial institution. Thus, the process of getting and maintaining a credit card is a form of financial testing, proving that one is a reliable person who will pay his or her bills. As with all forms of credit, this one facilitates the transfer of money in a way that increases its productivity by placing it where it will work. At the same time it economizes on the use of currency.

As with many technological advances, the use of credit cards has changed the way we live and think. We now carry “plastic money.” We can make large purchases quickly without a penny in our pockets or guarantee a hotel room halfway around the world by simply using our number. Instead of providing a large cash deposit to guarantee a car rental, we simply use the line of credit provided with the card.

But there are several disadvantages. It is well known that credit cards make theft and fraud quite simple. The more serious problems are less obvious. We no longer have to wait, for we can buy it now, even if we are not carrying cash. We can “afford” it because we have thirty days to pay, even if we do not have the money in the bank (“It will come!”). It is undeniable that easy credit feeds consumerism and stimulates impulse buying. Many people are tempted to live beyond their means, accumulating debt beyond their ability to repay. Young people in particular are tempted to abuse credit and are filing for bankruptcy in distressing numbers.

So the use of a credit card is in one sense a test of our maturity. Put differently, it is an invitation to grow to an increasing maturity. We can do this by determining not to make purchases unless we actually have the money or a clear and workable plan for repayment of the debt (see Credit; Debt). We can reduce the number of credit cards we have to one or two to resist spreading credit—really debt—over multiple institutions. Further, we can take our credit-card invoices as statements not only of purchases made but values held and carefully reflect on how we should exercise stewardship by preparing a budget and living by it. The last place we should look for help in setting our own credit limit is the institution granting it. Sometimes it is good to fast from credit-card buying, as my wife and I have done, and to use only cash. This gives us a more accurate experience of the flow of money through our hands.

The book of Proverbs speaks to the use of money and credit. It takes wisdom from God to possess money without being possessed by it (Proverbs 1:17-19). Without wisdom we can have wealth but no true friends, food on the table but no fellowship around it, a house but not a home, the ability to buy things but no financial freedom. Without wisdom we will use a credit card to indulge ourselves (Proverbs 21:17) and still never be satisfied (Proverbs 27:20; Proverbs 30:15-16). Credit card in hand, the unwise person “chases fantasies” (Proverbs 28:19) and so comes to ruin, but the wise, accumulating as stewards “little by little” (Proverbs 13:11), “will be richly blessed” (Proverbs 28:20). It takes wisdom to have a credit card and not be possessed by the power in our pockets.

» See also: Consumerism

» See also: Credit

» See also: Debt

» See also: Money

» See also: Shopping

» See also: Shopping Mall

» See also: Stewardship

» See also: Wealth

References and Resources

R. N. Baird, “Credit Card,” in The Encyclopedia Americana (Danbury, Conn.: Grolier, 1989) 8:166-67; J. Barnett, Wealth and Wisdom: A Biblical Perspective on Possessions (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1987).

—R. Paul Stevens

Crime

It seems we cannot watch the local news without being confronted by some senseless act of random violence. A young child is killed in the crossfire of a gangland drug war. A number of people die, and others are seriously injured, when a lone gunman goes on a shooting rampage in a fast-food restaurant. A serial rapist strikes again. Is violent crime out of control in American society? Can such acts be explained, and if so, how? Is the public concern about crime justified or exaggerated? How can crime be controlled?

Extent and Cost of Crime

Based on police reports, the FBI estimates that about 14 million crimes in eight major categories were committed in 1993, over 85 percent of which were nonviolent. This amounts to about six crimes per 100 persons, up only slightly since 1975 after increasing almost threefold between 1960 and 1975. National surveys of crime victims suggest that the actual crime rate is about twice that recorded by the FBI. This would mean that the average person becomes a crime victim about once every eight years.

There are about 25,000 murders annually in the United States, and contrary to popular conceptions shaped by the media, the overall murder rate has increased only modestly in recent years. In 1991 almost twice as many persons died from traffic accidents as from murder. The lifetime probability that you or I will be a murder victim is less than 1 percent.

Other statistics on violent crime give more cause for concern. The United States has the highest murder rate among industrialized countries, about four times the average. Violence is most prevalent among persons 15-25 years old, and a new “baby boomlet” generation promises to increase the ranks of this age category in the near future. Other forms of violent crime continue to be on the rise.

Estimates of the cost of crime vary widely, depending on what kinds of losses are considered. For example, estimates of the recent annual cost of personal street crime range from $17 billion by the FBI to over $90 billion when such things as medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering are taken into account (Conklin, p. 77). The costs of more sophisticated types of crime seem to run considerably higher. Estimates related to various white-collar crimes, including embezzlement, fraud, antitrust violations and environmental pollution, range from $50 billion to over $200 billion annually. A similar range of estimates is available for the cost of various so-called victimless crimes, such as illicit drug use, illegal gambling and prostitution. Some estimates indicate that the cost of income-tax evasion by individual taxpayers may easily run in excess of $100 billion. The cost of running the criminal justice system at all levels exceeded $50 billion in the mid-1980s.

These estimates of prevalence and cost have some interesting implications. When the violent element of street crime is removed, the public seems to be more disturbed about personal property crime, such as burglary and auto theft, than about the much more expensive “crime in the suites,” whose cost is hidden in higher taxes and the prices we all pay for goods and services in the marketplace. Moreover, as tragic as 25,000 murders a year may be, this statistic is dwarfed simply by the mayhem we commit on our highways. Yet we seem to want more capital punishment but higher speed limits. Our wants suggest the need for a better understanding of the problem we seem to fear so much.

Understanding Crime

The most popular explanations of crime seem to focus on the individual offender. Some hereditary factor, some type of psychological disturbance or some internalized tendency to respond to environmental rewards is seen as the major factor underlying the so-called criminal personality. Though I grant that some of these explanations have merit, they usually provide little hope for altering the behavior of criminal offenders. We do not yet possess adequate knowledge to alter a person’s basic biological makeup. Psychological therapy is typically very expensive, and success rates are problematic. Reward or reinforcement theories may operate well in highly controlled environments like prisons but are impossible to implement fully in the broader context of a free society.

The appeal of most of these theories seems to lie in the assumption that the causes of crime are located within the individual offender. This gives the rest of us license to absolve ourselves from any responsibility for the crime problem and to support get-tough policies that offer illusory quick fixes.

Theories that rely on significant features of the social environment to explain crime offer more adequate explanations, especially for those crimes whose incidence varies considerably from society to society. One of these, known as strain theory, proposes that crime rates will be high in a society that instills strong aspirations of success in its members but does not provide adequate means for the attainment of these goals on the part of large segments of its population (Merton, pp. 185-214). Those who cannot achieve legitimately will be highly tempted to rely on illegitimate means, such as crime. One version of this theory, known as relative deprivation theory, contends that crime rates will be especially high in poor inner-city areas that are in close proximity to extremely affluent areas. When the poor in these areas are confronted with their deprivation on a daily basis, they become increasingly frustrated and hostile. A collective sense of injustice develops, which tends to direct the frustration into various forms of profitable crime, such as drug trafficking, and the hostility into various types of violence.

Control theory also considers the impact of the social environment, using the concept of an individual’s bonds to society. Crime is more likely to occur when these bonds are weak, for then crime is usually a more efficient way to achieve one’s ends. T. Hirschi identifies four major elements of the social bond as attachment to others, commitment to conventional pursuits, involvement in conventional activities and belief in the validity of moral rules. By making effective use of these bonds, a society can effectively keep crime under control. Typically this involves using multiple control mechanisms so that if one bond fails, other bonds can take up the slack. For example, an adolescent who is doing well in school and sees the possibility of a bright future is unlikely to become seriously delinquent even if he or she has conflicts with parents.

Finally, cultural transmission theory is based on the thesis that criminal behavior is learned as people absorb cultural definitions (norms, values, attitudes, etc.) that are favorable to crime from others with whom they identify. D. Cressey contends that imprisonment is an ineffective way to reform criminals because it puts a person in intimate contact with others who reinforce attitudes favorable to crime. An alternative would be to relocate the person into a group that upholds anticriminal values. Cressey is simply proposing that efforts at criminal reform would be much more effective if groups for criminals existed that functioned in a manner similar to the way Alcoholics Anonymous does for alcoholics. Unfortunately, such groups are few and far between.

Controlling Crime

Criminal justice has been one of our most innovative social institutions. One recent effort at crime control is based on a study by M. Wolfgang and associates, who studied arrest records of roughly 10,000 males born in Philadelphia in 1945. Seventy percent of serious felonies were attributed to only 6 percent of the sample. This has inspired some law enforcement agencies to develop repeat-offender programs that target chronic offenders for surveillance, apprehension and conviction using special police units. This effort may be accompanied by habitual-offender laws that allow life sentences to be given to repeat offenders (“three strikes and you’re in”).

Supporters of these programs contend that their slightly higher costs result in a significant drop in the crime rate as the most chronic offenders are incapacitated for long periods. Others argue that the sting operations that often accompany chronic-offender programs actually increase crime rates by providing more outlets for stolen or illegal goods. There are also dangers in habitual-offender laws. In particular, they are sometimes applied to amateur criminals who commit a series of minor offenses. Whether such potential injustices can be minimized by fine-tuning the programs is a matter of much debate.

Another recent development involves efforts to revive the biblical concept of restitution. C. Colson and D. Benson contend that under our traditional justice system victims are doubly exploited—first by the criminal offender and second by the additional tax burden that finances expensive correctional programs. Restitution reduces this burden by requiring the offender to compensate the victim for losses. Compensated victims will in turn be more supportive of social policies designed to help offenders reintegrate into the community. Ideally, offenders will identify with their victims’ losses as they suffer a similar loss through providing compensation. If restitution can accomplish these ends, reconciliation between victim and offender, perhaps even between offender and society, might eventually be possible.

Though restitution has a number of advantages, it is difficult to implement because of the low level of job skills and high unemployment rates among the vast majority of offenders. Given these limitations, the use of restitution and other similar innovations (for example, work release) is not likely to increase significantly until more fundamental changes occur in our economic system.

In general, sociological theories suggest that prospects for reducing the overall crime rate through alterations limited to criminal justice itself are meager. Crime seems to be primarily a product of at least three trends:

1. The importance of materialism in a period when differentials in wealth and income seem to be increasing. Youth from economically disadvantaged families typically lack opportunities to acquire the educational skills needed to compete successfully in the job market. Thus poverty is easily transferred from one generation to the next.

2. The decreased effectiveness of traditional agents of social control. An increasing breakdown of family life and the transient character of most urban areas are weakening major bonds of attachment that serve to deter crime.

3. A growing emphasis on value pluralism that threatens the moral climate necessary for a free society. Key institutions, such as education and the media, fail to take responsibility for promoting such a climate in the name of “value neutrality” and “adult realism.”

It is easy to become pessimistic concerning the prospects for crime control when we consider what would be required to reverse such trends. We might, for example, try to deemphasize affluence as a social value so that deprivations felt by the poorer segments of American society would be less extreme. However, this is a difficult task at best given an economic system whose well-being is dependent on a continually expanding market. Any realistic efforts to deemphasize materialism, such as controls on media advertising, would meet strong opposition from the “powers” of our age (Ephes. 6:12).

Still, there are many ways to ameliorate the crime problem. Families need to create stronger bonds of attachment with children as the basis for consistent, loving discipline. Churches can increase their efforts to strengthen and support the family by providing affordable daycare centers for single working mothers along with various youth activities that emphasize values as well as recreation. Corporations can indirectly support the family by allowing workers more options with regard to part-time employment, family leave and telecommuting. They can also promote employment policies that do not discriminate against ex-offenders.

In general, American society needs to strike a better balance between punishment for criminal offenders and their reintegration into the community. While Scripture recognizes a need for punishment in order to control human lawlessness (1 Peter 2:14), it also recognizes the need to forgive and restore the penitent (Luke 17:3-4; 2 Cor. 2:5-10; Galatians 6:1). For all our talk about being “too soft on crime,” in the final analysis our major problem may be that we are not soft enough. Certainly the message of the cross assures us that God’s program for human redemption is designed not to condemn but to reconcile and restore (Luke 1:49-55; Hebrews 12:5-11). Out of thanksgiving for our own redemption, and guided by a faith that this promise will one day be fulfilled, let us seek to become instruments through which the vision can begin to become a present reality.

» See also: Drugs

» See also: Justice

» See also: Law

» See also: Law Enforcement

» See also: Poverty

» See also: Unemployment

References and Resources

C. Colson and D. Benson, “Restitution as an Alternative to Imprisonment,” Detroit College of Law Review 6 (1980) 523-98; J. Conklin, Criminology (5th ed.; Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1995); D. Cressey, “Changing Criminals: The Application of the Theory of Differential Association,” American Journal of Sociology 61 (1955) 116-20; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 1993: Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing House, 1994); T. Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969); R. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (enl. ed.; New York: Free Press, 1968); M. Wolfgang et al., Delinquency in a Birth Cohort (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972).

—Donald Gray

Crowds

In their attraction to so-called newsworthy events, modern mass media have heightened our awareness of crowds and their unpredictable behavior. Mass fights at soccer matches, demonstrations that turn violent and riots in urban areas are some of the many contemporary examples of crowds gone out of control. But crowds are not a strictly modern phenomenon. They were instrumental in the events surrounding the birth of the New Testament church. Jesus viewed the crowds to whom he ministered as “sheep without a shepherd” (Matthew 9:36). The Pharisees manipulated the fickle crowds in Jerusalem to coerce Pilate to crucify Jesus (Matthew 27:20). Pentecost was also a crowd event, chosen by the Spirit as an occasion for the first public declaration of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 2). Crowds have played an important role in religious revivals throughout church history.

A crowd is simply a gathering of people whose attention is temporarily focused on a shared concern. Gustave LeBon believed that crowds possess a common mind and are highly emotional and irrational. In this state, the veneer of civilized restraints is easily peeled away, exposing our baser natures and creating a situation in which radical impulses are highly contagious. In reality, most crowds are peaceful and rational. Yet crowds exhibit a capacity for suggestibility that is very understandable when one grasps the essentials of how they differ from other social groupings.

Most permanent groups that interact face to face are small and tend to develop a rich variety of behavioral controls. Crowds are usually large, and this seems to create a critical mass of emotionality, especially when certain highly charged events that are either tragic (someone is killed) or joyful (your team wins) occur. Crowds also lack the density of restraints prevalent in other gatherings. Crowd members usually have not developed common expectations regarding behavior, except perhaps for vague notions of politeness and self-restraint. These weak norms are easily overwhelmed by the press of events. It is not difficult to see how crowds are easily provoked, swayed and manipulated.

H. Blumer has identified several types of crowds. Conventional crowds, such as concert audiences, are typically restrained because the events they experience are preplanned and include mechanisms (formal and latent) for crowd management. They can become expressive crowds when emotions are aroused, resulting in unrestrained behavior that can take a destructive turn. Charismatic figures such as rock stars may generate the necessary spark. Most dangerous is the acting crowd, which has a goal beyond just celebrating the moment. Demonstrations of various types fall into this category. These can become violent when an extreme sense of urgency emerges or when the goals of the demonstration are denounced or threatened. Sometimes the ensuing events belie the values of the demonstrators, as when peace advocates throw rocks at police or a prolife sit-in results in the murder of a prochoice physician.

Christians who feel called to profess their faith through mass demonstrations need to be aware of the pitfalls of crowd behavior. Chances that these events will proceed “in a fitting and orderly way” (1 Cor. 14:40) are maximized when organizers provide appropriate training for volunteers, screen out highly volatile elements, give sufficient attention to details and contingencies in planning, and cooperate with management efforts by public officials. In our times, such precautions might even be considered as an extension of our spiritual armor (Ephes. 6:11).

» See also: Civil Disobedience

» See also: Civility

» See also: Public Spaces

» See also: Sports

References and Resources

H. Blumer, “Collective Behavior,” in Principles of Sociology, ed. A. M. Lee (3d ed.; New York: Barnes & Noble, 1969) 65-121; G. LeBon, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (New York: Viking, 1976).

—Donald Gray

Culture

Culture in the broadest sense is everything that people do with creation. It refers to the little worlds we make (through our own creativity in work, play and daily relationships) out of God’s creation. That broad sense of the word is almost too big to think about, but it overarches two other more common and restricted meanings.

High, Folk and Popular Culture

One of those other meanings is expressed in the term high culture. It is implied when we refer to going to the symphony as “taking in a little culture” or when we describe someone as “refined and cultured.” High culture describes the most honored of the works and ways of a civilization, the sorts of things we enshrine today in concert halls and art galleries, or promote through liberal arts education.

The other way we use the word culture is to describe all of the unique patterns of behavior of a particular people or society. We say that an American living in China for a year is likely to experience “culture shock” until becoming adjusted or “enculturated”; we speak of the value of preserving local cultures, and so forth. Culture in this sense refers not to the works of specialized producers of high culture (musicians, poets, painters, actors) but to the unique flavor of a particular people’s way of life. Often this other meaning of culture is called folk culture.

So we would seem to be left with a clear distinction: folk culture refers to what everyone does simply by being human; high culture refers to what a relatively small number of practitioners—with unusual talent—produce for the enlightenment or entertainment of the rest. And popular culture is something midway between high and folk though overlapping with both.

But that distinction between high culture and folk culture breaks down after a little reflection. It is the product of a relatively recent tendency to fragment and specialize. Today we think of Shakespeare’s plays as high culture, but in Queen Elizabeth’s time they were also popular culture, appreciated by aristocrat and beggar alike. To go further back, today we regard the everyday product of a primitive people—say a decorated bowl or a woven carpet—as high culture and place it in a museum as an object for contemplation. For our own bowls and carpets, we buy mass-produced utilitarian items that seem to have little of culture about them. When we want culture we go to the museum.

In the same way music—which once was a part of everyone’s life—has become the specialized work of a few. When we want music we go to a concert or (much more often) turn on the radio or play a tape or CD. (Christian worship is a notable exception. Church is almost the only place in our society where large numbers of average people make music together. But even that communal music-making is sometimes threatened by a tendency to regard church as a religious high-culture concert and, more recently, by the ease with which we can replace live singers and players with a taped “track.”)

Much of what we today think of as high culture is, therefore, either the result of everyday works of skill and creativity taken from their place in normal life and elevated as objects of contemplation—or else the work of specialized practitioners of “culture” who are isolated from, and in some tension with, the needs and tastes of the cross-section of people who (a few centuries ago) would all have appreciated a play by Shakespeare.

So although it is a good thing to admire, enjoy and learn from the high points of culture, a Christian reflection on culture must begin much closer to home. Culture is neither the high culture of an educated elite nor the folk idiosyncrasies of a particular people, but the whole world which we make, as a kind of secondary creation, out of creation.

Of all creatures, human beings are unique in their dependence on this cultural world. To be sure, other animals, and even insects (such as ants, bees and termites), build shelters and environments, even seem to have rudimentary rituals and traditions. But those animal premonitions of culture are dwarfed by the infinitely complex and constantly growing human world. Cooking, clothing, commerce, poetry, pottery, politics, architecture, astronomy, astrology—all of these, both frivolous and essential, are part of culture, and part of our humanity.

Considered from a strictly biological viewpoint, human culture makes up for the fact that human beings seem, physically speaking, curiously fragile and ill-prepared for the world. We lack the built-in protection of fur and feathers; we are not well armed with teeth and claws; we have neither the rabbit’s speed, the wolf’s keen nose, the eagle’s acuity of sight, the spider’s web-building instinct, nor the honeybee’s built-in social organization. As Friedrich Nietzsche observed, man is “the unfinished animal,” required, in a sense, to complete himself in order even to survive. That “completion”—in endless varieties of houses, languages, governments, forms of art and entertainment—is the world of human culture. Its necessity for human life is glaringly evident in the fact that whereas any other creature can function on its own in (at most) a matter of months, human babies require years of patient teaching and learning how to fit into the human world of language, manners, raincoats and street crossings, before they can even survive.

Biblical Perspective on Culture

The biologist considers human nature mainly from the lowest level: what it shares with other organisms. From that viewpoint, culture is simply another of the endless variations allowing an organism to pass on its genes to the next generation. But what happens when we look at culture from the highest level—in light of God’s revelation in Scripture, and in the whole Christian story and tradition?

Christian Scripture does not often speak of culture in itself. This silence should not be surprising; like water to a fish, culture is normally invisible. The human world of near-Eastern culture—and later the culture of the Greco-Roman world in the New Testament—is simply assumed as the setting for the story of God’s works. We should no more expect the Bible to reflect on culture in itself than we would expect it to reflect on Hebrew or Greek vocabulary.

But Scripture is concerned with the story of God’s purposes in creation, the way that human beings have set themselves against those purposes and the way God has provided for bringing us back to them. Since human culture is either a way to further God’s purpose or a way to turn against it, the Bible has much to say about culture. When the cultural worlds we make become idolatrous or, on the other hand, when they further the glory of creation and Creator, the Bible is not silent. In such a setting it is no surprise that culture in itself is sometimes spoken of positively but also, at least as often, negatively. Nor should it be surprising that Christians in different times and situations have tended to stress one set of texts about culture at the expense of another, with the result that the Scriptural ambivalence about culture has manifested itself in a variety of Christian understandings.

The place to start in thinking about the Bible and culture is our place in creation. As important here as the obvious Genesis passages are those places in Scripture where we see a community of people using all its human gifts to worship God. The central clue to the purpose of culture is found as much in psalms like Psalm 148, Psalm 149 and Psalm 150 as in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. For example, Psalm 148 makes clear that a central purpose of all creatures is praise, and all creatures—sun, moon, snow, clouds, mountains, cedars, birds—are told to “praise the Lord.” In this creationly chorus, human beings—kings and nations, young men and maidens, old men and children—are invited to join in with their praise. The place of culture in this is more obvious in the next two psalms: we humans are to “praise God with dancing,” to “make music to him with tambourine and harp.” “Let everything that has breath praise the Lord,” writes the psalmist, and he is explicit about many of the works of human culture—dance, song, harp, lyre, trumpet, cymbals, flute, strings.

Gerard Manley Hopkins, a nineteenth-century Catholic poet, reflected eloquently on the unique place human beings have in the creation’s overall task to give God glory.

“The heavens declare the glory of God.” They glorify God. But they do not know it. The birds sing to him, the thunder speaks of his terror, the lion is like his strength, the sea is like his greatness, the honey like his sweetness . . . but they do not know they do, they do not know him, they never can. . . . This then is poor praise, faint reverence, slight service, dull glory. Nevertheless, what they can do they always do. (Sermons, p. 239)

Human beings, though, says Hopkins, are different. They have a choice. They can praise God with their God-given selves or choose not to. “Man was made to give, and meant to give, God glory.” This “meaning to give God glory” is a uniquely human task and privilege, and it is the ideal of human culture: a world of governments, music, families, farms and cities which amplifies and articulates, through human will and purpose, creation’s thanks to the Creator.

A great deal of Christian thinking about culture has been rooted in this ideal, as it appears in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In Genesis 1 the act of creation is described in its variety and goodness. Then humans, “male and female,” are created “in the image of God” and given a task. In Genesis 1 that task is described with the words rule and subdue. They are harsh words, and they leave no doubt about the high place humans have in creation: we have the job of making a world out of God’s earth. In the Reformed tradition this job has often been called “the cultural mandate,” the basic agenda for human civilization.

Others (both within and without the Christian faith) have noted the deadly ease with which we interpret rule and subdue into enslave and exploit. The culturing, world-making powers which we have been given are, in sinful people, all too likely to be used to build up our own little kingdoms at the expense of all people and things outside them.

So it is important to understand the cultural mandate in terms not only of Genesis 1 but of Genesis 2 as well. Here God the Creator is described not only as the transcendent Voice but also as the immanent and involved One, molding the human being (Adam) from the dust of the earth (adamah), that is, getting his hands dirty in creation. Out of this different picture of God’s involvement with creation comes a different picture of human culture. Adam is placed in Eden to “keep” the Garden and to “care for” it (the Hebrew word also means “serve”). Whatever “rule” and “dominion” implies in Genesis 1 for the cultural mandate, it must be compatible with this “care” and “keeping” in Genesis 2.

The first cultural task which human beings were given was thus gardening. And gardening—nurturing other creatures with care and wisdom into their fullest flower and fruit—is perhaps the best metaphor for culture. But we are called to garden not only plants and animals but all things. (The word culture after all is also used to describe the skill of making things grow, a connection which still remains in “agriculture.”)

These are only hints. They are spelled out more in the only job we see the unfallen Adam do, naming the creatures. God the Creator watches Adam with divine curiosity “to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.” Naming is basic to culture. It is not mere labeling, but rather involves a sympathetic understanding, so that the human word becomes a kind of articulation of what the creature is. Human naming gives a voice to other creatures and thus is a kind of model for culture at large. Naming, language, lies at the foundation of both science and art.

Yet the human story is of sin. All too often our culturing is dominion only—for our sake, not for the sake of the garden, whether that “garden” be spouse, friend or forest.

Differing Christian Attitudes to Culture

So the history of human culture and of Christian thinking about it is a complex and checkered affair. A classic study of the attitudes toward culture is Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture. He lays out various ways Christians have thought about culture that are helpful in understanding where we have come from. Roughly, these are listed below in the order in which they have gained prominence historically; but each has been present in every age, and each (Niebuhr suggests) can be supported by Scripture and can tell us something about how we ought to be in the world.

The rejection of culture. From the beginning there have been those who have felt the radical difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. We are called, they say, to “come out from among them and be separate” and to “love not the world, neither what is in the world.” Out of this attitude of radical separation have come, over the centuries, a variety of Christian traditions. The early church was deeply aware that its loyalty was to Christ, not Caesar, and refusal to bow to the might of Roman culture—and its prime symbol, the emperor—drew many Christians to a martyr’s death. Later, the monastic tradition led many to turn their back on a corrupt and decaying culture and to seek a life of prayer or service. After the Reformation, many Christians felt that the Reformers had not gone far enough, had failed to recognize the degree to which the church was still an arm of government. They rejected the idea that all people in a nation were Christians simply by virtue of their baptism and argued for an adult baptism as a symbol of withdrawal from a culture which forced people into sin—such as service in the military. Their emphasis was on forming separate communities as witnesses to the “New Way,” the gospel.

This Mennonite or Anabaptist tradition continues to have great appeal, although it is increasingly difficult to maintain a total separation from the surrounding culture. A more widespread tendency has been to regard certain cultural practices—dancing, movies, drinking, card-playing (the forbidden activities have varied from century to century)—as symbolic of the world, and loyalty to Christ has been equated with refraining from those activities.

When we look at the whole biblical story, it seems clear that a rich cultural life in a real world—of families, governments, farming, feasting, storytelling, music and dance—is never rejected. It is assumed to be the substance of holiness, not its opposite. In his letter to Titus (Titus 2:11-14), Paul writes that “the grace of God that brings salvation . . . teaches us to say no.” But the “no” is not to life in the world; it is rather to ungodliness and worldly passions. We are advised instead “to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age,” lives which must clearly be involved in culture.

The uncritical acceptance of culture. In the fourth century a.d. the emperor Constantine became a convert to Christianity. Almost overnight it became fashionable to be a Christian. In the chaotic centuries that followed, as the political might of the Roman Empire declined, the church increasingly became the guarantor and preserver of culture. Baptism in infancy became admission into the culture as much as into the church. This close alliance between Christian faith and a particular culture, though it has taken different forms, has continued up to the present, often with tragic consequences. Sometimes it has been used to justify “holy” wars, in which both sides of a conflict assumed that in advancing a country’s cause they were advancing the cause of Christ. In a different way, this sort of cultural Christianity has sometimes hampered the spread of the gospel. Christians from one culture have been so at home in their own culture—and so repulsed by the strangeness of other cultures—that they have assumed a correlation between accepting the gospel and accepting the host culture. (Fortunately, all over the world the gospel has proven to be greater than those who brought it, so Christian faith has never been exclusively associated with one particular culture.)

Despite its general assumption that we can live godly lives within in the broader culture, the Bible speaks often of the need to be in some tension with that culture. Thus Paul exhorts the Romans (at the center of the world’s great empires): “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2). Neither rejection nor affirmation, therefore, seems to be the model for the Christian’s life in culture, but some kind of necessary tension.

The gospel as completion of a culture. One of the ways Christians have lived in the tension between faith and culture has been to acknowledge that human culture, good and necessary as it is, always falls short of God’s purposes for people. Culture must thus be completed and fulfilled by God’s special work. Or, as it is often put in Catholic thought, grace must fulfill nature. Thus in Dante’s great medieval allegory The Divine Comedy, Virgil—a pagan, pre-Christian Roman poet—becomes the protagonist’s guide through hell and purgatory. A symbolic representation of all that is best in human culture, he is a completely adequate guide to the soul’s experience of sin. But when the travelers come to the threshold of heaven, Virgil—human culture—can go no further. He commits Dante to a new guide, Beatrice, who symbolizes God’s grace and revelation. Yet it is Virgil (all that is best in culture) who has led the questing soul to salvation (which always comes from God, not culture).

Appealing as this picture is, it encourages an unbiblical separation between the sacred and the profane. The biblical pattern seems to be that nothing is too high or spiritual to be perverted by sin, and nothing is too low, human or earthly to be transformed by grace. God’s grace always works through and in culture, not beyond it. Jesus was fully God and fully human, not just a good sample of humanity to be perfected by the addition of the divine. In the same way, the problem is not that culture falls short of God; it is rather that humans fail to respond to God within their cultures.

The gospel in tension with culture. Another of the ways that Christians have reponded to the tension between Christianity and culture is to see it as an inescapable consequence of the betweenness of our condition. As Christians, we are citizens of God’s kingdom, yet in our humanity we necessarily participate with everyone else in the institutions required for a fallen culture. As citizens of the kingdom of God we should not kill; however, as citizens of the state we might sometimes be required to take life—in defense of the life of others, for example, or in the carrying out of justice. Likewise, Christians in government (whether vocationally, or simply as voters) might often be called on to make compromises, for the good of civil society, which are a step below what they would expect in God’s perfect order. Voters might inadvertently support the right of divorce or abortion, even though such practices clearly go against God’s intentions for us. This approach has often been associated with Martin Luther, whose vision both of God’s grace and of our fallen condition led him to say “sin boldly” in such compromised situations and depend on God’s grace for forgiveness.

The idea appears again in the critique of culture developed by Jacques Ellul. In The Meaning of the City Ellul points out that “the first city-builder was Cain” (p. 1). Cities, perhaps the quintessence of human culture, have thus from the beginning (argues Ellul) been a sinful human response to God. We would rather live in our world (the city) than in God’s world (Eden). Every aspect of human culture is shot through with our rebellion and sinfulness. Culture always becomes an attempt to live without God. Yet in God’s sight it is always worthless. This is nowhere more obvious than in trying to come to terms with modern life, in which we seem to have little choice but to participate—through a worldwide market, through pervasive media—in things which often seem less than the best for creation.

This picture of inescapable compromise does often seem to describe much of our situation. But it still falls short of the biblical ideal. Forgiveness in Christ, not perfection on our own, is our hope. But that forgiveness is presented as the basis for a life of holiness which ought to reach out into the culture, transforming it, not simply accepting it. Here the great words of the prophets remind us that God’s concern is with the redemption of cultures and their practices as well as with individuals. In the context of a corrupt culture—whose corruption was spoken of as the improper use of markets and courts—God declares (rejecting the superficial “solemn assemblies” of a culturally separate religion): “Let justice roll on like a river, and righteousness like a never-failing stream.” Immersed as we all are in fallen cultures, we nevertheless are to work to change their unrighteousness, not merely submit to it. Though there is indeed a paradox between God’s grace and our works, it is not the paradox expressed in the attitude behind Luther’s “sin boldly.” It is rather the paradox of Phil. 2:12-13: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.”

The Transformation or Renewal of Culture

Each of these attitudes expresses some truth about our condition, but each falls short of the biblical picture of culture as outlined above. That biblical understanding of culture is richer than any of them. Perhaps it is best caught in the idea of transformation or renewal. The pattern of salvation is not the rejection of creation—and the cultural worlds we make from it—but rather their restoration. God’s purposes in world-making men and women are restored, and through them, his purposes for the whole creation. It is not only individuals who are to be “made new.” That personal renewal in Christ makes changes in the culture as well. This is the force of Jesus’ words about being salt preserving the whole lump—or light illuminating all around. Likewise Isaiah speaks of personal righteousness reaching out into cultural healing, promising that God’s people would “rebuild the ancient ruins and will raise up the age-old foundations” and “be called Repairer of Broken Walls, Restorer of Streets with Dwellings” (Isaiah 58:12).

In our time it is all too easy to drift with a sinful, consumerist culture. Much in that culture is wicked and will pass away. Consider the lament over culture described by John at the passing of the greatest of human cities—clearly a symbol of certain aspects of human culture: “Woe! Woe, O great city . . . the music of harpists and musicians, flute players and trumpeters, will never be heard in you again. No workman of any trade will ever be found in you again. . . . Your merchants were the world’s great men. By your magic spell all the nations were led astray” (Rev. 18:19-23).

But will all of human culture thus be thrown down and lost? No. For in John’s vision of the city of God there is still an open door to human culture: “The glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. . . .The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it” (Rev. 21:23-26).

Two things stand out in this picture of the heavenly city. The first is that it is centered on Christ, the slain Lamb of God; it is not a monument to any human cultural greatness, collective or individual. The second is that it is full of the best of human culture: the “splendor of the kings” and the “honor of the nations.” Thus we may conclude that the “new creation” in Christ does not exclude the worlds of human culture.

Conclusion

What does all this mean for our day-to-day life? Two principles stand out. The first is that our cultural worlds can indeed be “worldly” in the old ungodly sense, and we should not “let the world squeeze us into its mold.” But the second is that we are redeemed for work in the world—in the words of the prophet, “to rebuild the ancient ruins” and “raise up the age-old foundations.” Our strength in this is God’s gift: “The Lord will guide you always; he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land. . . . You will be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail” (Isaiah 58:11).

Watered by the inexhaustible spring of our Creator and Redeemer, we can, in humility, pain and joy, go about our infinitely varied tasks of “gardening” God’s earth into human worlds.

References and Resources

R. Banks, God the Worker: Journeys into the Mind, Heart and Imagination of God (Valley Forge, Penn.: Judson, 1994); R. F. Capon, An Offering of Uncles: The Priesthood of Adam and the Shape of the World (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967); C. Dawson, The Historic Reality of Christian Culture: A Way to the Renewal of Human Life (New York: Harper & Row, 1960); J. Ellul, The Meaning of the City (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970); H. R. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper, 1956); J. Pieper, Leisure, the Basis of Culture (New York: Mentor, 1963); B. J. Walsh and J. R. Middleton, The Transforming Vision (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1984).

—Loren Wilkinson

Dating

A recent article in a Canadian magazine entitled “Is Dating Dead?” observed that dating has surely changed. In the Western world a person tries a succession of sexual partners prior to cohabiting. Understandably some refuse to use the word dating at all, preferring instead such an innocuous phrase as “going out.” Even “having a relationship” unfortunately now connotes a sexual liaison. The much older English words courting and wooing—similar in meaning to the terms “speak to the heart” and “allure” found in the Hebrew Bible (see Isaiah 40:2; Hosea 2:14)—suggest the sensitive persuasion with which a man will plead to a woman’s heart for her hand in marriage, thus raising the crucial question of whether dating and mating should themselves be married!

Must dating be practiced with a view to finding a suitable marriage partner? Should Christians participate in recreational romance or romantic networking—whether or not one has any interest in or calling to marriage? Can dating be a ministry to not-yet Christians, a form of romantic evangelism? Should dating be restricted to finding a spouse? Is there a place in dating for relationship enhancement, the enjoyment of other persons, a form of neighbor love without marriage in view? Is there an explicitly Christian approach to dating? Is there a place for dating after one is married? Are there initiatives a person can take, specifically if one is female, when no dating prospects seem to be on the horizon?

Dating Through the Ages

All cultures have found ways of allowing people to meet members of the opposite sex with a view to finding a suitable marriage partner, though in most cases these have been tightly controlled by social taboos, such as “no dating without the presence of a chaperon,” and in others there simply was no opportunity for relational experimenting. In most ancient societies marriages were arranged by parents, and there was virtually no social contact prior to engagement (except through observation in village life or shared survival activities) and no sexual contact until marriage.

In some cultures today it is assumed that a man or woman cannot be alone together without having sexual intercourse. So the arranged marriage survives in a few places, and where there is wisdom exercised by parents, family and friends, this system may be preferred to the romantic networking of the Western world, which is usually focused on falling in love or infatuation—a phenomenon that is actually a temporary derangement. The Christian church has penetrated and transformed various cultures all over the world, but where it has brought the Christian view of marriage, it has not always eliminated the system of arranged marriages. Sometimes the church has transformed the system. But one thing Christianity has always brought is the requirement of consent, which is based on theological reasons relating to God’s covenant with God’s people. No covenant can be formed without the willing heart agreement of the bride and groom—hence the questions asked in a Christian marriage ceremony (“Do you take this man to be . . .”). Consent is implicit in making promises and vows.

Some African tribes offered socially acceptable ways for young people to explore relationships with the opposite sex by permitting limited sexual affection in a very controlled situation, especially for couples that were predisposed to marry each other. This was not unlike the bundling or binding (in bed for an exploratory night together with a physical barrier between!) practiced by some Christian sects until quite recently. Festivals and harvest celebrations were natural contexts in which people in agrarian societies would experimentally explore special relationships with others of marriageable age, sometimes indicating interest through socially learned signals such as making repeated eye contact.

The older systems could assume a stable social network of families, clans, tribes and peoples in which the parents and the children knew each other. A young man and young woman would observe each other at work, home and community activities over years. This prolonged exposure cannot easily be accomplished in the modern city, especially in a mobile society (see Mobility). In fact, there is no possibility for prolonged exposure in most of the world, careening as it is toward global urbanization. Only a disciplined approach to the modern dating system can replicate the advantage of long-term relationships in the same social network.

Jewish Betrothal

The Jewish system at the time of Jesus did not allow for anything that could be called dating. There was simply betrothal—the arrangement, much more than the modern engagement, by which two people were pledged in troth to each other. Through the betrothal ceremony the couple formally belonged, so much so that betrothal could be broken only by divorce (as the case of Mary and Joseph in Matthew 1:19 poignantly illustrates). Betrothal was presexual marriage—covenant without covenant consummation—tion—and therefore Scripture views betrothal as an illuminating analogy for our relationship with Christ as we wait for his Second Coming when we will “know” as we are now known (1 Cor. 13:12; 2 Cor. 11:2). Until then we belong unconditionally, but we do not have full union.

In the Jewish context betrothal might last for up to a year and was concluded with the wedding feast, sometimes lasting a week, during which the couple would consummate the relationship. Both virginity before marriage (Deut. 22:13-21) and regular intercourse within marriage were assumed. Indeed the Jewish Mishnah, the textbook on Jewish life, regulated for how long a man might withhold sexual affection from his wife for the purpose of studying Scripture or because of work pressures (an interesting reversal of what is stereotypically thought to be the politics of the matter). A man may withhold sex for up to three months if he is a camel driver traveling on long safaris but must engage in it every day if he is unemployed (Ketubot 5:6-7)!

Remarkably, the apostle Paul taught full mutuality of sexual pleasure, full mutuality of bodily “ownership” and full mutuality of decision-making on when refraining might be appropriate. Paul relegated the matter to an occasional and brief time of sexual fasting for purposes of prayer (1 Cor. 7:1-7; Stevens 1989, pp. 107-17). The New Testament assumes the Jewish approach, at least in areas where Jewish Christians predominated, though it is obvious from Paul’s correspondence that the church was forging new patterns in the Gentile world, where sexual permissiveness and relational promiscuity were the norm, hence the strong teaching of 1 Cor. 6:12-7:40.

North American and Western Dating

Except in the baths and brothels of the ancient world, and the privileged courtly life of the rich in Europe in recent centuries (from which we have the pejorative term courtesan), there has never been a dating system like the modern Western one. At the same time there has never been a more fragile marriage system than the modern Western one. Indeed, researchers on family life suggest that the greatest problem in North American marriage may well be North American courtship, that is, the dating system (Sell). From the earliest age children are taught and socialized to prepare for an extended period of relational experimentation in which each presents his or her best self to potential girlfriends or boyfriends and marriage partners. Long before dating became industrialized through dating services, escort services, voice mail and newspaper advertisements, an entire industry supported this social expectation through providing dress (see Adornment), cosmetics, mass media (especially Hollywood movies) and endless environments in which to meet people such as singles bars. Obviously the system favors the young, the wealthy and the outward-going personality who thrives on entrepreneurial challenges and enjoys networking, but even they are not served well by a system that does not encourage honest self-disclosure and true friendship.

Dating, as currently practiced, is a staged play in which each person presents his or her outer “ideal” self (he, a macho male; she, a gorgeous doll) to the other. Inside, both he and she are insecure and weak, but they each see in the other the external image of what they have always wanted in a friend/partner of the opposite sex. They fall in love, that delightful derangement in which judgment is suspended and people live in a dream world of ecstasy. Some research suggests that this delightful derangement is supported by natural drugs and hormones in the body, though eventually the chemical balance of the body is restored. Without revealing their private selves, couples become entangled sexually sometimes as early as the second or third night, believing that touch, feel and fondle are quick ways to intimacy, whereas in reality the conversation they have shut down would better serve the purposes of intimacy.

This romantic relationship is promoted in ideal circumstances—restaurants, theaters, hotels, leisure spots—with scant exposure to one’s family or workplace and with rare openness to being seen without being made up, dressed up and presentable. Psychologists call this a collective defense mechanism. This period often lasts for as long as two years. If two people marry at this point, they are doomed to disillusionment, as when he (in his insecure private self) realizes he has married not a Barbie doll but another insecure person who is also swapping an empty bowl and saying, “Please fill up my emptiness.” Couples often divorce at this point, at the very moment when they could get married at a deeper level and when sensitive counseling (see Counseling, Lay) could serve them well. If they are cohabiting or just spending weekends together in each other’s apartments, they will probably move on to another “ideal” relationship and fall in (and out) of love once again.

Can Dating Be Redeemed?

It is my conviction that both the arranged-marriage system and the dating system can be redeemed. People have found suitable partners and made lifelong companionship covenants through private arrangements. My wife and I have assisted some young people to start a relationship that could lead to marriage. We also know of people who have found very suitable partners by anonymous, computerized dating services (we also know of Christian couples who have found very suitable partners by this means). In the same way the dating system can be redeemed, but this will require deep and costly measures. Christians are not exempt from the need to rethink and relearn dating from a Christian perspective.

Shrinking from the to-bed-the-first-night culture, and sometimes reacting to a promiscuous past, some Christians refuse to date at all. In its place they enjoy fellowship and pursue ministry with people of the opposite sex, all the while praying that God will deliver that one special person in the world who is God’s choice. Some of this amounts to group dating in a work context and has the advantage of mutual exposure to others in contexts that are not idealized. There are, however, severe drawbacks, especially since any resulting relationship can be founded exclusively on mutual interest in Christian service and is not a well-rounded friendship.

The advice not to marry until you find someone with whom you can better serve God together as married rather than as single people is problematic and probably dangerous. Marriage is for companionship (Genesis 2:18), not to get God’s work done on earth. Further, many Christians think that if they pray, God will magically deliver a spouse from heaven. But in reality there are only two ways to get married: have an arranged marriage (someone else does the arranging) or arrange one yourself! God can work through both, and the church has a crucial role to play in both.

What the Church Can Do

Arranging marriages. Elders and mature couples in a church could sensitively introduce people to each other. Such arrangement must be followed by a period of friendship and mutual self-disclosure in a variety of settings and assumes that a couple will not marry until they are substantially without reservations and are able to give their full consent. Romance will follow and usually does, contrary to the mythology of Hollywood. Marriage does not destroy romance but is the normal garden for its cultivation. As Walter Trobisch once observed, the Western system of marriage is like taking a hot bowl of porridge and letting it cool down on the table, while the arranged-marriage system is more like putting a pot of porridge on the stove to cook and turning up the heat (p. 56).

Arrangement is implicit, or at least envisioned as a possibility, in the promises and vows that ask “Will you love . . . ?” not “Do you love . . . ?” Arrangement is also consistent with the view of marriage as a vocation or calling. On this point Ray Anderson and Dennis Guernsey make an insightful observation:

What we discover—almost, as it were by accident—in selecting a mate and in being selected is that God also participates in this selection by virtue of election. This is why the marriage vow is not itself capable of sustaining the relationship as an expression of human wisdom (I made the right choice) or of human endurance (I made the wrong choice, but I will see it through to the end). The marriage vow can only be a sign of the covenant, and those who make the vow can find lasting joy and love only in being covenant partners—receiving each other as God’s elect. (p. 43)

Two biblical examples of such arrangement are Abraham’s servant finding a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24) and Naomi’s guiding Ruth to take the initiative with Boaz (Ruth 3:1-6), though Ruth may be one of the few biblical examples of a woman who took an initiative in finding a marriage partner (Stevens 1990, p. 32).

One point to note in passing is that psychologists now say that in one sense all of us have marriages arranged by our parents, since our families of origin to a large extent determine whom we choose to date and marry, even in a healthy home and especially in one that encourages fusion and codependence (see Family Systems). The process of leaving one’s father and mother (Genesis 2:24), which is so crucial to cleaving and becoming one flesh, turns out to be a lifelong process rather than a single wedding event.

Developing a congregational dating and mating ministry. As well as offering sensitively and confidentially to make some matches, leaders in the church can teach and model a family style of dating by encouraging kinship relationships in the church and the development of significant friendships in the context of service. Couples can open their homes to young adults to let them discover models of marriage other than ones in their families of origin. An environment can be created in which young adults can meet one another in the context of hospitality, perhaps even through a spiritual friendship weekend. The church should offer seminars on sexuality to help people cope constructively with the sexual pollution of our culture.

As members of the church, we can encourage group dating to take the pressure off one-to-one pairing. We can encourage people to seek pre-engagement counseling with trusted older people in the Lord’s family to discern the marriageability of the relationship (this is generally a more teachable moment than after the the engagement is announced and the wedding date is set). We can teach biblical love and help people learn how to love one another with all the languages of love (from practical caring to verbal affirmation). We can empower laypeople to be involved in marriage ministry by linking mature married couples with engaged couples to do marriage preparation in the context of a home. Above all we can work in the church to develop covenantal relationships, a for-better-or-worse type of church membership that is implicit in house churches (see Church in the Home) and small groups, and so to communicate and foster covenant formation in marriages. We should not yield to the tendency in the Western world to reduce church life (and the marriages within that church) to a contract basis amounting to an exchange of goods and services for pay by agreed-upon terms. If the church can prayerfully assist in the redemption of the arranged-marriage system, it can also minister toward the redemption of the dating system.

Arranging Your Own Marriage

For Christians a number of significant strategies are implicit in preparing for marriage and redeeming the dating system: (1) put the Lord’s kingdom first; (2) pray to know God’s will, whether it is to be single or married; (3) develop friendship relationships; (4) make a success of singleness; (5) become a marriageable person by developing the betrothal qualities of Hosea 2:19-20 (Stevens 1990, pp. 47-55); (6) be open to special relationships; (7) build these relationships on social and spiritual friendship, expressing minimal physical affection and avoiding sexual entanglement; (8) keep your ministry priorities but do not regard the building of a relationship as a diversion from ministry or the spiritual life; (9) go out for a long time, preferably one to three years, spending as much time as possible in the home and family of your friend; (10) seek the counsel of mature believers and your parents, who know you better than most others; (11) speak your heart to your beloved; (12) wait for marriage for intimate sexual expression, but prepare for it (see Stevens 1990, pp. 63-75). Indeed, this last point may reveal the need for sexual healing before one can anticipate a life of sexual companionship and mutual sexual enjoyment. While the Bible does not offer specific directions on dating, it does provide a theological context in which to rethink it.

Toward a Theology of Dating

Dating relates to two great theological themes: friendship and marriage. On the latter, dating serves as one, though not the only, way to discover your marriage partner and discern marriage readiness in both yourself and your friend. Therefore all the following theological dimensions of marriage call us to see that dating becomes a relational ministry to the glory of God.

Marriage is part of God’s creational design (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:24); dating, while culturally determined in its present form, is potentially a means of conforming to God’s law written into creation. God’s creational design is leaving, cleaving and one flesh (Genesis 2:24), the experience of which led to the first hymn of praise in the Bible (Genesis 2:23). Dating one’s marriage partner after marriage can strengthen the cleaving and continue, albeit in a more mature and changed way, the romance that is meant to be lifelong. Because of the exclusivity of the marriage covenant, datinglike relationships with persons other than one’s spouse are highly problematic, dangerous and usually an offense to the covenant.

Sexuality—and its call to relationality, complementarity and community—is part of what it means to be made in the image of God. Dating can be a way of experiencing Godlikeness—though not, of course, by experimenting with full marriage sexual communication. Each person dated is potentially someone else’s marriage partner, so one must behave in a way that will not mark that person as one’s spouse. Even an engagement can be broken.

Marriage is “Christian” through conformity to God’s plan and intention in marriage (Genesis 2:24; Hosea 1-14; Malachi 2:14; Matthew 19:1-12), not simply because of the presence of two Christians or a church wedding; dating must be understood covenantally as a progressive preparation for covenant making and covenant filling. Marriage is an exclusive lifelong covenant in which there is total sharing of one’s life; dating someone without faith is therefore highly problematic (though divinely ordained exceptions exist). A Christian should marry a person of the same faith (see 2 Cor. 6:14-18, though it was originally written about a different subject).

Marriage has gone through the Fall; people in dating relationships will struggle with the tendency of men to rule and control and of women to revolt or comply, neither of which is a good basis for marriage. Under the new covenant the curse is substantially reversed as Christ empowers couples to live with mutual submission (Ephes. 5:21); couples enjoying a dating relationship will need the continuous infilling of the Spirit in their relationship to learn mutual submission (Ephes. 5:18, 21).

The mystery of covenantal marriage is that God, not the law of the country or the action of a clergyperson, joins a couple together (Matthew 19:6). Couples preparing for marriage through dating are called to reverence, prayerfulness and humility. This raises the question of the spirituality of dating as a preparation for marriage.

Toward a Spirituality of Dating

Because marriage is a parable of Christ and the church (Ephes. 5:32), the experience of unity through difference links us with God and makes sexuality contemplative (Genesis 1:27). Dating therefore is a process of learning to cultivate gratitude for unity through difference.

Marriage is a vocation or calling, an all-embracing investment of ourselves in response to the summons of God that involves realignment of our relationship with parents (leaving), exclusive focusing on one special relationship (cleaving) and a private celebration of the covenant (one flesh). Dating that prepares for this vocation or calling is a process of spiritual discernment about the call and leading of God, not merely a process of making the best choice.

Marriage is a ministry through which the priesthood of all believers becomes actualized in mutual husband-wife ministry and in which we touch God through our spouse (Ephes. 5:21-33). Dating that prepares for marriage will be regarded not as recreational romance but as a form of ministry, even in playing together. Further, all the issues of ministry are raised by marriage and dating: accepting someone else’s spirituality, affirming God’s work, refusing to play God, being interdependent, being spiritual friends (which can happen only between equals), trusting a loved one or friend to God and interceding on behalf of another.

Marriage is a spiritual discipline, not merely an arena in which to practice disciplines. It is so because it invites us Godward by requiring a level of cooperation humanly impossible. Marriage calls us to lay down our life daily for our spouse as to Christ (Ephes. 5:21-33). It constantly proposes that our spirituality has to be down to earth (paying bills, raising a family, trying to say “I love you” and having sex). Marriage raises the question whether we are truly justified by faith and not by works by calling us to enjoy our spouse and not merely work with him or her. It calls us to renounce power and control and to become “equippers” of our spouse through empowerment. Marriage forces us to come to grips with ourselves—a person cannot role-play a marriage for very long—for our spouse is a mirror! Because of all this, dating that prepares for marriage is a school of Christian living.

Dating Without Marriage in View

Earlier I said that even single people should be marriageable people, cultivating those qualities that make for both stability and quality in a marriage covenant: faithfulness, loving loyalty, compassion, justice and righteousness (Hosea 2:19-20). Given the parameters outlined above, namely, that dating must be conducted in such a way that if one does not marry this person, no violation of the person sexually or emotionally would have taken place, then dating need not, in every case, be an active search for a partner. Indeed, some potentially vital friendships are spoiled by the pressure to head in the direction of marriage. Provided that both friends understand well the level of commitment (a very sensitive matter when one is anxious to find a mate), and provided that dating is not used for recreational sex, a series of dating partners may be a valuable way to learn about ourselves, the opposite sex and the ways of our God. As an environment of testing and temptation, especially in the sexual area, dating may even be an arena for the development of the Spirit fruit of self-control, thus inviting, if not encouraging, a maturity that might not come if one were never tested. Dating, like betrothal, can place us in a truly spiritual posture: learning, waiting, expecting and growing toward covenant readiness.

» See also: Cohabiting

» See also: Friendship

» See also: Guidance

» See also: Marriage

» See also: Promises

» See also: Sexuality

» See also: Singleness

References and Resources

R. S. Anderson and D. Guernsey, On Being Family: Essays in a Social Theology of the Family (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985); A. Fryling and R. Fryling, A Handbook for Engaged Couples (2nd ed.; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996); J. Huggett, Dating, Sex and Friendship (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1985); J. H. Olthius, I Pledge You My Troth: A Christian View of Marriage, Family, Friendship (New York: Harper & Row, 1975); C. M. Sell, Family Ministry: The Enrichment of Family Life Through the Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981); R. P. Stevens, Getting Ready for a Great Marriage (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1990); R. P. Stevens, Marriage Spirituality: Ten Disciplines for Couples Who Love God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1989); R. P. Stevens, Married for Good: The Lost Art of Remaining Happily Married (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986); C. M. Sell, Family Ministry: The Enrichment of Family Life Through the Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981); R. P. Stevens and G. Stevens, Marriage: Learning from Couples in Scripture, Fisherman Bible Studies (Wheaton, Ill.: Harold Shaw, 1991); W. Trobisch, I Married You (London: InterVarsity Fellowship, 1971); E. L. Worthington, Counseling Before Marriage (Waco, Tex: Word, 1990); N. Wright, The Premarital Counselling Handbook (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992).

—R. Paul Stevens

Daydreaming

Dreaming is a normal part of life, even for those who cannot remember their dreams. Much has been written about this. Daydreaming is an equally familiar part of life, but only in the twentieth century and particularly in this generation has it received serious attention. A working definition of daydreaming is that it is a shift of attention or wandering of the mind from ongoing tasks that takes up past memories, present wishes or fears, and future plans or fantasies. Though daydreams can be momentary or last over a minute, their average length is about fifteen seconds, and they occur frequently through the day.

In our society daydreaming is generally frowned upon. Such an attitude goes back to Plato and was reinforced by Freud. Parents regard it as a diversion from more practical and helpful activities. Teachers view it as a distraction from the business of learning and may take disciplinary action. Employers consider it a waste of time and, if it happens too often, as a basis for dismissal. Though daydreaming is often thought to be evidence of dysfunction or as an expression of the unconscious, there is no hard evidence to support either view. Psychologically healthy people daydream as much as, sometimes more than, others, and daydreams seem to be triggered mainly by what is just below the surface of our minds, for example, unmet goals or strong emotions, rather than by the stirrings of our unconscious.

Daydreams usually occur when we have little to do, when little effort is required, when little is at stake, and when we have little interest in what is happening (see Boredom). They often correlate with the ninety-minute rhythms that affect our bodies throughout the day. Various types of content appear in daydreams: for example, personal aspirations deriving from activities during the day; scenarios of reversal, rehearsal or rationalization; planning goals or possibilities. Highly fanciful or sexual daydreams, or strongly anxious ones, account for only about 5 percent of all daydreams.

To some extent the content of daydreams seems to vary according to gender, disposition and personality type. For example, men engage in more achievement or fear-of-failure, and more past-oriented, daydreams than women, worriers report more negative daydreams than those who are less anxious, and narcissistic subjects experienced more heroic and hostile, self-revelatory and future-oriented daydreams than others. As for the frequency of daydreaming, there is evidence that children who have more isolated upbringings and children of parents who put value on this activity daydream more than others.

Some daydreaming is unhelpful, distracting and time-wasting. A recent survey showed that both men and women fantasize—in extreme cases several times daily—about potential sexual partners, impossible job promotions or payback responses to people who have wronged them. Some argue that daydreaming of this kind is better than engaging in the actions imagined and makes it less likely that anything will be done about them. Others argue that people who have a very low esteem may through daydreaming gain confidence to undertake simple, affirming actions such as inviting someone on a date, asking for a raise or challenging some injustice. Still others suggest that fantasizing in the ways suggested is nothing more than a form of play. While there is some truth in each of these approaches, daydreaming can sometimes be harmful. If its objects are primarily lustful, covetous or vindictive, it may harden or increase a person’s attitudes in any of those directions. If it is engaged in too frequently or in an undisciplined way, it might establish unhealthy patterns of disengaging from reality.

Yet this activity also has its more positive side. Apart from sometimes putting us in a more relaxed mood, daydreams might well help us come to terms with some past experience. They may also spring from a part of our personality that is legitimately looking for greater expression. In our kind of society—which still suppresses many people through an overabundance of regulations, all-too-fixed gender roles and clock-dominated schedules—daydreaming is often indicative of a healthy personality refusing to be typecast or manipulated. Even the kinds of daydreaming mentioned above may contain within them longings for a deeper relationship with a person of the opposite sex or one’s spouse, for a more satisfying type of work or for a more mature capacity to empathize or interact with other people. Where daydreaming seems quite unrelated to our present life situation, it may point to some area we should explore more seriously. In such cases it may help us find a creative solution to a present difficulty, glimpse some vision of what God wants us to pursue and even help us move toward making some decisions.

All of this is simply a way of saying that our daydreams—like our thoughts, feelings or actions—may spring from a number of sources. They may be stimulated by illegitimate sinful desires, may be an expression of playful human possibilities or may be echoes of genuine divine possibilities. Often they will be a mixture of all three. What we need, as everywhere else in life, is spiritual discernment, not only our own but that of our friends and others whom we trust in our primary Christian community, to work out what they are saying to us.

» See also: Boredom

» See also: Calling

» See also: Dreaming

» See also: Imagination

» See also: Play

» See also: Vision

References and Resources

E. Klinger, Daydreaming: Using Waking Fantasy and Imagery for Self-Knowledge and Creativity (Los Angeles: Tarcher, 1990).

—Robert Banks

Death

My (Paul’s) father died of pneumonia in my brother’s arms after being unable to speak or eat for two years. He was not afraid to die, but he seemed to be lingering, hanging on, for reasons we could not discover. His wife had died months before, and there was no unfinished business known to us or admitted by him. My brother embraced him and said, “Dad, it’s all right to go.” And within minutes he died peacefully, sleeping in Jesus. But he left us wondering about the mystery of death, its timing, its meaning and the strange way that we are created by God to hang on to life, sometimes even longer than we need. It is difficult to tell yourself to die.

This article considers death as an occasion for theological reflection and spiritual contemplation and deals with letting go of ourselves. Grieving is the process of letting go of others (see Grieving). But the two are related; the experience of losing others can teach us how to die and, because of that, how to live today in the light of eternity, or as the Puritan William Perkins put it, “the science of living blessedly forever” (p. 177).

The Last Unmentionable Topic

Death is rarely discussed in polite company and has been tragically separated from everyday life. Instead of dying at home surrounded by relatives and friends, we normally die in a hospital surrounded by machines. Death has become institutionalized. In older cultures and before medical science became capable of prolonging life by two or three decades, people expected death at any time, if not from disease, than from childbirth, famine, plague or war. But now people do not expect to die. Few people actually see someone die, except for those in the medical profession, and dying for them is often surrounded by a sense of failure.

Death has also been sanitized. Instead of washing the person’s body and digging the grave themselves, something still done in rural Africa, the family arranges for a mortician to prepare the body to be as “lifelike” as possible and displayed for all to see, though rarely in one’s home. The funeral service takes place in a mortuary chapel, and the body is delivered hygienically to the flames or the soil. The cemetery is not likely to be found in the courtyard of the family church but in a place apart. It may never, or only rarely, be visited. In contrast, my dear friend Philip in Kenya walks past his wife’s grave mound every time he goes to the maize field of his small farm. To gain a theology and spirituality of death will involve recovering the connection between this once-in-a-lifetime experience and everyday living. To do that, we must also try to understand just what death is.

When Is Someone Dead?

Clinically death is defined as “the cessation of heartbeat, breathing and brain activity.” At this point a physician pronounces someone “dead.” Yet it is widely recognized that a person as a fully robed body-soul-spirit being may have died hours and perhaps even months earlier. The ambiguity of the matter is highlighted by the intrusion of technology. Life can be artificially prolonged on machines, sometimes with the purpose of “harvesting” organs for transplants from a dead-yet-still-living being who will die in all respects once the machines are turned off. Or will he? Does the soul remain near for a while to be reunited should the person be resuscitated by starting the heart and breathing again? Did the person actually die when brain activity ceased, perhaps in a traumatic car accident, even though clinically the person remained living? Is it possible to die months before clinical death by becoming incapable of giving and receiving love, perhaps through a debilitating disease that puts the person in a “vegetative” state? If so, there are many walking dead in this world. Such is the ambiguity of the subject.

There were two trees in the Garden of Eden, the tree of life (presumably offering immortality; Genesis 2:9) and the tree offering godlike knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve could live forever only if they accepted their creaturely limitations, eating from the first tree and refusing to eat from the second. If they took from the knowledge tree, they would die (Genesis 3:3). But there were other dimensions of that than simply returning to the dust (Genesis 3:19). They died to oneness with God (spiritual death), intimacy with each other (relational death) and trusteeship of the world (vocational death).

Could Adam and Eve, had they not sinned, have died of old age, perhaps in a transition like Enoch’s that led to fuller life with God? We do not know. Significantly, the first death in the account was not God-inflicted, but brought by humankind on itself: the murder of Abel. Equally significant is the growing consciousness of sin-cursed death by the characters of the drama exemplified in Cain’s plea for protection from a violent death (Genesis 4:14-15) and Eve’s plea for a replacement son to fill the emptiness left by death (Genesis 4:25). So whatever might have been possible in Paradise before human sin, death has become something terrible, something fraught with spiritual consequences, something to be feared. It is more than mere physical annihilation.

One reason death is so terrible is that it is not easy to kill a human being. The Polish filmmaker Krzystof Kieslowski explores this subject in his film on the sixth commandment: thou shalt not murder. In A Short Film on Killing Kieslowski graphically conveys the enormous effort it takes for a sad young man to fully extinguish the life of a cab driver. Then the filmmaker shows the strenuous and violent effort taken by the Polish government to end the life of this young criminal through the hanging that followed his conviction. In a technological age when a city can be annihilated by pressing a button, when a bullet can be planted in a chest at a distance too great to make eye contact and when an unseen fetus can be vacuumed from the womb, this is an important statement. Life is almost irresistible. The will to live is almost indomitable. Who then could dare be an instrument of death?

The Right to Inflict Death

The judgment of Cain (Genesis 4:1-16) shows that God does not want human beings to inflict death, either by taking the life of another through murder (Exodus 20:13) or by ending life by one’s own act through suicide. The time and manner of death are to be left in God’s hands, whether death comes by disease, accident or some natural process. Consider the distinction between artificially prolonging a life and actively ending a life (see Euthanasia). While murder by an individual or group is prohibited in all of its forms, including physician-assisted death, execution by the state or nation (as a just penalty for a grievous sin) was prescribed by the Old Testament. Some Christians arguing from both testaments claim that capital punishment is state murder, though in contrast to this view, Luther maintained that even the hangman is God’s servant bringing God’s justice into this world.

On this vexed subject the existentialist Albert Camus made a telling point. He argued that capital punishment could be justified only where there was a socially shared religious belief that the final verdict on a person’s life was not given in this life. To condemn a fellow human being to death in this context would not involve divine pretension since the human verdict could be overturned by the only perfectly competent judge, God himself. But in a society that lacked such a religious framework, execution would be a godlike activity since it eliminated a person from the only community that indisputably existed (Meilaender, pp. 20-21).

We have much to learn about death from Jesus’ own fate. It was a murder by the sinful religious establishment (expressing the violence in all human hearts against God); it was a state execution by the Roman government on the presumed charge of treason; but it was a voluntary death without being suicide. “No one takes it [my life] from me,” he said, “but I lay it down of my own accord” (John 10:18). The voluntary aspect of his death is most deeply indicated by the statement that he committed his spirit to God (Luke 23:46) and “gave up his spirit” (Matthew 27:50)—a powerful hint that while death is ultimately in God’s hands, we may be permitted a part in relinquishing ourselves, something we observe happening with many people at the point of death. While Jesus’ death has some unique dimensions as a sacrificial death for all, it is also “typical” in this way: it involved his whole person, not just his body.

Death of the Whole Person

The author of Hebrews says that Jesus tasted death for everyone (Hebrews 2:9), clearly indicating that whatever death has become through sin—in all of its psychological and spiritual consequences (Matthew 27:46)—it was experienced by Jesus on the cross. Death is more than the mere stopping of the heart, breathing and brain activity.

Understood biblically, persons are not souls with bodily wrappings but ensouled bodies or embodied souls, a psycho-pneuma-somatic unity. The body does not “contain” a soul to be released through death—a fundamentally Greek notion that has permeated European culture. The body is the expressiveness of soul, and soul the heart of body. But these are so interdependently connected, indeed interfused, that to touch either is to touch both—hence the seriousness of sexual sin. We do not “have” bodies and “have” souls but are bodies and souls. So death, to the Hebrew mind, cannot strike the body without striking the soul, a connection that is not clear in many translations that substitute “person” for “soul” or “body” (Pederson, 1:179). For example, “the soul that doeth aught presumptuously . . . shall be cut off from the people” (Numbers 15:30 KJV). However much we may qualify this in the light of passages like “today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43; see Cooper), we must still deal with death as death of a person, not just of a person’s shell.

More than our bodies die: emotions, personality, capacity for relationships, for giving and receiving love. Do our spirits die or at least “taste” death? We simply do not know whether we enter into a “soul-sleep” until the day of resurrection or persist in some kind of intermediate state, as it is called in theological texts, until Christ comes again and the dead are raised. What we do know is that death is more than a merely physical phenomenon. The whole person dies. We are obviously dealing with a mystery, but it is a mystery with windows.

A Vanquished Power

In all of this we admit we are facing a formidable power. Death holds people in slavery to lifelong fear (Hebrews 2:15). The fear may have multiple sources: fear of pain, of the unknown, of having to experience something we cannot control or predict, of losing all that is familiar and dear to us. Many older people fear increasing withering, loss of dignity and loss of independence, all preludes to death. A profound fear we carry from our earliest infancy is the fear of being dropped; the fear of death is the anxiety that when we can no longer hang on, we will be dropped and plunge into nothingness. Deeper still is the fear of unpredictable consequences after the grave if there is a God. We are ultimately accountable to God, and the happy continuation into the “next” life is contingent on our performance in this life. Death is fraught with eternal consequences.

The fact that human beings cannot simply treat death as a way of recycling people illustrates what Scripture proclaims: death is one of the principalities and powers. Paul spoke of death as the last enemy (Romans 8:38; 1 Cor. 15:26) because it seems death has a “life of its own,” making its pretentious claims on human hearts and holding them captive to their mortality. This last enemy was destroyed by the death of Christ, this death of death being certified by the resurrection of Christ. Death has been killed! For the person found in Christ, death is not fraught with temporal fear or eternal consequences, as it is for those who have not yet heard the gospel. Yet we still must die.

Come Sweet Death

The epicenter of our hope for life through death is the resurrection of Jesus. Only one has come back from the dead to tell us about the other side. The Gospels record all we need to know about Jesus after his death: (1) he had a real body that could walk, cook, eat and speak—this was no mere phantom or angelic presence; (2) there is a continuity between the body in this life and the next, so much so that the disciples recognized him—a powerful hint that we may recognize one another in the New Jerusalem; (3) there were continuing evidences of things experienced in bodily life in this world, namely, the scars; (4) the scars were not now the marks of sin but a means of grace as Jesus invited Thomas to touch and believe.

In other words, our works done in this life are transfigured rather than annihilated. Even the creation itself will not be annihilated but transfigured (this being quite probably the meaning in 2 Peter 3:10). Ezekiel envisions the land “radiant” with the glory of God (Ezekiel 43:2), a prophetic announcement that the earth will become “a new earth” (Rev. 21:1) just as the psychological body (literal Greek; “natural” NIV) will be transfigured into a “spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:44). In other words, the Christian hope is not the survival of the spirit after the death of the body or even the continuation of immortal (but disembodied) soul in a nonmaterial “heaven” or the provision of another body, soul and spirit to be given us through reincarnation.

Christian hope promises a renewal not a replacement. Our bodies, souls and spirits are transfigured and “will be like his [Christ’s] glorious body” (Phil. 3:21). Christians see death in a sacramental way: a physical experience through which a spiritual grace is mediated. In this case the spiritual grace is located in the promise of resurrection. Even personality defects in this life get healed, but not by our becoming different persons. In Christ we more than survive the grave; we triumph over it. It remains to consider how to die well.

The Art of Dying

First, we must repudiate the death denial of contemporary Western culture. Deaths of relatives and friends provide good opportunities in a family context to discuss what death means and to declare the Christian hope. The thoughtful preparation of our last will and testament helps us prepare for death and contemplate what inheritance, material and nonmaterial, we leave behind.

Second, living Christianly involves the idea of dual citizenship: living simultaneously in this world and the next. We are equidistant from eternity every moment of our life from conception to resurrection. We treasure life as good and really flourish on earth, but it is not the highest good. We resist death as evil, but not the greatest evil, because it is the way to a better world.

Third, we can number our days, as the psalmist said, not by calculating our expected life span by the latest actuarial tables and then squeezing all we can into the remaining years because there is nothing more (or because eternity is just more of the same). This view unfortunately treats time as a resource to be managed rather than a gift. Rather numbering our days means treating every day as a gift, being aware that it may be our last yet investing ourselves, talents and all in a world without end (compare Matthew 25:1-13). We do not live “on borrowed time” but on entrusted time. So we live one day at a time, not bearing tomorrow’s burdens and anxieties today (Matthew 6:25-34), but trusting that God will be sufficient for each day that we live.

Fourth, everyday hardships give us an opportunity to learn to “die daily.” Paul said that we are like sheep led daily to the slaughter. Through these pains, persecutions and weaknesses that we suffer, we are able to live in the resurrection power of Christ, dying to self, living in him (2 Cor. 4:10-12, 16-18).

Fifth, we can practice progressive relinquishment. As we go through life, we relinquish childhood and youth, our friends and parents through death, our children as they leave home (see Empty Nesting) and eventually our occupations and health. Most people will discover the hard words of the marriage vow, “until death us do part.” Ultimately we must relinquish life in this world. We are left with the one treasure of inestimable value—the Lord. One of the Ignatian exercises invites us to contemplate our own death using our inspired imaginations and doing so prayerfully in the Lord’s presence: people gathering around our bed, the funeral, the burial in the soil, the gradual decomposition of our body until all that we were as a person in this life has dissolved and we are ready for full transfiguration. Are we ready to die? Are there broken relationships to be mended, persons to be forgiven, debts to settle? Is there something we can do for someone that we have been putting off?

The philosopher George Santayana said, “There is no cure for birth and death save to enjoy the interval” (quoted in Jones, p. 30). This accurately expresses the practical theology of a generation that denies death, fails to believe in a new heaven and new earth and, therefore, is preoccupied with fitness, health and pleasure. But the Christian approach, as J. I. Packer once said, is to “regard readiness to die as the first step in learning to live” (quoted in Jones, p. 30).

» See also: Aging

» See also: Body

» See also: Euthanasia

» See also: Grieving

» See also: Menopause and Male Climacteric

» See also: Retirement

» See also: Will, Last

References and Resources

C. D. Exelrod, “Reflections on the Fear of Death,” Omega 17, no. 1 (1986-87) 51-64; J. W. Cooper, Body, Soul & Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989); O. Cullmann, Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? (London: Epworth, 1958); T. K. Jones, “Death: Real Meaning in Life Is to Be Found Beyond Life,” Christianity Today 35 (24 June 1991) 30-31; G. Meilaender, “Mortality: The Measure of Our Days,” First Things 10 (February 1991) 14-21; Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope, trans. J. W. Leitch (New York: Harper & Row, 1967); J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture, 4 vols. (London: Geoffrey Cumberlege, 1964); William Perkins, “The Golden Chain,” in The Work of William Perkins, ed. Ian Breward (Appleford, U.K.: Courtney, 1970); E. Trueblood, The Common Ventures of Life: Marriage, Birth, Work and Death (New York: Harper & Row, 1949).

—Gail C. Stevens and R. Paul Stevens

Debt

Ben Franklin once said that it was better to “go to bed supperless than run in debt for breakfast.” In more recent times North Americans have failed to heed his advice. The result has been an explosion in personal debt—and bankruptcies! Though I will focus on the subject of debt, one cannot really talk about this without also considering the related topic of credit.

While debt has been a subject of considerable discussion in Christian circles for a long time, it was probably the explosion of business and personal bankruptcies in the 1980s that brought unusual attention to the topic and even caused some Christians to doubt their standing before God. Over five million Americans filed for bankruptcy in the decade of the 1980s. Canada realized proportionately similar numbers. In fact, it was only in 1993 that bankruptcy statistics actually began to decline from the record total realized the previous year.

Many Christian commentators were quick to condemn Christians who took this avenue of escape from their debts. American businessperson and author Albert J. Johnson suggested that those considering voluntary bankruptcy to resolve debt problems should read Psalm 37:21, “The wicked borrow and do not repay.” He argued that a person considering bankruptcy was in financial trouble because of past violations of scriptural principles (Johnson, pp. 82, 85). Widely published financial and business adviser Larry Burkett is similarly outspoken, as is evident in one of his taped addresses:

Now isn’t that amazing to you, that somebody would actually default on a debt that they created legally, morally, ethically, and then they would default on it? See, it ought to never happen with Christianity, or it should happen so rarely that we would take that person, and we would admonish them according to Matthew 18, and bring them before the church to restore them back to the faith.

This hard-nosed attitude toward bankruptcy is sometimes held toward taking on debt generally. Some commentators have argued that debt is a substitute for trust in God and that to be truly effective a Christian must be financially free. Furthermore, debts are viewed as lifelong obligations, ruling out any possibility of their being forgiven via the bankruptcy process. Taken to its extreme, financial success is, in some circles, linked with divine favor and right standing before God, while debt problems are seen as an indication of a Satan-defeated life.

Given the fact that North Americans have taken so readily to consumer and business credit and that indebtedness has become a normal aspect of life for many Christians, it is crucial to know just what the Bible says, and does not say, about the topic of debt. This will enable us to come to sound conclusions about the use of credit.

Is Debt Evil?

If one were to adopt a proof-texting approach to this topic, confusion would assuredly be the result, for the biblical message concerning debt appears at quick glance to be a mixed one. On the one hand, many times God’s people are urged to lend to the needy. Deut. 15:7-10 is particularly forceful:

If there is a poor man among your brothers . . . do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the Lord against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to.

Our Lord takes a similar view, not only with respect to one’s brothers and sisters, but even with one’s enemies: “Love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked” (Luke 6:35) and “Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you” (Matthew 5:42).

On the other hand, in the Bible we see borrowers, desperate to avoid the exactions of hardhearted creditors, attempting to persuade a third party to act as a guarantor for their debts. The Old Testament frequently warns against this practice (Proverbs 6:1-5; Proverbs 11:15; Proverbs 17:18; Proverbs 22:26-27). In fact, being in debt is sometimes linked with being in a hopelessly vulnerable situation, as Proverbs 22:7 suggests: “The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender” (see further Deut. 15:6; Deut. 28:12, 44). We also have the Pauline injunction “Avoid getting into debt, except the debt of mutual love” (Romans 13:8 JB).

Given the many times that God’s people are urged to lend, compassionately and generously, to the needy, it would be ridiculous to assert that borrowing, and therefore debt, is evil. However, it is realistic to conclude that incurring debt can be dangerous. This two-edged characteristic is typical of most aspects of material life from the biblical point of view. For example, wealth and property can be seen as gifts from God and even as a reward for obedient living (Deut. 28:1-14). Their value is in the opportunities that they provide for increased service to humanity (2 Cor. 9:11), rather than for self-indulgent use (Luke 8:14). But material wealth at the same time is one of the chief obstacles to salvation (Luke 12:13-21; Luke 16:19-31; Luke 18:24-25).

One cannot arbitrarily conclude, then, that debt is inherently evil. God would not command his people to proffer help that was wrong to receive. But debt, like so many other aspects of economic life, can be abused by the lender and borrower alike. Thus, care must be taken to use debt wisely.

What Was the Purpose of Debt?

Virtually all of the ethical teaching about debt is found in the Old Testament. In the economy of Pentateuchal times, Israelites were involved almost exclusively in agriculture. The most common commercial participant in those days was the traveling merchant or trader, called simply a “foreigner” (Deut. 23:20) or sometimes a “Canaanite” (Zech. 14:21). While Israelites were to lend to their fellow Israelite farmers interest free, making loans with interest to foreigners (or traders) was permissible.

It was with respect to the interest-free loans to covenant brothers and sisters that the lender was urged to be compassionate, taking minimal collateral and forgiving unpaid debts by the sabbatical year (more on this below). Loans would have typically been solicited not for commercial investment purposes but as a result of economic hardship, for example, crop failure or the devastation that resulted from enemy raids (Judges 6:1-4). Borrowing was an indication of serious financial trouble, imperiling the well-being of the family unit, which was the fundamental building block of society. Thus, while the debtor was to be treated with great compassion, he or she was usually in debt not because of self-indulgent motives but because of the inability to meet the basic needs of life.

Commercial debt is mentioned but with very little comment. Clearly it was not wrong for God’s people to be involved in commercial investments. They had to recognize, of course, that a loan carried with it not only responsibilities but also dangers, whether of loss or of exploitation. (This is evident in the many warnings about unwise involvement with lenders which could bring a borrower to the point of losing personal independence.)

So we see two kinds of debt in the Old Testament: interest-bearing loans to foreigners and interest-free loans to fellow Israelites. It was with respect to covenant brothers and sisters that more well-to-do Israelites were enjoined to be generous and forgiving. So important was this principle to God that it even appears in the Lord’s Prayer as the perfect example of godly forgiveness (Matthew 6:12: “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors”). Neither of these types of debt is condemned. But the former tends to be discussed within the context of risk and the need to avoid being exploited. The latter is found within the context of generosity and forgiveness and the requirement not to exploit.

Are Debts Forgivable?

According to biblical teaching, borrowers were obliged under normal circumstances to repay their debts. This responsibility to meet one’s financial obligations is vividly illustrated by a provision recorded in Leviticus 25:39. Here a debtor in default could go so far as to sell himself into slavery. Obviously the responsibility to repay one’s debts was taken extremely seriously. However, the possibility of those debts being canceled (or debt-slaves released) was not ruled out. In accordance with sabbatical-year legislation, debtors were automatically relieved of their obligations every seventh year, whether or not they deserved compassionate treatment.

Compassion of this sort—the setting aside of the legitimate rights of lenders—was typical of all economic relations envisioned in the covenant community. God’s desire for his people was that they would enjoy economic stability and security as family units. Wealth was viewed as a divine blessing (Deut. 8:11-18, 28). This blessing was associated with God’s people living in obedience and was based totally on God’s compassion. Such financial mechanisms as the poor tithe (Deut. 14:28-29; Deut. 26:12), gleaning in the field (Deut. 24:19) and interest-free loans (Exodus 22:25-27; Leviticus 25:35-37; Deut. 23:19-20) were tangible ways by which God’s people could, in turn, show compassion for each other. Beyond income-maintenance programs, God provided for permanent mechanisms—such as the sabbatical year and Jubilee—to ensure that temporary misfortune barred no family from full participation in economic life (see Exodus 21:2; Exodus 23:11; Leviticus 25:1-7; Deut. 15:1-15).

It is important to keep two points in mind. The cancellation of debts in the Old Testament was done at legislated intervals, that is, every seventh year (sabbatical year) and every seven sabbaticals (Jubilee year), regardless of the performance of the debtor, good or bad. In addition, these borrowers were not involved in commercial life. They were usually poor farmers borrowing to preserve their ability to make a living and to feed their families. But the principle that can be legitimately extracted from the biblical model and applied to our modern free-market economies in North America today is that while debt is to be taken seriously, it could be canceled to achieve some higher purpose, such as the preservation of the family unit. No desirable goal is achieved when unscrupulous debtors are allowed to escape from their financial obligations. But the Old Testament did provide for the cancellation of debts as an act of mercy, with no stigma attached.

Conclusion

Debt, like so many other topics that Christians must evaluate in contemporary society, is a morally neutral concept. Never are God’s people told that debt is wrong—quite the opposite! In fact, one of the reasons that God entrusts his people with material means is because “there should be no poor among you” (Deut. 15:4). Loans were one way of restoring the poor to economic stability, especially if the lending was accompanied by a merciful and forgiving attitude. Well-off Israelites could also participate in commercial ventures provided that they made careful allowances for the risks involved. But access to loans brings with it all of the temptations associated with material life: self-indulgence, riskiness and exploitation. Debt is a two-edged sword, to be handled with care.

» See also: Consumerism

» See also: Credit

» See also: Credit Card

» See also: Money

» See also: Simpler Lifestyle

» See also: Stewardship

References and Resources

L. Burkett, God’s Principles for Operating a Business (Dahlonega, Ga.: Christian Financial Concepts, 1982), audiocassette; A. J. Johnson, A Christian’s Guide to Family Finances (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1983).

—John R. Sutherland

Denominations

There was a time, not so long ago, when if asked the question, What is your religion? people would respond by giving the name of their denomination. This assumed a society in which most of the population was associated with the Christian faith in some way and in which a person’s identity was somehow connected to his or her denominational affiliation. At the time denominations were still a major force on the religious scene, and there was a fairly clear sense of what differentiated them from one another. All this is now changing.

What Are Denominations and Denominationalism?

A denomination is a legally constituted association of local churches that agree to work together according to a common polity for their mutual benefit. There is considerable variety within denominations concerning forms of leadership, the relative strength of the central body or member congregations and the degree of flexibility in belief and practice. A denomination differs from a national or state church, which is the public religious expression of a specific country, and from a looser affiliation of churches who have only fraternal bonds but no formal structure.

The word denominationalism is sometimes used to describe the whole phenomenon of a church divided into separate denominations in distinction from other forms of wider church associations in the past. There was a time when Christianity was largely made up of two large ecclesiastical movements, the Catholic and the Orthodox, and, after the Reformation, primarily of national churches following particular theological traditions. We could call this the pre-denominational period of the church. The period of church history from the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries, first in the West and then in the Two-Thirds World, can be properly described as the age of the denominations. I will suggest below that we are now moving into a time that could be rightly called post-denominational.

Denominationalism sometimes has another more evaluative and generally negative connotation. When used this way, it refers to the tendency to become so preoccupied with denominational distinctions that a narrow or judgmental attitude develops toward denominations other than one’s own or toward nondenominational forms of Christianity in general. In this sense it is just another form of sectarianism. What follows mostly has the first sense of the word in view but at points also takes the second into account.

The Origin of the Major Denominations

Denominations began for variety of reasons. While it is often thought that particular theological convictions were uppermost, this was only sometimes the case or only part of the motivation.

On the edges of the Reformation, the Anabaptist movement gave birth to several networks of churches across political boundaries. Among the earliest of these were the Mennonites and the Moravians, denominations founded on certain ecclesial convictions about the voluntary and communal nature of the church, ethical convictions concerning simplicity and pacifism and missionary convictions about preaching the gospel inside and outside their own countries. In the following century the Quakers differentiated themselves by emphasizing the inner presence of the Spirit in each individual and a more participatory form of worship and decision-making, while the Congregationalists insisted on the God-given responsibility of each congregation to determine its own affairs. In America, especially after the Declaration of Independence, some denominations began for quite different reasons. For example, offshoots of established churches, such as the Anglican, could no longer function as a state church and so were forced to operate in a denominational way. Later this also happened to the Lutherans.

In the eighteenth century, influenced by contact with the Moravians, Methodists—as they came to be called—developed a set of spiritual and communal disciplines for their members and instituted meetings with a high degree of accountability, while remaining, in most other respects, Anglican in doctrine. Throughout the nineteenth century, especially in America, many new Christian movements arose, such as the Disciples of Christ, which began as a renewal movement for the whole church but developed into denominations. Older ecclesiastical traditions developed parallel denominations among different immigrant or racial groups. Some newer and older denominations split into separate groups as a result of social and political differences, as during the Civil War, or because of minor or major theological and ecclesiastical differences.

Today there are several hundred denominations in the United States, many of them particular versions of a more generic denominational tradition. These are often broadly categorized as mainline, confessional and evangelical, alongside other nondenominational networks or congregations. Denominationalism has taken deepest root in America in the fertile soil of its emphasis on individual decision and opposition to governmental influence in religion, which is characteristic of revivals and awakenings. Interestingly, this denominationalism often goes hand in hand with strong interdenominational interests expressed in parachurch associations. The voluntary decision of the individual lies at the heart of this, along with a tendency toward cooperation fostered by the challenges of developing a new nation under difficult circumstances. On the other hand, the strong ecumenical interest sometimes displayed by mainline denominations goes hand in hand with an intolerant—actually sectarian or denominationalist in the negative sense—attitude toward more conservative or nondenominational Christian groups.

A Theological Basis for and Critique of Denominations

Some have argued, on both the theological right and the theological left, that denominations have no biblical basis. The first believe in the absolute autonomy and independence of the congregation, the second in the sinfulness of all separate groupings of Christians and in the ideal of one universal church. There are others who argue, or at least act as if, denominations are sacrosanct. Some of these believe that not only diverse but even contradictory ecclesiastical stances have a divine right to exist. Others believe that no matter what denominations do or fail to do, it is our duty to remain loyal to them.

A biblical approach would recognize the relative autonomy granted by apostles like Paul to each congregation and yet the importance of their being part of at least a loose network of congregations from whom they could learn, to whom they could occasionally give aid and with whom members could have fellowship. Such an approach would also recognize the value of developing links with some evangelistic, church-planting and missionary work, both to give support and to gain wisdom. It also provides precedent, as at Corinth, for Christians whose churches in the one city stemmed from different founders to come together every so often to fellowship with God and one another.

We do not find here local churches under some kind of official hierarchy to which they must submit. Nor did the apostles encourage congregations to separate from one another on the ground of particular doctrinal practices. So long as they did not cut across fundamental gospel convictions and behavior in accordance with those, there could be different attitudes in belief and practice within one community. So we cannot derive from early Christian practice either a centralized denominationalism or a radical congregationalism. Neither can we find a strict conformity in belief among all members of a congregation, nor a tolerance of convictions between congregations on issues fundamental to the gospel. The figure of James in Jerusalem apart, key figures in the early Christian movement do not appear in a hierarchical position above the churches in their constituencies but in a respected position as leaders of teams focusing on outreach alongside them. The picture we have is of a partnership between such teams and local churches, between key figures and local leaders, somewhat akin to the cordial, interdependent relationships that some congregations have established with parachurch organizations. Denominations are generally a fusion of these two entities in which, depending on whether organizational links are tight or loose, there is a subservience on the part of one or the other rather than a mutual giving and taking.

Though we are not bound to reproduce this early Christian approach, which itself contained certain variations, we should seek to honor the basic principles that it enshrined. For here we have a complex but practical working out of the freedoms and limits, relationship and responsibilities, unity and diversity, of local churches and wider groupings of such churches. Both history and experience confirm that no church can live or die to itself and that there are certain advantages in cooperating with other groups to pursue some common ends. On the other hand, no church can realize its potential unless it possesses sufficient freedom to make basic decisions about its common life and experiment with a wide range of possibilities. The way this works out today should take note of the different cultural circumstances under which we operate, while being careful to avoid simply mirroring the kinds of structures typical of our age, such as the corporation or the bureaucracy.

The Vocational Responsibilities and Limits of Denominations

What is the particular vocation or calling of denominational bodies? It is essentially to serve their constituencies, not lord over them, to enhance their life in ways they cannot do themselves, whether as individual congregations or as clusters of congregations. What local churches, on their own or in smaller groupings, can or ought do themselves, denominational bodies should let alone. Such bodies should always be seeking to enhance the growth of such churches to maturity, not expand their own influence at the expense of local churches. What local churches most appreciate is educational resources in certain areas, pastoral support for key people involved in ministry to the body and actual pioneering of new models of evangelism and mission. From the key figures in their denominational network, people look for practicing role models rather than public declarations and administrative initiatives. Too often denominational agencies and leaders are caught up in predominantly administrative matters and are in any case too removed from the grassroots to have any powerful influence. Less bureaucratic and more decentralized structures would make a big difference here.

With respect to the interface between church and world, the main role of denominations is not to build up an institutional apparatus with which to confront the world or to penetrate it. A lot of energy and money presently goes into this, often in ways that the ordinary churchgoer finds difficult to identify with. Largely overlooked in all this is the fact that denominations already have a presence and contribution in almost every sphere of society through the daily work and life of ordinary church members. What denominational agencies would be far better doing is encouraging and assisting those members to be fully equipped for their various ministries of daily life and providing ways of networking them to do this. This would be far less costly and far more effective than what is mostly attempted at present.

Denominations also ought to cooperate more with one another in certain areas. For all the rhetoric about ecumenical relationships, it is rare to find denominations giving up their own vested interests to collaborate with others. Take current attitudes toward the mass media, especially television. What we find so often is a range of small, underfinanced, often semiprofessional, programs representing different denominational hobbyhorses or trendy concerns rather than a creative, joint approach bringing Christian convictions to bear on an increasingly unchurched culture. The same is also true to some extent in the field of publications, though here economic forces are beginning to work toward less duplication and greater cooperation.

Toward a Postdenominational Christianity

Can denominations reform themselves in ways that will enable them to fulfill their basic responsibilities? It is very difficult for any institution to engage in radical self-criticism and acknowledge how often it operates in a secular rather than Christian way. It is also difficult for religious institutions to radically change themselves or to share their power or collaborate with others. There is always the temptation for them to become principalities and powers that disable and disempower their members, rather than genuinely “servant institutions” that seek to resource and enhance them. It is always difficult for them to look to the margins, where new and highly relevant things are often happening, and bring these into the mainstream; it is far easier to criticize such efforts or take defensive measures against them. In our day some businesses have shown themselves more capable of doing this than denominations, being more likely to express institutional repentance, redistribute power and take risks for the sake of the future. God’s response is sometimes to raise up new denominations to do the work, as was the case with eighteenth-century Methodism, or new informal affiliations of congregations, such as networks of Vineyard Fellowships, as is happening in various parts of the world today.

What we have been watching over the last few decades is the gradual withering of the denominations. Membership in denominational churches has been steadily declining, a pattern that shows little sign of abating. Denominational budgets are constantly being scaled back, and programs are being cut year after year. Many denominational seminaries have had to close or merge. Meanwhile newer churches and networks of churches are experiencing dramatic or steady growth. Alongside this, churchgoers are generally placing less emphasis on their denominational affiliation and are choosing churches on the basis of style of worship, quality of teaching and provision of services. The latest surveys even show the beginning of a trend toward multiple church connection, a kind of smorgasbord approach to church attendance. All this heralds the early phases of a new form of church connectedness and membership. One of the first to talk about the emergence of a postdenominational Christianity was the American writer and speaker Elton Trueblood. This is not to predict the end of denominations. Many older ones will continue, but they will be smaller, leaner and less influential. One or two may even go through a period of renewal, as Anglicanism did in England during the nineteenth century in response to Methodism, and experience a new burst of life. Some newer networks and affiliations may develop into full-scale denominations.

But many churches and people involved in ministry are finding that connections across denominational boundaries with others in similar settings and with similar goals are more meaningful. Interdenominational movements and seminaries have grown in significance. Nondenominational churches are growing and seem to appeal especially to the younger generation. All this suggests that denominationalism, though by no means to be written off as a spent force, is definitely on the wane. For the many who still have hope for their denominations and sense the call of God to remain with them and work for change, the task is to become a critical, loyal opposition, one that both is supportive and holds them accountable.

» See also: Church

» See also: Nondenominational

» See also: Parachurch Organizations

References and Resources

R. Banks, “Denominational Structures,” in In the Fulness of Time: Biblical Studies in Honour of Archbishop Donald Robinson, ed. David Peterson and John Pryor (Sydney: Lancer, 1992) 277-300; J. Dillenberger, Protestant Christianity: Interpreted Through Its Development (New York: Scribner, 1954); E. Jacoby, The Bureaucratization of the World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976); D. B. Knox, “The Church and the Denominations,” Reformed Theological Review 23, no. 2 (1964); 44-53; H. R. Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism (New York: World, 1957).

—Robert Banks

Depression

Depression is the most common and often most misunderstood of all the painful emotions. Despite the fact that Scripture presents some very clear examples of depression in its heroes (Elijah, Saul, David and Paul) and in the history of great preachers, many of whom suffered from severe bouts of melancholy (Luther, Wesley and Spurgeon), Christians have tended to hold to the belief that to be depressed is a sign of failure or spiritual weakness. Some conservative preachers and Christian writers have even gone so far as to suggest that depression is a sign of God’s punishment or rejection, leaving many feeling more confused and guilty.

We have failed to grasp the naturalness of depression and the fact that often it has biological origins. Even the severest of depressions can have healing benefits if we strive to understand its purpose and cooperate with it. Because so many do not understand the depressive process, they feel like spiritual failures. The time is long overdue for Christians to set the record straight on this common cold of the emotions!

How common is depression? One out of every eighteen adults—about ten million of us—suffers from a clinical depression at any one time. In a church of 250 members this means that at least fourteen parishioners could be suffering from an incapacitating depression. One in five adults will experience a severe depression at least once in their lifetime. This reality about the commonness of depression cannot be avoided. What people need is clear guidance on when it is a normal process that should be left to take its course, and when it is necessary to seek treatment.

Current Progress in Understanding Depression

We live in an era when fantastic progress has been made in providing relief for this debilitating condition. Even in my own professional lifetime we have gone from virtually no effective treatment for the biological depressions (electroconvulsive shock treatment was the only help available at the time I began treating depressions) to a rich armament of effective medications that are not addicting and have minimal side effects. Yet many Christians turn their backs on this help, fearing that they will be stigmatized by others, become drug addicts or, worse still, find that their problem is spiritual and not psychological or biological. The result is unnecessary suffering by untold millions of Christians, as well as by family members who must stand by and try to cope with a dysfunctional loved one.

Why is Depression so Common?

While the more serious depressions are essentially biochemical in origin with a strong genetic tendency, modern-day stress seems to be a major aggravating cause. The frantic pace of modern life combined with a breakdown of traditional values is causing many to feel hopeless, uncertain and disappointed. This stress aggravates the genetic factors that predispose to biological depressions. It also sets the stage for an appalling sense of loss, which is the primary cause of psychological depressions. Demoralization is rampant in our modern culture and can turn an even minor setback into a major depression in a body overextended by stress.

Many losses in our modern world are tangible and material. More significant, however, in causing psychological depression are such losses as insecurity, uncertainty, rejection, lack of fulfillment in one’s vocation, and a general sense of the meaninglessness of life. These are losses that were not as prevalent in earlier times. As a culture, we may well have entered our own emotional “Great Depression.”

The Cost of Depression

The economic cost of being depressed in the United States is estimated to exceed $16 billion a year. Estimating the emotional and human costs of serious depression, in the lives of both those who are depressed and the family members and friends who must suffer alongside, is almost impossible, but we know it is considerable. Major depression always disrupts, and sometimes disintegrates, otherwise healthy families, families whose lives are turned topsy-turvy by the emotional devastation of one member who is not able to function normally. Should the depressed person commit suicide, the consequences can continue for the rest of a family’s lifetime.

In times past, depression was always associated with a major mental breakdown and seemed to be restricted to a few poorly adjusted, usually anonymous persons. It was a concealed problem. Now it has assumed a common, real, familiar and very personal identity for all of us. It is found with frightening regularity in ourselves, our relatives and our friends. There is hardly a family today that is not touched by depression’s tentacles.

Who Is at Risk?

Depression is no respecter of age, sex, socioeconomic status or occupation. We are seeing an alarming increase in childhood depressions. In fact, the dramatic increase in depression in both the very young and the elderly is among the most frightening features of modern-day depression.

Women, however, are significantly at greater risk for depression than men (a two to one ratio). The reasons for this are twofold. First, the reproductive biochemistry of the female body implicates depression more often. At various times during the menstrual cycle, as well as in the life cycle of reproduction, depression results from hormonal changes. Problems with depression just before menstruation (premenstrual syndrome) as well as later in life (menopausal depression; see Menopause) are extremely common.

Second, it is very clear that women today are under greater stress than men. Mothers often have to work a full-time job in addition to taking care of family needs. Their resources for coping are therefore pushed to the limits. The result is a greater propensity toward fatigue and depressions caused by adrenaline exhaustion.

Dealing with Depression

Nothing is as tough to fight as depression. The depression itself robs you of the energy and motivation to do anything about it. Untreated biological depressions are often debilitating and can last up to three years during each attack.

For some the depression hits with an unannounced suddenness that is quite alarming. For others it stalks up insidiously and may go unrecognized for months or even years. When sufferers finally realize that they are in its grasp, it has already sapped their strength and fogged up their mind so that they don’t believe anything can be done to help.

Alarmingly, only about one-third of those seriously depressed will actually seek treatment. Some don’t know they can be helped. Some are afraid to admit they need help because it might stigmatize them. Some are callously told by their pastor or Christian friends that they should just pray harder or try to find the sin that is causing the depression. Most don’t seek treatment because they’re too depressed and feel too hopeless to believe they can get better; they try to “tough it out.” Unfortunately, this can have serious consequences not only for the sufferer but for all those connected to him or her.

Among these untreated depressed persons are many Christians. They don’t realize that with the right sort of treatment they could probably bounce back in a matter of weeks and, more important, prevent any recurring episodes of their depression later in life.

How Can You Tell If You Are Depressed?

One of the most unfortunate secondary effects of depression is that it often causes the sufferer to be oblivious to the depression. Depression eludes recognition, especially in the less severe types. Some people can be depressed for a long time, therefore, and not realize it. Depression can also mask itself in irritability, fatigue and workaholism. Many who overeat do so as a form of “self-medication” to ease their dejected state. Even when someone vaguely knows he or she is depressed, there is a tendency to deny the depression. Depression is often mistakenly viewed as a weakness, and people fear that even acknowledging their emotional pain to themselves is an admission of defeat.

So a large percentage of people with depression don’t get appropriate treatment because they don’t recognize their depressive symptoms. Religious sufferers tend to spiritualize their condition and want to blame God, Satan or some spiritual failure for their malady. The first step, then, in getting help is to recognize the symptoms and acknowledge that one is depressed.

What Are the Symptoms?

The following are among the most common symptoms of depression: persistent sadness, anxiety or an “empty” mood; a sense of hopelessness and pessimism; feelings of guilt, worthlessness, helplessness; crying at the slightest provocation; loss of interest or pleasure in ordinary and pleasurable activities, including sex; sleep disturbances such as insomnia, early-morning waking or oversleeping; eating disturbances (either loss or gain in weight); decreased energy, fatigue, feeling slowed down; thoughts of death or suicide; restlessness and irritability; difficulty in concentrating, in remembering and in making decisions; and physical symptoms (headaches, digestive disorders and chronic pain).

In all depressions fatigue is a prominent symptom. This is particularly true for the biologically based depressions that tend to drain energy. There is also a general lack of interest in normal activities. Sadness or crying may or may not be present. In some, sadness is the least important sign of depression.

Getting Help

How one copes with depression depends on its cause. Since all depressions fall basically into two categories, endogenous (or biological) and exogenous (or psychological), this discussion will focus on each in turn and provide some treatment guidelines.

Endogenous depressions. Endogenous literally means “from within.” Since there are many biological causes for depression, treatment must be directed primarily at the underlying disease or biochemical disorder. Besides obvious serious illnesses such as cancer or heart disease, disruption of the endocrine system is a particularly common cause of many depressions. So whenever a biological depression is suspected, a thorough evaluation of the endocrine system, particularly the thyroid gland, is warranted.

When endocrine dysfunction is ruled out, attention turns to the nervous system and the brain’s chemistry. The cause of two of the most common forms of endogenous depressions—major depression and bipolar disorder (the sufferer alternates between mania and depression)—lies clearly in a deficiency of a neurotransmitter within the brain’s nervous system. Fortunately, there are now very effective antidepressant medications available that can correct these deficiencies.

While a complete discussion of these medications is not possible here, the following important points need to be stressed:

• Not everyone benefits from the same antidepressant. Individualized treatment is therefore essential.

• Antidepressant medications do not act immediately; they take between two and four weeks, or even longer, after the appropriate level of treatment has been reached before relief is experienced. Persistence in treatment is therefore essential.

• Modern antidepressant medications have far fewer side effects than earlier ones and are perfectly safe when taken under supervision for long periods of time. Don’t be in a hurry to stop them.

• Antidepressant medications are not addicting. They may be taken without fear of becoming dependent on them.

Exogenous or reactive depression. While these depressions are not usually as serious as the biological ones, they can be much more difficult to cope with. There is no medication to speak of that treats them. Besides, since they are a reaction to loss, medication is most times inappropriate. What is needed is the more painful work of grieving.

Reactive depression is essentially a call to let go of whatever it is we have lost. God has designed us for grief, so that whether the loss is the death of a loved one, the departure of our first child to college, getting fired from a job or a business venture that has gone bad, we have to face this loss with courage and allow ourselves to grieve. Ecclesiastes tells us that “to every thing there is a season” (Eccles. 3:1 KJV) and that there is “a time to weep” (Eccles. 3:4). This is what reactive depression is all about. It is a healing time to help us cope with loss.

The grief work needed for a major loss can seldom be accomplished without talking it through with someone else. Consulting a professional counselor, preferably a Christian, is almost essential in more severe depressive reactions. However, an understanding pastor, lay counselor or friend can also be tremendously helpful.

Whatever resource is used, the following important points must be kept in mind:

• Grief work takes time, so don’t be hurried. The more significant the loss, the longer it will take to get over it and the deeper will be the depression.

• Don’t try to “short-circuit” your depression by rushing to replace your loss. Sooner or later your mind will bring you back to complete your grieving for past losses.

• Invite God to be a part of your grieving. Don’t blame him for your loss, and there is certainly nothing to be gained by getting angry at him. He knows your pain and longs to be your comforter, so don’t turn your back on him.

• As the title of one of my books suggests, every cloud has a silver lining. This means that within every grief experience there is great potential for spiritual and personal growth. Embrace your experience with the full confidence that when you come out of the fire you will be a little better for it (Job 23:10).

» See also: Anxiety

» See also: Grieving

» See also: Health

» See also: Illness

» See also: Stress, Workplace

References and Resources

Dean Foundation for Health, Research and Education, Depression and Antidepressants (Madison, Wis.: Dean Foundation, 1995); A. D. Hart, Counseling the Depressed (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1987); A. D. Hart, Dark Clouds, Silver Linings (Colorado Springs: Focus on the Family, 1993); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Depression in Primary Care: Detection, Diagnosis and Treatment (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993).

—Archibald D. Hart

Discipleship

To be a disciple of Jesus is an exciting venture. It is to enter into a lifestyle that brings wholeness and fulfillment. It is to maximize our potential, fulfill our destinies and discover our true selves because it is to live in the way God has designed for human beings. Discipleship, however, is not always understood in this way. To those outside the church, the word has an archaic ring. In a culture that values individual freedom, personal truth and unrestricted choice, the whole idea of trusting oneself to another is frightening. Those inside the church are not free from these same reactions. They often equate discipleship with words such as discipline, obedience, constraint, self-denial, hardship, sacrifice and martyrdom—all words that have negative connotations in a culture given over to self-satisfaction and self-fulfillment. Each of us needs to probe what the word discipleship feels like to us. Is the idea of discipleship a burden or a joy to us? What images do we have of disciples? Are these positive or negative? How we answer will affect how we read this article.

Discipleship in the First-Century World

In light of such reactions, it is important to investigate the biblical roots of the concept of discipleship. In the Old Testament, apart from a few references (for example, 1 Chron. 25:8; Isaiah 8:16; Isaiah 50:4; Isaiah 54:13), there is little explicit teaching about discipleship. However, it is evident that the relationship between prophets and their followers was often that of master-disciple, even though it is not specifically defined in this way (see 1 Samuel 19:20-24; 2 Kings 4:1, 38; 2 Kings 9:1; Jeremiah 36:32).

In the New Testament there is abundant discussion of what it means to be a disciple. This is not surprising since discipleship was a common phenomenon in the first-century world. Greek philosophers had disciples, as did the Pharisees (Matthew 22:15-16), not to mention John the Baptist (Mark 2:18; John 1:35). The Jews, on occasion, referred to themselves as disciples of Moses (John 9:27-28). In these relationships, disciples were understood to be individuals committed to a particular person so as to learn that person’s teaching or way of life and then to follow a particular pattern of life, whether by living in a certain way, passing on the teaching to others or engaging in political or religious activities. Jesus and his disciples shared this common understanding of the relationship between teacher and disciple. Thus to follow Jesus meant to do what Jesus did (replicate his ministry; for example, Mark 6:7-13, 30; Luke 10:1-20) and to believe what Jesus taught (obey his word; for example, John 8:31-32; John 17:6).

The same two characteristics hold true today for those of us who would be Jesus’ disciples. First, to be a disciple of Jesus is to be involved in ministry. The nature and character of that ministry varies greatly: from voluntary ministry to tentmaking ministry to ordained ministry. The important point is not what we do but that we understand our task in life to be one of ministry. This will mean that we engage in that task with a consciousness that we are called to it by God, that we seek to honor and serve God in this task and that we exhibit the characteristics of a disciple of Jesus while engaged in our task. Second, to be a disciple of Jesus is to engage in ongoing examination, analysis and application of Scripture. In this way we come to know who God is, what God requires of us and how to live as God’s people. As we go about this task of developing and sharpening our Christian worldview, we will also investigate the whole range of knowledge, understanding that God is the God of truth and that all truth is God’s truth.

Discipleship in the Gospels

It was also true in the first century that the nature of one’s discipleship depended on the nature of one’s master. It is the master who determines the content of discipleship. So while the relationship between Jesus and his disciples shared connections with traditional understandings of discipleship, it also had a unique character all of its own, which was derived from who Jesus was and what he taught. Hence it becomes important to examine the Gospels in order to define the special character of the discipleship to which Jesus called men and women.

First, it is clear that the original relationship between Jesus and his followers was understood to be that of master and disciples. The word disciple occurs some 269 times in the New Testament with almost all the references found in the Gospels and Acts.

Second, Jesus had various types of disciples, ranging from the Twelve who were appointed to be apostles (Mark 3:13-19), to the Seventy (-two) who were sent out on a specific mission by Jesus (Luke 10:1-20), to the others who followed him (Matthew 27:57; Luke 6:17; Luke 9:59-62; Luke 23:49, 55), and including the crowds, some of whom eventually left when his teaching became too hard for them to accept (John 6:60, 66). It is significant that a number of women were counted as Jesus’ disciples, even traveling with him at times (Luke 8:1-3), despite the fact that women generally were seen as second-class citizens in the Greek and Jewish culture of the time. Later on, as the church expanded, women become quite prominent in its growth, governance and development.

Third, the relationship between Jesus and the Twelve is the example of discipleship about which we know the most and provides the best place to discern the unique characteristics of Jesus’ call to it. In fact, this is interesting more generally because it quickly becomes clear they were not spiritual giants. As far as we can tell, they were quite ordinary first-century Jewish laymen with traditional theological views.

Each of the four Gospels describes the discipleship of the Twelve. While there is much common material, each Gospel highlights different aspects of discipleship. In Matthew we find a manual on discipleship. In particular, the Sermon on the Mount gives explicit instructions for living a kingdom lifestyle: instructions that are often at odds with prevailing cultural attitudes (Matthew 5:1-7:28). In Mark we find the concept of disciples as servants—those who give themselves for the sake of others (Mark 8:27-10:45). In Luke following Jesus is synonymous with discipleship, but to follow Jesus requires counting the cost (Luke 9:23-26, 57-62; Luke 14:25-33): it is to give up other attachments (such as wealth) and, instead, to love God and others (Luke 10:25-37). In John the key characteristic of discipleship is acceptance of Jesus’ claims about who he is. Here the three marks of the true disciple are abiding in Jesus’ word (John 8:31-32), love for others (John 13:34) and a fruit-bearing life (John 15:8).

So for those of us who seek to be Jesus’ disciples today, we do well to ponder the (still) puzzling call in Matthew to a countercultural lifestyle in which the poor and the meek are called blessed; in which mercy, purity and peacemaking are commended; in which persecution is to be expected; in which murder and lust are shown to begin as attitudes of the heart; in which turning the other cheek and walking the extra mile are marks of discipleship; and in which we are called to love even our enemies. We learn from Mark that the characteristic of discipleship is sacrificial love for others, a love that demands no return. In Luke we are faced with the challenge of other loyalties. What, in fact, determines our behavior? Is it love for Jesus or love of money (power, possessions, sex, etc.)? From John we learn of the vital importance of accepting Jesus for who he is, not for whom we would like him to be. We are challenged to follow the one who is the Bread of Life; the Light of the World; the way, truth and life; the Good Shepherd; the resurrection and the life; and the vine (of which we are branches).

Fourth, the end result of being Jesus’ disciples is friendship with him. This is quite amazing and moves beyond traditional understandings of discipleship. In speaking to the Twelve Jesus said, “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. . . . You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants. . . . Instead, I have called you friends” (John 15:12-15).

The Unique Character of Discipleship to Jesus

Taken as a whole, three distinct characteristics emerge that define the disciples of Jesus in addition to the general characteristics of first-century discipleship: (1) calling and following: to be Jesus’ disciple is to hear his call and to heed it by following him; (2) counting the cost: to be Jesus’ disciple means to bear our cross; and (3) commitment: to be Jesus’ disciple is to enter into a relationship with him.

Calling and following. It was common in the first century for potential disciples to seek out a rabbi with whom they wished to study. In contrast, Jesus called people to himself (Matthew 8:22; Matthew 16:24; Matthew 19:21; Mark 1:17). Furthermore, he urged his disciples to call others to follow him. “Make disciples” is the core command in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19).

Jesus’ call was to enter into a new way of living. This is best defined by the Great Commandment: “ ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ . . . ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:29-31). Thus the disciples of Jesus are called to a threefold path of love: loving God, loving themselves and loving others. That love at the center of the commandment points to the significance of giving our full attention as disciples to all our relationships. That we are called upon to love God in this all-encompassing way points to the fact that nurturing our spiritual lives is at the center of our discipleship. We are to love God with our whole beings: with our hearts (from the center of our being, which includes thinking and feeling), with our souls (which connotes physical and psychological energy), with our minds (intellectual activity) and with our strength (physical and material capabilities including our wealth). All aspects of life are meant to come under the lordship of Jesus.

Counting the cost. The cost of discipleship continues to be a challenge to all who would follow Jesus. It is Jesus who said, “Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 10:37-39). The importance of the final sentence in this statement is that it is the most frequently cited saying of Jesus in the New Testament. These are puzzling words, for we know that Jesus calls us to love others (and family is a priority) and that he chastises the Pharisees for using religious excuses for failing to care for family (Mark 7:9-13). In his typical, hyperbolical way, Jesus may be telling us that we need to leave our dependence on family so as to be able to love them truly. These are also strong words that haunt us as we compare our comfortable, safe, fulfilling lives to the lives of the early Christians, who came to assume that to be a Christian was to be a martyr. How can we live with the stringent demands of discipleship?

In response, some speak of “radical discipleship.” By this some mean living in an antimaterialistic way so as to serve the poor and fight injustice (Bonhoeffer; Sugden; Wallis). Others use this term in a more individualistic way, understanding radical discipleship to be a life of active ministry (preaching, teaching, evangelizing) and of a committed “walk” with Jesus (Ortiz; Bridges), that is, Bible study, prayer, worship.

Counting the cost has to do with priorities as much as anything. To what do we give ourselves—affirmation and acceptance? reputation and power? sensual indulgence and pleasure? knowledge or leisure? We face a long list of options in modern life. To follow Jesus is to choose (no matter how imperfectly) to give Jesus priority in life over against all these other options.

Commitment. At the core of discipleship is relationship with Jesus. Jesus called his followers not just to his teaching but to himself (John 15). This will involve coming to know who Jesus is in the full sense.

Commitment to Jesus will also involve an active attempt to cultivate a vital relationship with him. One aim of the spiritual disciplines is to help us develop just such a lifestyle. The devotional activities to which we give ourselves will involve, at least, the kind of Bible study and prayer that is an active dialogue with Jesus through which we experience the love, guidance and presence of the one we follow.

Living as a Disciple

On a practical level, discipleship is commonly understood within the Christian community to be a particular program of learning rather than a holistic way of life. But the contemporary challenge is not just to participate in schemes that seek to teach discipleship; it is to conduct our whole lives as conscious disciples of Jesus. In fact, one author defines discipleship as “living a fully human life in this world in union with Jesus Christ and growing in conformity to his image” (Wilkins, p. 42). If our whole life is meant to reflect our active discipleship, this will involve the following choices and activities.

The use of time. With the average adult American working longer hours and, in addition, watching an average of twenty-five hours of television a week, time has become our most precious commodity. Yet it takes time to cultivate a life of discipleship. We need to develop regular patterns of prayer, study and reflection that become an integral part of our schedules. In addition, we need to learn to use the gaps in our day for reflection and prayer: driving to work, waiting in line, lunch, time before going to sleep and so on. As well we need to master the art of openness to God while working, much as Brother Lawrence did in the monastery kitchen.

The use of means. Given our overwrought schedules, we must take advantage of those vehicles for growth that are open to us. In particular, small groups that meet on a regular basis for the purpose of spiritual growth seem to fit with both our need for regular spiritual activity and our need for the support of others as we seek to be disciples of Jesus (see Church; Church in the Home; Community). We also need to engage with others in a church for the purpose of learning, fellowship, celebration of the Lord’s Supper and prayer—as was the practice of the first disciples (Acts 2:42). A church community also gives us opportunity for service.

The use of vocation. We need to learn what it means to consider our jobs not just as means of earning a living but as the area in which to minister as disciples of Jesus (see Calling).

The use of spiritual disciplines. We need to rediscover the practices of the church down through the centuries by which men and women sought to cultivate a life of discipleship: meditation, fasting, solitude, confession, worship, prayer, study, celebration, discernment and simplicity.

In all this there must be conscious intentionality, the willingness to engage in the process of growth rather than seek instant growth and to engage in life in community with others on the same path. To live in this way is to live as a disciple of Jesus.

» See also: Accountability, Relational

» See also: Calling

» See also: Fellowship

» See also: Small Groups

» See also: Spiritual Disciplines

» See also: Spiritual Formation

» See also: Spiritual Growth

References and Resources

E. Best, Disciples and Discipleship: Studies in the Gospel According to Mark (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986); E. Best, Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (Sheffield: JSOT, 1981); D. Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, trans. R. H. Fuller, 2d rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1963); J. Bridges, The Practice of Godliness (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1983); J. Bridges, The Pursuit of Holiness (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1978); A. Gill, Life on the Road: The Gospel Basis for a Messianic Lifestyle (Homebush West, N.S.W.: Lancer Books, Anzea Publishers, 1989); J. C. Ortiz, Disciple (Carol Stream, Ill.: Creation House, 1975); R. Peace, Pilgrimage: A Handbook on Christian Growth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976); C. Sugden, Radical Discipleship (Hants, U.K.: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1981); J. Wallis, Agenda for Biblical People (New York: Harper & Row, 1976); M. J. Wilkins, Following the Master: Discipleship in the Steps of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992); D. Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines: Understanding How God Changes Lives (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988).

—Richard V. Peace

Discrimination, Workplace

As a term, discrimination can be understood in different ways. Historically it has meant the process of observing differences and making distinctions in our choices. Whenever we are hiring an employee or choosing an employee for promotion, the process of selection involves a form of discrimination. In this respect all judgments are discriminatory.

In recent decades, however, discrimination has taken on a negative connotation. Current usage most likely refers to unjust discrimination that is the result of improper judgments. Here discrimination means choosing for or against a person based on their group or class, or some characteristic (attribute) related to their group, and not on individual merit. This subjective judgment is the basis for giving an individual unjustifiably positive or negative treatment.

Discrimination in the workplace is manifested in different forms. It can be seen in the selection, hiring and promotional practices of organizations. The most conspicuous forms of workplace discrimination are sexism, racism and ageism. It is naive to believe that Christians are not susceptible to workplace discrimination issues. Should a Christian manager not promote someone because of moral issues (perhaps the worker is racist, makes crude jokes, is a practicing homosexual), or should she or he consider only the employee’s work performance record? Should a Christian be promoted over a non-Christian? Or should a “nice” person be promoted ahead of a profane but more competent worker? Such questions suggest the breadth and complexity of choices involving discrimination. To answer any of these situations without being aware of the myriad variables that make up each set of circumstances would be both unfair and simplistic.

One business ethicist observes that at its core, workplace discrimination involves adverse decisions against employees based on their membership in a group that is viewed as inferior or seen as deserving of unequal treatment. This discrimination can be institutional or individual, intentional or unintentional (Shaw and Barry, p. 364).

Diversity and the Changing Workplace

Diversity and multiculturalism are two words often applied to today’s work environment. Here are some facts about the changing workplace in the United States:

• ❑ Women, people of color and immigrants account for more than 50 percent of the present work force.

• ❑ By the year 2000, 85 percent of the those entering the job market will be female, African-American, Asian-American, Latino or new immigrants.

• ❑ Two million “older” workers, between ages fifty and sixty-four, are ready, willing and able to work but are not being utilized.

• ❑ Encouraged by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, many of the forty-three million Americans with disabilities will seek equal opportunity in employment (Blank and Slipp, p. 3).

There is considerable agreement that an ethical organization operates on ground rules which encourage managers to communicate and treat the diversity and differences in their work force fairly. However, dealing with diversity in the workplace without practicing some discriminatory behavior has become a more complex task today than it was a decade or two ago.

A comprehensive 1980s study done by the Hudson Institute, Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century, made significant predictions that are worth examining. It projected that of the twenty-five million people who would join the American work force between 1987 and 2000, only 15 percent would be white males; almost 61 percent would be women; and 29 percent would be minorities (minority women were counted twice; cited by Garfield, pp. 8-9). For companies committed to a corporate culture that will include groups besides white males, this raises two dilemmas: first, how to ensure a diverse workforce without antagonizing either white males, whose support is critical for change, or women and minorities, who may resent efforts to win over white males; and second, how to correct historical discrimination without creating new forms of it (Galen and Palmer, pp. 50-52).

Sexism, Racism, Ageism and Other Forms of Workplace Discrimination

Sexism occurs when people are treated in a biased or prejudiced manner based on gender rather than on personal traits or abilities. Sexism can be blatant or subtle and is often complex. There are numerous accounts of how successful professional women today had to surmount serious sexist roadblocks to advance in their careers. It has only been in the last few decades that women have been able to make substantial inroads into such fields as medicine and law, for example.

Sexism can be subtle because people may interpret a particular behavior differently depending on whether it is exhibited by a man or a woman. Some may see a man as assertive but a woman as aggressive, a man as flexible but a woman as fickle, a woman as sensitive but a man as a wimp, or a woman as polite but a man as patronizing (Range, p. 791). Women frequently encounter a “glass ceiling” as they attempt the ascent to upper-management levels. Only about 3 percent of American women have gained high-level management positions. Furthermore, in the United States a woman earns only about 70-75 cents for every dollar earned by a man having the same job (Reder, pp. 23-25).

In the work arena, racism or racial prejudice occurs when there is an unfair or unequal valuation of persons on the basis of race. Racism assumes that hereditary biology determines the differences between groups, that cultural differences are predetermined and unchangeable, and that the identifying social and cultural features of the subordinate group are inferior (Thoms, p. 342).

African-Americans in particular have experienced discrimination at work. Their representation in management positions falls dramatically short of their overall representation in the work force. As of 1991, according to U.S. Labor Department statistics, fewer than 24 percent of African-American workers held managerial, professional or administrative jobs, compared to about 60 percent of whites (Reder, p. 31).

While diversity studies tend to focus on differences in gender, culture and ethnic background, the broadest definition of diversity will also encompass differences in age. As the American population ages, new concerns about staffing shortages, mandatory retirement and age discrimination are arising. Ageism is a much more subtle bias than racism and sexism; therefore it often goes unrecognized.

Sexism, racism and ageism are not the only areas where discrimination occurs in the workplace. Individuals may also suffer discrimination because of religious beliefs, sexual preference, disability status, educational background and even physical appearance. For example, some qualified individuals may be passed over for extremely attractive, less qualified individuals who broadcast the “ideal” organization image.

Group Characteristics Versus Stereotypes

Managers must take time to get to know and appreciate an individual’s unique qualities and not take the dangerous, ill-considered path of using stereotypes as a shortcut means for labeling people. Unfortunately, stereotyping happens too often—consciously or unconsciously—without any thought to its potentially adverse effects on others. The following are examples of common stereotypes:

• ❑ People with disabilities are unable to work regular hours.

• ❑ Women who are mothers are not committed to their jobs.

• ❑ White men are racist and sexist.

• ❑ Immigrants have no desire to learn English. (Blank and Slipp, p. 9)

Management must be aware of the difference between a group characteristic and a stereotype. For example, a legitimate characteristic of many people with disabilities—although not all—is that they need some accommodation to perform their jobs optimally. A stereotype is the belief that people with disabilities cannot work regular hours because it is too hard for them; such a stereotype may lead managers not to hire anyone with a disability.

Scripture and Discrimination

As Christians, when we make moral choices, we are involved in a type of discrimination because our intent is to select the best moral alternative over less favorable ones. However, when we use inappropriate criteria for making our moral judgments, we are practicing unjust discrimination. Richard Chewning astutely points out that unjust discrimination reveals an ungodly form of favoritism and rejection that violates biblical norms. Scripture reveals that God is not a respecter of persons and that unjust discrimination is an abomination to him (see Deut. 10:17; 2 Chron. 19:7; Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Galatians 2:6; Ephes. 6:9; Col. 3:25; James 2:1-9; 1 Peter 1:17). Christians need to be aware, Chewning says, that our “old nature” has a tendency toward becoming protective and defensive whenever our psychological comfort is threatened. Sadly, this perverted reflex is often at the root of discrimination and generally reveals personal insecurities and pride (Chewning, p. 277).

For Christians, unjust discrimination is morally objectionable not only because it is wrong and evil but also because it stands against the revelation of God, who loves all people and offers them reconciliation through Christ. Our worth is tied to the belief that men and women are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), that all people have sinned and come short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23) and that God’s love for the world culminated in Christ’s death on the cross, which covers the sins of those who put faith in him (John 3:16). This egalitarian ideal is also critical to Paul’s conception of the church, where “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28; compare Col. 3:11). Paul’s view was in juxtaposition to that of ethnic Jews who saw themselves as being a superior race because they were God’s chosen people.

The Israelites were commanded to deal with people in a just and loving manner (Deut. 1:17; Deut. 24:17-18); special consideration was to be given to the poor, the widow, the orphan and the needs of the alien, who did not have equal political and economic status with adult Israelite males (Exodus 22:21-27; Leviticus 19:10; Deut. 15:7-11).

Jesus’ teaching and behavior exemplified the importance of dealing with others in an impartial way (Luke 20:21) by practicing love and justice. In so doing he collided with many discriminatory practices of his day. Jesus took a strong stance in his radical inclusion and acceptance of women and children (Mark 10:13-16; John 4:1-27; John 12:1-11); he openly befriended social outcasts (Luke 5:27-31; Luke 18:9-14; John 8:1-11); and he healed the sick and unclean (Luke 5:12-26; Luke 17:11-19). Compassion, not correctness, was his guide.

One of the most important New Testament passages addressing discrimination is the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). In this parable, a man who is robbed and left half dead is passed by “on the other side” of the road by both a priest and a Levite. Yet a Samaritan, despised by Jews as an unclean half-breed, takes pity on him, attends to his wounds, puts him on his own donkey, takes him to an inn, and generously gives the innkeeper enough money to provide for the man to stay for up to two months at the inn.

What makes this parable striking is that the most likely candidates for attending to the man not only ignore his plight but also deliberately pass by on the other side. The person Jesus commends in the parable was neither the religious leader nor the lay associate but a hated foreigner—the Samaritan. If anyone has a reason for passing the injured man by, it is the Samaritan, since Samaritans and Jews were openly hostile toward one another. In this parable, then, Jesus pointedly asserts that authentic love transcends national boundaries.

When Jesus asks, “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” the answer is “The one who had mercy on him.” To this Jesus adds, “Go and do likewise.”

The parable of the good Samaritan is given in response to the poignant question “And who is my neighbor?” Immediately preceding this question in Luke 10:27—and in other passages (Matthew 22:35-40; Mark 12:28-33; compare Leviticus 19:18)—Jesus succinctly provides guidance concerning our priorities and relationship to God and our neighbors.

Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40)

Christians are called to accept all persons, regardless of race, creed or sex, on equal footing as children of God. In the final analysis, the problem of discrimination (in its negative sense) finds a certain resolution for Christians in the attempt to fulfill God’s law as given in the “new commandment”: “If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers” (James 2:8-9).

» See also: Aging

» See also: Business Ethics

» See also: Firing

» See also: Multiculturalism

» See also: Office Politics

» See also: Organizational Culture and Change

» See also: Power, Workplace

» See also: Racism

References and Resources

R. Blank and S. Slipp, Voices of Diversity (New York: American Management Association, 1994); R. C. Chewning, Biblical Principles and Business: The Practice (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1990) 272-84; M. Galen and A. T. Palmer, “White, Male and Worried,” Business Week, January 31, 1994, 50-55; C. Garfield, “Embracing Diversity,” Executive Excellence, October 1994, 8-9; D. J. Miller, “Discrimination,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. W. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984) 320-21; L. M. Range, “Sexism,” in Ready Reference: Ethics (Pasadena, Calif.: Salem, 1994) 791-92; A. Reder, In Pursuit of Principle and Profit (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1994); J. Richardson. ed., Annual Editions: Business Ethics 96/97 (Sluice Dock, Guilford, Conn.: Dushkin, 1996); W. H. Shaw and V. Barry, Moral Issues in Business (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1992); D. E. Thoms, “Racism,” in Encyclopedia of Biblical and Christian Ethics (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992) 342-43.

—John E. Richardson

Divorce

Divorce is a tragic dimension of everyday life. With a significant percentage of marriages ending in divorce in the Western world, many people are skipping marriage altogether and are simply cohabiting. Others want to get married “until death us do part,” as the vows state, but enter marriage with a deep fear that they may become a statistic. Still others, influenced by a culture of “throwaway” relationships, enter marriage with an emotional loophole, thinking (often unconsciously), If it doesn’t work out we can always get a divorce. Rather than being a covenant for lifelong companionship, marriage today is frequently reduced to a contract for the mutual meeting of needs. “So long as we both shall live” has become “so long as we both shall love.” Taken in its best light, divorce is regarded by many as part of the process of personal growth. But the negative consequences for children, families, society, morality, mental health and education are documented over and over again in both popular and scholarly works.

Approaching the Divorce Question

It is not the purpose of this article to consider all aspects of divorce including the emotional stages of divorce that precede legal divorce, preparation for a divorceless covenant (Stevens 1990), strategies for turning a for-worse into a for-better marriage (Stevens 1986; Weiner-Davis), or the recovery process when one has been divorced (Wallerstein and Blakeslee; Weiss). Rather it is concerned with the theology and spirituality of divorce: how we are to think about it, how divorce affects our relationship with God, and how we are to relate to this phenomenon in the world today. It must be said at the outset that nobody likes divorce (except a few who profit financially from it) and almost nobody wants to get divorced. Further, those people who have been divorced have not committed the unforgivable sin and are in deep need of love and acceptance.

The fundamental assumption of this article is that a theology and spirituality of divorce must rest on the Bible rather than on statistics, social mores or expediency. When it comes to divorce, taking the Bible as authority is a complicated matter. The church has tried to understand the divorce question in at least three ways: (1) through a legal-like interpretation of Scripture to find the permissible grounds, (2) by interpreting Scripture through the lens of dispensational thinking to find out whether the hard passages are really for today or some other age and (3) through biblical theology that considers two realities—Scripture and contemporary culture. We will consider each of these in turn and then offer a spiritual reflection.

It is difficult to speak of divorce and marriage at the same time. That seems to have been Jesus’ dilemma when he was pressed with questions about the legality of divorce by his contemporaries (Matthew 19:3-4). In effect, he said, “I can’t speak about divorce until I have brought you back to God’s intention in Genesis, which takes us beyond culture into the paradise of God. When two are united by God, and have become one, you would be tearing apart a God-given unity if you divorced them.” To quote Jesus’ actual words, “What God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6). While Jesus does not say that divorce causes polygamy (or polyandry), he implies this by stating that “anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9). Simply put, someone who already belongs to someone should not, perhaps cannot, also belong to another. Whether the practice results in multiple wives simultaneously (as in some cultures) or multiple wives sequentially (as in our culture), the effect is the same. Modern practice and biblical truth require treating the divorce question as a case study in serial polygamy and polyandry, as unpopular as this might be.

The Textual/Legal Approach

Those who approach the subject of divorce from a legal perspective are concerned to find the correct grounds for permissible divorce. This necessitates dealing with the absolute statements against divorce in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18. These must be considered in light of the clause “except for marital unfaithfulness” found in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. On the assumption that Mark and Luke knew of this clause, some argue that a person can be divorced if he or she is the innocent party of a marriage that has been destroyed by adultery. If death permits the physical survivor to remarry (Romans 7:3), adultery may permit the “moral survivor” to remarry.

Peter Davids argues, however, that when Jesus was asked for a rabbinic interpretation of Deut. 24, Jesus rejected this passage as a permission for divorce. Davids’s point centers on the argument that one cannot really divorce; that is, the divorce decree is a legal fiction. The parties involved have sinned, but they have not ended the marriage. The relationship can be negative, distant and cold, but it has not been annulled. These two cannot be as they were before marriage. The Deuteronomy passage ceases to have relevance for us in Christ except in the case of a woman or man desiring to return to a former spouse after a remarriage to a second spouse had terminated, for that is what Deut. 24 deals with. Even then, the full light of forgiveness in Christ might make us reconsider this as legislation applying to the Christian today.

A further problem Davids explores concerns the language found in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9: the Greek word porneia is used rather than the usual term for adultery, moicheia. This suggests that Jesus is dealing not with marital adultery but with premarital sexual sin. While the Old Testament called for stoning to death one who committed such sexual sin (porneia), divorce would have been more likely in the New Testament period. Joseph’s predicament with Mary, and his intended righteous action, is a case in point. Frequently, those who try to uncover the legal grounds for divorce in the New Testament fail to notice that in the Gospels adultery is grounds for forgiveness, not divorce. They also fail to note that according to Jesus, the lustful eye—intending adultery—is as evil as the deed. This makes almost everyone divorceable.

What about the second ground for divorce in the Bible, that is, the case of desertion by an unbelieving partner: “But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances” (1 Cor. 7:15)? In this case one partner has become a Christian, and the other demands either renunciation of faith or the end of the marriage. Where one must make such a soul-wounding choice, Paul advises that the believer is not bound to his or her partner. But, he is careful to note, the believer does not deny his Lord (or defile the marriage) by remaining married to an unbeliever, if this is possible.

In fact, no sooner has Paul said that the believer need not restrain the unbeliever from leaving (though the believer is not to take the initiative) than he reminds the believer that a believing husband may even save the wife (1 Cor. 7:16). Previously Paul had said that an unbelieving husband is already sanctified through his believing wife (1 Cor. 7:14). The use of the term “not bound” in 1 Cor. 7:15 emphasizes the freedom of the Christian spouse, and it is possible that Paul would give cautious permission for remarriage of the believer in those cases where the unbeliever has contracted another marital union. But it is highly unlikely that Paul is counseling divorce and remarriage for the believer when the unbelieving spouse remains unconnected with another marital partner.

One aspect is seldom noted by those who legislate on the matter of a marriage between a believing and an unbelieving spouse: the Christian spouse should not be such a nuisance to his or her partner, such an unpleasant believer, perhaps even a superspiritual believer no longer interested in sex, that the unbeliever simply can no longer tolerate living under the same roof. Just as it is difficult to locate absolutely the “innocent” party in the case of marital unfaithfulness, so it is difficult to locate the innocent party in the case of a deserting unbeliever. In both cases believers are not to end their marriages.

There is no New Testament legislation concerning persons divorced and remarried before becoming Christians. The gospel covers that possibility, and every other one as well, by proclaiming a new start in Christ. The New Testament simply does not deal with the situation of an abused woman (or man). Presumably Paul, if he had ruled on this in the spirit of Jesus, would have said that a woman should not submit to abuse even if her husband, by not getting his own way, leaves her. But Paul would also say that while they may separate for peace, or even for personal emotional survival (assuming that all other means of dealing with it have temporarily failed), they are not thereby granted the right to divorce and find another partner. Grace holds out the hope of reconciliation and never gives up hope that the fractured covenant could be healed.

It is difficult to believe that Paul was more lenient than Jesus on the matter of divorce, even though Paul had to legislate whereas Jesus did not. The burden of Paul’s teaching, as it was for Jesus, is the divorceless covenant, not the grounds for permissible divorce. As a realist within the grace of God, Paul dealt with the difficulties in which believers found themselves, but he refused to reduce marriage to a contract with terms that, through being violated, would annul it. It is impossible to legislate for every possible situation in extremely strained marriages by appealing to the teaching of either Jesus or Paul.

Does “sexual impurity” (porneia) in Matthew refer only to heterosexual intercourse? Does it include homosexual acts? Would one homosexual act require divorce? Would porneia include the demand of a husband for sexual variations that are repulsive to his wife? or sexual abuse? or rape within the marriage? Would a wife or husband’s unwillingness to consummate the relationship except to conceive children constitute sexual unfaithfulness? And what happens if the partner is unwilling to have intercourse because she finds her husband overbearing, demanding and manipulative, rather than loving? Anyone wishing to approach divorce from the legal point of view is well advised to read the postbiblical Mishnah. That document prescribes in the most minute detail the conditions and variations that should guide a decision on the legality of divorce in almost every situation. The problem is that there will always be a situation for which the rule does not apply!

The Dispensational Approach

This view takes seriously the existence of different stages in the story of God’s dealing with the human race. Christ taught the ethics of the kingdom and, as the King-in-person, introduced God’s reign into this age. The new age of the kingdom overlaps with the old. And the ethic of the kingdom, it is argued, is too high to be lived out in a partially saved world. According to this view when Jesus spoke about divorceless marriage, he was speaking about life in his ideal kingdom, not about life in this mixed reality we now have of kingdom and flesh. So, for example, Dwight Small argues that we must balance Jesus’ ideal teachings with the realities of the overlapping kingdoms (this age and the next age). While he does not call this dispensational thinking (different parts of the Bible deal with different seasons of God’s saving activity), the effect is the same. It divides the New Testament into parts that apply now and parts that do not. The problem with Small’s approach is that Jesus says it is the foolish person who does not build his life on obedience to his teaching now (Matthew 7:24-27).

P. T. Forsyth takes a slightly different approach worth considering, arguing that the legislation for divorce regarding “hardness of heart” (Matthew 19:8) is not a concession to individual weakness and human nature but a reflection on the incomplete development of God’s society on earth. Even if we must recognize divorce as a reality, and perhaps even a gracious reality in the case of an innocent victim, we should never lose sight of God’s intention. God’s design is a divorceless covenant, and no marriage should be conceived on any other foundation. Forsyth notes, however, that a move from basing marriage on covenant to consent would change the very idea of marriage. This has now happened. What we are losing today are not marriages but marriage itself—the whole covenant idea.

While we must be realists, we must never accept divorce in a way that erodes the idea of a divorceless covenant. The Christian community is deeply challenged to do this in such a way that the divorced people among us are not made to feel like second-class citizens or marital lepers.

Biblical Theology

A third approach emphasizes the teaching of Jesus that “what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6). Until now I have assumed that God is normally pleased to join together those who will enter into a covenant, “as God’s Word doth allow” (as the old marriage service stated), with all its dimensions: leaving, cleaving and one flesh (Genesis 2:24) (see Marriage). But we must ask now whether God joins everyone who gets married. Are there people whose marriage is neither blessed nor founded in God (whether they believe in God or not), and for these people is divorce right, if not necessary? Perhaps no one has thought more comprehensively on this subject than Karl Barth in his work Church Dogmatics. The following discussion summarizes Barth’s theology on the subject.

Marriage (covenant) is an indissoluble union. According to Barth, “the marriage which rests upon the command of God and therefore upon his calling cannot be dissolved by man even if he wishes” (Barth 1968, p. 34). Such a marriage, he argues, makes the indicatives “I am yours” and “you are mine” into imperatives. We must accept this until death us do part. The little key to the exit door is lost. Whoever would enter marriage must renounce the thought of ever leaving it.

Even a well-married couple should not presume on God’s grace. Such a couple, he says, should not rely on the encouraging indications of their marriage but “can only hold fast the mercy of God without any merit of their own” (Barth 1968, p. 35). Beware if they think they stand by their own effort! This is an important corrective to the pragmatic approach today that if you go to enough marriage-enrichment seminars, you can guarantee a good marriage. It is God’s gift!

Can you know for sure your marriage is not blessed by God? Barth says no. Even though there may be many indications of an unsuccessful marriage and people suspect that their marriage lacks God’s blessing, this blessing may simply be hidden from them for the moment. Barth calls them to consider “whether there may not be indications that its malady can finally be healed and its union given permanence” (1968, p. 36).

No matter what, we are to cling to God’s yes. Covenant marriage is based not on external indications but on the call and provision of God. Therefore, since the Word of God is primarily a word of promise and only secondarily a word of judgment, a believer is called to cling to God’s yes rather than his no. For “no negative indications, however bad, can engender the certainty that a particular marriage is without promise and stands finally under the judgment of God because [it is] not . . .‘made in heaven’ ” (Barth 1968, p. 38).

But in an extreme case we may painfully conclude that a couple should not remain married. We must be cautious and unassuming in thinking that we can discern whether or not a marriage is blessed by God. The saying of Jesus cannot be reversed to say “what God has not joined together, let man separate.” Divorce may be permitted where God has evidently condemned the marriage as a noncovenant. Divorce applies only to the legal institution of marriage and not the divine covenant, which is indissoluble. Therefore the covenant is not dissolved, because there never was one.

The church must show compassion to the divorced. Barth asks rhetorically, “May it not be that those who are joined in a ‘good’ marriage are supremely characterized by the fact that they can manifest toward those to whom this boon has not been granted something of the divine mercy which they themselves may enjoy in this respect?” (1968, p. 36). In passing it is worthy of note that often couples with “good marriages” tend to flock together and avoid those with “bad marriages,” each group developing its own support network.

Divorced persons must not be refused remarriage. In Barth’s view, divorced persons know themselves as judged by God in their (noncovenant) marriages, but the church “will not regard them as polluted, or scandalously . . . refuse them the church’s benediction in the case of a second marriage” (1968, p. 41) if they turn in repentance to Christ and the gospel. After all, the ministry of the gospel is to create a new beginning, whether in a single life or to be married again.

The big question is not divorce but marriage. “Legal divorce,” according to Barth, “is not part of the divine command concerning marriage; for this proclaims and requires its indissolubility. It belongs only to the institution of marriage. The human institution takes into account the possibility of marriages which have no divine foundation and constitution . . . and which therefore can be dissolved” (1968, p. 40). In other words, marriage is dissoluble (that is, marriage as a human institution), but the covenant is indissoluble.

Divorce and the Spirituality of the Church

Barth’s reasoning is an attempt to explore God’s Word about divorce. But equally important is the question of what divorce does to our hearing (see Listening) of God’s voice in Scripture and our knowing God’s presence in everyday life. The pastoral approach to divorce has more than one dimension. There is the obvious pastoral concern of how to prevent divorce if possible and care for those going through a divorce. But what does easy and widespread divorce do to our spirituality?

First, the marriage covenant takes us to the heart of God, who is a covenant-making and covenant-keeping God. Second, if we cannot believe that God will work a miracle in our hearts to keep covenant with our spouse, even in a difficult marriage (indeed, what marriage is not?), how can we believe that God could work the greater miracle of raising Jesus from the dead? Like Hosea in the Old Testament, we may seek a solution to a difficult marriage beyond the institution of marriage itself. Hosea called his wife Gomer into court and spoke of her as divorced (and perhaps would have gone through a legal divorce) in order to win her back! Third, the essence of being a child of God—contrary to popular psychology—is obedience. If we obey what we already have from God, we can be given more. As we do the truth, God reveals more. Finally, a hard heart is both the cause and usual consequence of divorce (Matthew 19:8). If we harden our heart to our nearest and dearest neighbor, our spouse, we will be dead to the voice of God.

A church where couples can exchange partners freely, where divorce is accepted as a normal growth experience, and where marriage is entered thoughtlessly and lightly as something less than a lifelong covenant is a church that will soon have no real spiritual power and vitality. Love without truth is deadening, but truth without love is deadly. When a church does not stand beside divorced people and offer grace and hope if they turn in repentance to Christ and the gospel but instead offers judgment, condemnation and exclusion, the church will soon not hear the voice of God. Of the three Christian virtues that should be offered by the people of God today, especially in relation to marriage, the one most urgently needed is hope. And hope is what the gospel of Jesus brings.

» See also: Cohabiting

» See also: Conflict Resolution

» See also: Family Problems

» See also: Forgiveness

» See also: Marriage

» See also: Promises

References and Resources

K. Barth, Church Dogmatics 3 / 4, The Doctrine of Creation, trans. A. T. Mackay et al. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1961); K. Barth, On Marriage (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968); P. Davids, “Divorce: The Biblical Data” (Vancouver: Equippers, 1985, unpublished); P. T. Forsyth, Marriage: Its Ethic and Religion (London: Hodder & Stoughton, n.d.); D. H. Small, The Right to Remarry (Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1975); J. H. Olthius, I Pledge You My Troth: A Christian View of Marriage, Family, Friendship (New York: Harper & Row, 1975); R. P. Stevens, Getting Ready for a Great Marriage (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1990); R. P. Stevens, Married for Good: The Lost Art of Remaining Happily Married (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986); J. S. Wallerstein and S. Blakeslee, Second Chances (New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1989); M. Weiner-Davis, Divorce-Busting (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992); R. Weiss, Marital Separation (New York: Basic Books, 1976).

—R. Paul Stevens

Dreaming

Approximately one-third of a normal lifetime is spent sleeping, and much of that time is devoted to dreaming. Although sleep and dreams are commonplace facts of life, they remain mysteries, and each generation has tried to determine the cause and meaning of dreams. In this article we will explore the various theories about dreaming, the history of dreaming including dreams in the Bible, psychoanalytic interpretation of dreams, and an examination of what is actually happening when we dream. Finally, some practical suggestions will be offered.

Basic Facts on Dreaming

At the time of this writing, there is no generally accepted theory as to the meaning of dreams. All that is known for sure is that dreaming is a universal phenomenon in humans. In the mid-1930s scientists began to describe separate and distinct electroencephalographic (EEG) stages occurring during sleep. In the mid-1950s scientists reported that bursts of conjugate, rapid eye movements (REM) periodically appeared, and they linked these periods to dreaming.

Basically, there are two very different kinds of sleep: nonrapid eye movement (NREM), or orthodox, sleep and rapid eye movement (REM), or paradoxical, sleep. Within NREM sleep, three stages are usually recognized. Stage 1 is a transition stage between full wakefulness and clear sleep when thoughts begin to drift and thinking is no longer reality oriented. Though short dreams often develop, most people feel that they are awake during stage 1 sleep. Stage 2 is the first bona fide sleep stage, and mentation during this stage usually consists of short, mundane and fragmented thoughts. Stage 3, delta sleep, is when deep sleep occurs and it is hardest to awaken someone.

REM sleep alternates with NREM sleep at about ninety-minute intervals. The EEG pattern resembles that of stage 1 sleep. However, during REM sleep muscle tone is also extremely low, and heart rate and respiratory rate are relatively high and variable. More than 80 percent of people who are awakened during REM sleep are able to recall dreams. The first period of REM sleep occurs approximately seventy to ninety minutes after sleep onset and usually lasts about five minutes. REM sleep alternates with NREM sleep, with REM periods becoming more intense (both physiologically and psychologically) and longer toward morning. Many people therefore awaken in the morning while dreaming. The amount of dreaming changes with age. REM sleep drops from 50 percent of sleeping time at birth to about 20 percent by puberty. From that time on, REM remains reasonably constant throughout life, although there seems to be a slight percentage increase during young adulthood and a slight percentage decrease, at least in males, during old age.

The meaning of these changes in REM sleep is unknown, but they have given rise to many speculations concerning the need to dream and the function of REM sleep. It is clear that dreaming is needed for proper functioning. When volunteers are awakened each time they start an REM period, REM pressure seems to build up, and upon falling asleep again, they usually start to dream more quickly. They also make up the lost REM-time as soon as they are permitted to do so. REM sleep becomes more intensive, and upon the volunteers’ awakening certain behavioral changes occur. People who are REM-deprived seem to become more agitated, more impulsive and less able to control their actions, whereas people deprived of delta sleep do not show these signs. It should be noted that many drugs and substances affect REM sleep and therefore may affect mood and behavior.

History of Dreaming

In ancient and primitive societies, dreams were usually thought to be the work of gods or demons, appearing to mortals with messages of hope or despair. The ancient Egyptians and Babylonians attached great importance to dreams and to oneiromancy, or dream interpretation. Such interpretation was already an advanced technique by the time of the earliest records.

The oldest of the thousands of dream books is found in the Chester Beatty Papyrus, which comes from Thebes in Upper Egypt and incorporates material probably dating back to 2000 b.c. In these writings a distinction is made between “good” and “bad” dreams. Some two hundred dreams are preserved in that papyrus, and various interpretations are given. For example, it records that it was good to dream of sawing wood, for this foretold of the death of enemies. The Egyptians also had a strong belief in incubation, which meant that sick persons were brought to sleep in the temple, where they fasted, or took potions, to induce beneficial dreams. There are examples of incubation dreams given throughout the Old Testament. 1 Kings 3:4-9 describes how Solomon went to Gibeon to offer sacrifices, “for that was the most important high place.” There he had a dream in which God said, “Ask for whatever you want me to give you.” Samuel’s dream in the temple is another example of an incubation dream (1 Samuel 3:1-14).

Most of the symbolic dreams in the Old Testament happen to Gentiles. For the Jews there was only one God; God alone could be the source of divine revelations in dreams and was expected to speak clearly to them. Such messages, however, might seem garbled or unclear to a Pharaoh or Nebuchadnezzar. Pharaoh’s dreams were interpreted by Joseph (Genesis 41:25-32). Though Pharaoh may have been consciously or unconsciously aware of climatic factors that could lead to a seven-year period of rich harvest followed by seven years of famine, the awareness broke through dramatically only in the form of a dream allegory of seven fat and seven thin cows. Joseph himself had a dream regarding his brothers (Genesis 37:5-7) in which suddenly his sheaf stood upright, while their sheaves gathered around his and bowed down to it. This may have revealed his understanding of both his talents and the ambition that would carry him to great eminence.

The fact that several Jewish prophets gave warnings against false dreams and false interpreters suggests that there was a systematic effort to sharpen the distinction between divine and significant dreams and those that were either evil or without significance. In Jeremiah 23:25-28 (compare Deut. 13:1-5) God says,

I have heard what the prophets say who prophesy in my name. They say, “I had a dream! I had a dream!” How long will this continue in the hearts of these lying prophets, who prophesy the delusions of their own minds? They think the dreams they tell one another will make my people forget my name, just as their father’s forgot my name through Baal worship. Let the prophet who has a dream tell his dream, but let the one who has my word speak it faithfully. For what has straw to do with grain?

Some basic principles of the meaning of dreams can be seen in the Old Testament writings. In addition to being divine revelations, dreams provided a means for understanding one’s innermost thoughts and feelings as well as for working through problem areas in one’s life. For example, Daniel indicated that he would be interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s dream so that the king “may understand what went through your [the king’s] mind” (Daniel 2:30). Job 33:14-18 describes how God may speak in a dream “to turn man from wrongdoing and keep him from pride.” In Psalm 16:7 it is written, “Even at night my heart instructs me.” However, dreams may not always carry special meaning or significance. As it says in Eccles. 5:7, “Much dreaming and many words are meaningless.”

In the Gospels there are only seven references to dreams or dreamers. All occur in Matthew, and none come from Jesus. The dreams are all prophetic. An angel tells Joseph in a dream to take Mary as his wife (Matthew 1:20), and the Magi are warned in a dream not to go back to Herod but to return to their country by another route (Matthew 2:12). Joseph also has other dreams (Matthew 2:13, 19-20). Pilate’s wife has a dream regarding Jesus and sends a message stating, “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him” (Matthew 27:19).

The only other reference to dreaming in the New Testament is a citation used for illustrative purposes in Acts 2:17. Words are quoted from the prophet Joel, who stated, “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophecy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.”

Something related to dreaming occurred during the missionary journeys of Paul. Acts 16:9-10 notes that Paul had a night vision of a man from Macedonia begging Paul to come and help. The exact content of the dream and the identity of the Macedonian man have been the subject of much conjecture. The incident, however, reveals some important principles of how dreams and visions may fit into a larger experience of guidance from God. John Stott notes that the dream was preceded by two negative prohibitions (not to go to Asia and Bithynia). So the experience was not only negative but positive, not only circumstantial but rational (Paul and his companions discussed the vision), not only personal but corporate (they came to a common mind about the direction in which they should move; Stott, p. 261). We must now ask how dreams have been understood.

Psychoanalytic Interpretation of Dreaming

In 1900, when Sigmund Freud published The Interpretation of Dreams, the book provoked hostile criticism. The subject itself, let alone Freud’s serious treatment of it, seemed ludicrous not only to other medical men but also to many intellectuals trained in a rationalist tradition. Dreams were seen by Freud as the royal road to the unconscious. Whereas modern philosophy really began when Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am,” modern psychology began when Freud said in effect, “I am, therefore I dream.”

Freud believed that dreams represented unfulfilled, and often unacceptable, wishes, most of which referred to instinctual impulses originating in the dreamer’s early childhood. He believed that repressed infantile sexual wishes provided the most frequent and strongest motivating forces for the construction of dreams. Such wishes did not appear directly in dreams but were disguised in various ways in order to make them acceptable to the dreamer. Hence, the dream required interpretation. What the dreamer recalled was only the manifest content; the latent content, or the true meaning of the dream, could only be discerned after a lengthy process in which the dreamer’s association to all the images in the dream had been subjected to trained analytical scrutiny.

Although dreams are under the control of the unconscious mind and are therefore not couched in language of everyday speech, there is certainly no evidence that all dreams are concealing unacceptable or unfulfilled wishes or urges. Freud himself recognized this when he considered the recurrent dreams of patients who had been subject to traumatic incidents in which the incidents occur in an undisguised form. This commonly occurs in persons who are suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder. Repetitive dreaming may be a way of working through feelings and coping with the trauma.

Carl Jung, as described by psychiatrist Anthony Storr, took a very different view of dreams from that given by Freud (Storr, p. 46). First of all, he did not consider dreams to be concealments. Rather, according to Jung, dreams were expressed in a symbolic language that may or may not be difficult to understand. Other similar forms of expression in which metaphors and symbolism occur include poetry and music. Second, Jung believed that dreams may possess all sorts of meanings, not merely the imaginary fulfillment of repressed wishes. Dreams may contain memories, wild fancies and goodness knows what else. Third, Jung described the human psyche as being a self-regulation system. The unconscious and conscious parts of the mind were conceived as operating in a reciprocal relationship. For example, a celibate person may have an overabundance of sexual-laden dreams. Jung cites instances in which men who had consciously overestimated their own powers had dreams indicating that their limits had actually been reached (Storr, p. 46).

What Are Dreams?

Scientists continue to provide different answers to the question “What are dreams?” One recently suggested that dreams may have no function at all! REM sleep seems to have functions, but dreaming and REM sleep are not the same thing. However, it seems clear that dreams have been used throughout the centuries by people to help understand various problems as well as to receive guidance and messages from God. We seem to dream mainly about issues that concern us at the present time, such as fears, wishes, plans, hopes and worries. Thus, dreaming that a friend is dead does not necessarily signify a latent death wish but might well mean that one is concerned for the friend’s health. Dreams often relate to unsettled business stirred up during the day. But the language of dreams is often symbolic and distorted. Disentangling the so-called real meaning of the dream often requires intimate knowledge of both the dreamer and dream mechanisms in general.

Storr describes four basic functions of dreaming (pp. 46-47). (1) Some dreams certainly can represent wishes, very often of a sexual or ambitious kind, just as do daydreams. An example of an ambitious dream would be the dream of Joseph described in Genesis 37:5-10. (2) Dreams often seem to serve as an outlet for impulses that have been impossible to express or that are partially unrecognized by the dreamer. Examples of these would include aggressive impulses towards employers, parents and other authority figures or sexual impulses towards people whom the dreamer desires but who, for social or religious reasons, are inaccessible. (3) Dreams often have a compensatory aspect. Dreams frequently bring out some feeling of affection towards people we thought we wholly disliked or, vice versa, some feeling of dislike towards those we thought we wholly liked. The atheist may discover a religious side to himself, or the scientist may discover that she is not as rational as she had supposed. (4) Dreams often relate to problems with which the dreamer is struggling but which he or she has not yet resolved. Dreams often seem to bring out problems of which the person may only be half aware. This problem-solving aspect of dreaming is illustrated by those dreams of scientists and other creative people in which solutions are found. One of the most significant of such discoveries was the dream that revealed the ring structure of benzene to the scientist F. A. Kekule. He had tried for years to find a graphic means of representing the molecular structure of trimethyl benzene. Eventually its ring structure was revealed when he dreamed of a snake with its tail in its mouth.

Practical Suggestions

Though dreams are not material that allows dogmatic interpretation, they are often valuable indicators pointing towards emotional preoccupations of which, perhaps, the person was not consciously aware. They are couched in the language of the unconscious, and their interpretation should not be taken literally any more than poetry. Interestingly, one of the greatest of English prose works, John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, is cast in dream form. Bunyan’s allegory is so much a spiritual and psychological pilgrimage that the dream form must have been deliberately chosen to express the inner experiences that had deeply changed the author.

Various symbols occur frequently in dreams and in poetry. For example, the image of the snake, which is never consciously associated with that of the phallus, is one of the most constant and invariable symbols in primitive religions. Another example is the image of teeth (see Song 4:2), which often is symbolically related to childbirth, a connection that is hardly ever made consciously. It was due to such recurrences that Jung, going far beyond Freud, developed his theory of the collective unconscious, from which he believed such fundamental symbols as the circle and the cross, the trinity, the hero, the wise old man and the dragonlike, devouring mother ultimately sprang. However not all symbols have a universal meaning. For example, dreaming of a fire may bring feelings of warmth and comfort to one person but feelings of terror to another who has suffered from a significant burn injury.

Dreams continue to fascinate us. Practical suggestions for understanding them are as follows: (1) It is important to record your dreams. It is best to write them down immediately upon awakening. Because dreams occur in the unconscious mind, we soon lose memory of them. You should also record what was occurring during the day prior to dreaming. Dreams often relate to unsettled business stirred up during the day. (2) Dreams are often symbolic and distorted. They frequently appear illogical and should not be interpreted in a literal manner. (3) Discuss your dreams with another person who has a close understanding of your personality, needs and conflicts and who has a good understanding of your spiritual life. It is difficult to be objective enough to interpret your own dreams completely. (4) Before deciding whether the dream is a message from God, try to understand whether the message agrees with Scripture and leads one to a closer relationship with God. It is also best to wait for other forms of confirmation before changing your life drastically.

In summary, dreams can be extremely useful for understanding ourselves and for providing an impetus for change. God may also communicate with us through our dreams. However, dreams only make sense against a person’s background and past, and most dreams require a detailed and intimate knowledge of the dreamer and his or her circumstances. Although a good deal of research has been carried out, especially about REM sleep, we are still far from knowing all there is to know about dreams. We do know that dogmatic interpretation of dreams is inappropriate and that, like works of art, dreams must often be allowed to speak for themselves. A quote from the seventeenth-century physician Sir Thomas Browne shows that our understanding of dreams has not changed significantly in over three hundred years:

However dreames may bee fallacious concerning outward events, yet may they bee truly significant at home, and whereby wee may more sensibly understand ourselves. Men act in sleepe with some conformity unto their awaked senses, and consolations or discouragements may bee drawne from dreames which intimately tell us ourselves.

» See also: Guidance

» See also: Sleeping

References and Resources

C. G. Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, ed. A. Jaffe (New York: Vintage Books, 1965); J. Opmeer, “Dreams and Visions: God’s Picture Language,” in Those Controversial Gifts, ed. G. Mallone (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1983) 51-78; A. Storr, The Art of Psychotherapy (2nd ed.; New York: Routledge, 1980) 43-55; J. R. W. Stott, The Spirit, the Church and the World: The Message of Acts (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1990).

—Stephen A. Anderson

Dress Code, Workplace

In the book of Genesis people began to wear clothes when they first become aware of their sin: since the day Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves, clothing has been a blessing and a curse—a cursed blessing to be exact (Genesis 3:7). In the New Testament we are assured that God will provide us with the necessities of life, including clothing (Matthew 6:28-30), and not just any old hand-me-downs but perhaps even designer labels, as Matthew claims the lilies of the field surpass “Solomon in all his splendor.” Although we know intellectually about God’s promise to care for us, many of us still fret about what to wear when we get up each morning. Moreover, while daily work can be a blessing, it is interesting that in Genesis 3 God also declares that people will be cursed by daily toil as a result of their sin (Genesis 3:17, 19).

The Corporate Image

On a basic level a dress code may be crucial to ensure an employee’s safety (or at least to protect the company legally in case of worker injury). A dress code may also function to increase an employee’s efficiency or to provide customers with easy identification of helpful staff. On a higher level, however, a company uses uniforms or a dress code to communicate a certain image to the public—a promise to get the job done right. While a dress code may indicate a company’s lack of trust in its employees’ judgment, it is useful in that it removes any ambiguity about what an employee should wear to work. To the extent that the employees themselves perform their jobs as professionally as they are dressed, the dress code serves a purpose.

Humans: Made in God’s Image

We have all had experiences in which a professionally dressed salesperson does not give us the service promised. It is then that we realize how superficial worldly image can be. We are warned in the Bible that appearances may be deceiving: some people are merely wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15). We cannot fool God simply by putting on the right clothes (1 Samuel 16:7), for God looks straight into our hearts and knows our true character. A Christian’s daily struggle is to discern how God wants him or her to behave and to allow the inner character to shine through to the outside. As Christians, our true image comes from God (Genesis 1:27), who created us to have a relationship with him such as no other living creature does, one so loving that it led to his Son’s paying the ultimate sacrifice for our sin (John 3:16). Therefore, it is important when we report for work that we not only dress the part but do our best work, for, as the apostle Paul exhorts the Colossians, “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving” (Col. 3:23).

The Christian Image Paradox: Looking Good Matters

Christian workers have a double duty as ambassadors for both their earthly employers and their heavenly Father. In movies and television, Christians are often portrayed as prim and strait-laced with no style or adornment (except a large cross pendant), wearing either paramilitary uniforms or ill-fitting, drab-colored, mismatched garments. The contrast between the joyous good news they are supposed to be spreading and their dowdy, lackluster appearance is laughably unattractive. Although this is a media caricature, it pinpoints a paradox: Christians need to have a healthy concern for what is on the surface even though God can see straight through it. This is because judging others by the way they look is a basic human characteristic. Even in biblical times dishevelment and dirtiness were considered a sign of mental derangement or demonic possession! In terms of a Christian witness, therefore, we need to work with this tendency rather than to ignore it.

Non-Christians are already convinced that to become a Christian means to adopt a life of restriction and mindless conformity. But when Christians present an attractive image, it is not to deceive but to demonstrate a healthy self-respect and to celebrate that each person is a unique creation of God. At the same time, when Christians are confronted with an office culture in which other employees spend extraordinary sums of money to compete for the best image, the Christian may consider being countercultural without being unattractive or obnoxious.

Dress Code as Authority

The dress code is a company rule that must be obeyed. Unfortunately, humans have a natural tendency to rebel against authority of any kind (Ephes. 2:2). An obvious incentive for obeying a company dress code is to avoid being fired! But an even better reason is to show proper respect for authority when that authority is acting reasonably. Paul commands the Ephesians, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ” (Ephes. 6:5). When our bosses are acting unreasonably, however, it might be right to rebel, such as when a dress code regulation is humiliating or discriminatory. For example, in the United States during the 1980s a female airline employee who was fired because she refused to wear makeup took her employer to court. Her grievance was that her employer valued her more for the way she looked than for the high caliber of work she performed. In the book of Acts the apostle Peter justifies disobedience to earthly authority in cases where it is clearly superseded by God’s authority (Acts 4:19-20). But ultimately we cannot go wrong if we adhere to God’s own dress code as itemized by the apostle Paul: “Put on the full armor of God, . . . the belt of truth, . . . the breastplate of righteousness, . . . the shield of faith, . . . the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit” (Ephes. 6:13-17).

» See also: Adornment

» See also: Workplace

References and Resources

“Business Etiquette: Dress,” in Merriam-Webster’s Secretarial Handbook (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, 1993); J. Martin, Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior (New York: Atheneum, 1982); A. Sterk and P. Scazzero, “Self-Image,” in Christian Character (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1985); R. P. Stevens and G. Schoberg, “Work: Curse or Blessing?” in Satisfying Work: Christian Living from Nine to Five (Wheaton, Ill.: Harold Shaw, 1989).

—Kathryn E. Lockhart

Drivenness

Drivenness is behind one of the most respectable of all addictions—workaholism. But it is also expressed in a wide variety of addictive behaviors not covered in this article: chemical abuse, religious zeal, sexual addiction, perfectionism and fitness, which are all subject to the law of diminishing returns as people try to meet their deepest needs in these ways. The condition of drivenness usually arises from sources deep within the human personality, as well as systemic problems in our society. Drivenness reveals a spiritual dysfunctionality usually associated with a failure to accept the unconditional love of God. Driven people tend to focus all their energies on an activity that feeds their inner dysfunction, and this activity becomes an addiction.

Workaholism: The Respectable Addiction

The now commonplace term workaholism was coined by Wayne Oates, an American minister and psychologist, in 1968. In that year he wrote a humorous and insightful confession in an article entitled “On Being a ‘Workaholic’ (A Serious Jest)” in Pastoral Psychology. Comparing himself to an alcoholic, Oates says that he started with “social” working, boasting about how much work he could “hold” and how he could work others “under the table.” But then it progressed to a true addiction. He was hooked. Drawing on his own experience, Oates describes the progression. Workaholics “pass out” (become emotionally dead) either on the job or at home, usually the latter. Whereas formerly they attained social approval for working addictively, now they are besieged by well-meaning advice to slow down, though friends and family expect them to be too busy to attend to them. If they try to slow down, they suffer “withdrawal symptoms” and fight a terrible battle when they leave the office, factory or church, resolving it by taking some work home or by doing a “weekend binge” of work. Christmas, other holidays and family vacations are terrifying experiences, and workaholics can only tolerate them by taking work with them.

Workaholics dread thinking about retirement, and when they finally retire, they may die prematurely. Work is their love, and they may even feed this love by planning another report or sermon while making love to their spouse! In this seminal article Oates recognizes that the problem is profoundly theological and spiritual: the workaholic has made an idol of work. Salvation depends on work: “Far from thinking of God as someone who loves us whether we produce or not, this is unthinkable to workaholics. Acceptance is pay for work done” (Oates 1968, p. 17).

Since Oates’s initial contribution, an extensive study has been undertaken by Barbara Killinger of what she calls the “respectable addicts.” A workaholic is “a person who gradually becomes emotionally crippled and addicted to control and power in a compulsive drive to gain approval and success” (Killinger, p. 6). She describes the typical workaholic family of origin: one is born in a home where love is conditional on good performance and behavior. Instead of communicating the value of a child for who he or she is, parents in such homes communicate only the value of the child’s accomplishments. Thus the child does not learn to separate doing and being, performance from personhood. Instead of hearing, “The grass you cut looks terrific; you must be proud of yourself!” they hear, “You did a great job cutting the grass; you are a good boy” (Killinger, p. 21). In the words of Killinger, “conditional love teaches a child to be dependent on others for approval; unconditional love encourages independent appraisal, objectivity, and self-affirmation in deserved pride” (p. 22). Many children raised in such environments become chronically overinvolved with work, usually as a way of avoiding anxiety or emotional pain.

Workaholism is the condition of persons whose self-worth is linked to what they do rather than who they are. The result of this orientation is that work moves from being an other-centered to a self-centered activity, defining every aspect of their existence. Workaholics do not work because they have a desire to be gainfully employed; they work to prove something to themselves. Though they keep trying by working harder, working better or trying to find the perfect job, they can never do enough to give full meaning to their lives. With some women workaholism takes a unique form in compulsive motherhood. The workaholic housewife has been well researched. Less recognized is the phenomenon of some women who become pregnant repeatedly for largely unconscious reasons: the inability to enjoy sexual relations apart from impregnation, being unhappy with any child except a new and helpless one, needing to control her husband or other children. The end result of this repeated “labor” is the martyred wife and mother, usually perfectionist and depressed (Oates 1971, p. 72).

Understanding Workaholism

The workaholic does not normally come from the ranks of the nine-to-five workers but more likely comes from a self-employed, small business, professional or homemaking background. All these people decide for themselves whether they should be working more or less (Oates 1968, p. 20). While this helpfully targets the part of our population that may be most likely to exhibit workaholism, it does not help us make an important distinction. Not all people who work hard or work long hours are workaholics. Indeed, some studies indicate that people highly involved in their work may indicate little or no sign of personal problems and may function in a healthy way on the job (Naughton, p. 181). Such persons typically find a lot of satisfaction in their work, more than they find in nonwork-related activities. Thus in developing a typology of workaholism for career counselors, Thomas Naughton distinguishes between the job-involved workaholic, who has high job satisfaction and performs well, and the compulsive workaholic, whose work reflects a ritualized pattern of thoughts and behaviors that are destructive to himself or herself and colleagues. In this latter case workaholics are not good workers, not an asset to a company or a church. They have nothing to give their families and friends. Like the idlers in 2 Thes. 3:10-12, they are sponging on the goodwill of their family and friends.

There are signs of workaholism. Workaholics typically (1) keep excessively long workdays, (2) talk a lot about their accomplishments, (3) are unable to say no and (4) cannot rest or relax (Minirth et al., pp. 29-31). Frank Minirth and his colleagues note how the deeply reflective words of Eccles. 2:17-23 are applicable to the workaholic: “All his days his work is pain and grief; even at night his mind does not rest” (Eccles. 2:23). In contrast, the godly person finds enjoyment in eating, drinking and work (Eccles. 2:24-25).

There are substantial effects of this addictive behavior: disruption of family life, neglect of spiritual growth, diminishing returns for work, physical tension, loss of perspective on life and misdirected resentment in which others are blamed for the pain they experience (Walters, pp. 103-4). The children of workaholics are especially disadvantaged. Sons may recall very few moments when their father (or mother) attended a sporting event with them. They may be preoccupied with getting good grades. Daughters of workaholic fathers have special problems. Speaking to this, therapists note: “Their fathers are apt to totally ignore them because of a feeling that females are less productive in terms of work than are males. . . . This can be devastating for the daughter and she may go to extreme lengths to gain her father’s attention . . . [including] drugs and/or sexual misconduct” (Minirth et al., p. 46). Not only do the children of workaholics suffer direct effects in the circumstances of their lives, but the workaholic pattern gets ingrained in the children, thus passing the sins of the fathers (and mothers) to the children, sometimes for three or four generations (Exodus 20:5).

Reflecting on Drivenness

Earlier I used the word idol in a description of a workaholic. Idolatry is a misplaced devotion; it is simply making something one’s ultimate concern other than the One who is ultimate. The apostle Paul was a driven person until he experienced the call of God on the Damascus road. But perhaps this observation does not go deep enough. Was he obsessed and compulsive or ambitious and determined?

Prior to meeting Christ, Paul was determined to find acceptance and righteousness with God through Jewish legalism and performance and was simultaneously compelled to eliminate Christians as a threatening sect. What happened at Damascus was not the changing of Paul’s personality from one type to another. Rather, Paul was released from the self-justifying paralysis of his personality by an empowering and liberating experience of grace through which he knew himself to be unconditionally accepted by God. Since the great resources of his personality were liberated by his meeting with Christ, he was able to devote himself in an entirely healthy way in a magnificently liberating passion—his passion to love God and love his neighbor as himself. Paul confessed, “To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me” (Col. 1:29).

It is tempting to say that the driven person and the called person may appear to be very similar to an outside observer. But this is too superficial an observation. The driven person has an obsession that destroys him and those around him. The called person is a liberated person who empowers and liberates others. Having a different source results in a different expression.

What is seldom mentioned in any discussion of addiction is that we were made for an all-consuming passion, love for God and love for our neighbor. The comparison Paul makes between being intoxicated with alcohol and being filled with the Spirit in Ephes. 5:18 is intentional. Canon Stanley Evans once described a Christian as “a controlled drunk, purposively intoxicated with the joy of the life which is perpetually created in God himself” (quoted in Leech, p. 103). “Be filled with the Spirit” (Ephes. 5:18) is in the imperative mood (it is not an option), in the present tense (it is an ongoing continuous experience) and in the plural number (it is something we experience in the community of faith). The similarity of this experience of completeness and profound pleasure in God with the sexual experience is a subject often noted.

Workaholism provides an alternative ecstasy. In an insightful section on “erotica,” Killinger compares work experiences with sexual orgasms: “When there is a passionate obsession with work, erotic feelings can be expressed towards the accomplishments or products of work. The senses are aroused and alive when a coveted contract is signed, a record becomes a hit, or a sought-after degree is conferred” (p. 34). Failing to find the divine source of legitimate ecstasy, people find unsatisfactory substitutes. But how do people move from a debilitating compulsion to a magnificent obsession? In establishing a theology and practice of self-control, we must observe that self-control is not a human accomplishment, not even a religious work, but a fruit of the continuous inundation of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:23). How can we become accessible to such an indirect grace?

Toward Substantial Healing

Self-knowledge. The deepest sources of drivenness may be understood and resolved only through professional counseling, but a beginning can be made through reflection on why you as an individual work so hard and why praise is so important to you. Getting in touch with your own story and understanding the influence of one generation on another may be especially helpful. One aspect that is frequently neglected is simply listening to your own body-talk. Sometimes a specific illness serves as a reminder of the need for the seventh day of rest and for relief from the demands of work (Oates 1968, p. 20).

While choices can be made by a workaholic, a profoundly addicted person is not likely to gain freedom simply by making resolutions or decisions. Just as alcoholics must come to the place of recognizing that they are unable to free themselves, so workaholics must recognize their helplessness. The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once said that to be a sinner is our distress, but to know it is our hope. To come to the end of self-deception, excuses, alibis and hiding is a profound moment of hope. God can help the helpless. Because Western society, and most of the industrialized world, sees nothing wrong with a person’s wanting “to get ahead,” the workaholic is tragically often permitted to remain in denial much longer than with substance abuse.

Many workaholics are helped with a personal inventory, such as that used by Alcoholics Anonymous and other self-help groups. These inventories deal with self-centeredness (my workaholism is driven by my narcissistic need to prove that I deserve to exist or to be loved or . . .), aggressiveness (my aggressiveness is really a self-centered expression of my need to be in control or to rebel against a parent or . . .), anger and resentment (I have put the following people on my grudge list, and I am affected by my anger in this way: . . .) and fear (behind my anger and resentment is my fear that I will not be loved by . . . or that I will lose control of . . .). As we take off the mask that covers our resentments, we usually discover that our adult drivenness is a desperate attempt to outrun our fear of abandonment. The deepest answer to our self-preoccupation is not through deprivation or condemnation but experiencing the unconditional love of God (Hemfelt, Minirth and Meier, pp. 263-64). But this liberating process is often complicated by the fact that those closest to us may not want us to change!

Coconspiracy for health rather than codependence in drivenness. People making a transition out of job-involved workaholism may encounter social pressures that make change very difficult. Recovering workaholics may experience shame, guilt and fear as they continue to relate to peers and employers whose work styles require long hours and who communicate social disapproval for people who fail to conform (Naughton, p. 186). Controlling workaholics need to learn to trust others and to share power.

If you are a recovering workaholic, it is most desirable that you ask colleagues and peers to hold you accountable for reasonable work hours and to ask them for feedback (and listen to it!). The same holds true for your spouse and children. Instead of playing the nurturing “fixer” who compensates for the effects of workaholism, invite your spouse to verbalize how you can take greater responsibility for your lifestyle to help diversify your interests. Those responsible for shaping the environment of a workplace have the privilege of creating organizations based on grace, celebrating who people are and not just remunerating their performance, and giving people a second chance (Oates 1971, p. 108).

Lifestyle changes. You should “give yourself the freedom to live each day well” (Killinger, p. 209). To do this, a driven person needs to stop rushing, to enjoy play, to learn to say no, to put energy into a wide variety of baskets. Killinger advises making a regular date with your spouse and a regular special outing with each of the children. Regarding your job, it is sometimes wise to ask whether you are in the right job and whether you should reduce your responsibilities rather than to seek another promotion (Killinger, pp. 208-21). Big changes in lifestyle are enormously difficult, but they can be accomplished through a succession of little changes in the right direction.

Experiencing sabbath. Some addictions, such as to pornography, require complete cessation, while others, like workaholism, require a balance of work, play, activity and rest, not unemployment. To achieve this balance, recovering a Christian experience of sabbath is essential. People who are on a treadmill of working harder and harder to support a particular lifestyle, or, in the case of the academic world, to publish more and more to justify tenure, desperately need sabbath. Our society offers work and leisure. While leisure is often a good thing, it is not contemplative; it does not direct us to reflect on the meaning of our lives and what God’s view of our lives really is. Sabbath is not merely stopping work or resting. It is getting God’s big view of the meaning of our lives and playing heaven.

Personal spirituality. Workaholics frequently doubt their own salvation. Not having felt unconditionally accepted as a child, they can hardly believe that the one who comes to Christ will not be cast out (John 6:37). To overcome workaholism, a person needs to deeply internalize the gospel and then to express it confidently in concrete everyday life. Experiencing gospel confidence is not like having one continuous spiritual orgasm; we were not made for continuous excitement. Practical steps for dealing with lust for more excitement all concern a deepening spiritual journey: (1) begin by reordering your spiritual values and beliefs about the root of pleasure (Proverbs 21:17); (2) accept a “deficit in excitement” as normal as being overcome by pleasure; (3) watch where and how you get your excitement; (4) come to appreciate satisfaction over excitement (Hart, pp. 60-63).

This last point hints at the seven dimensions of the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), especially joy. We were made for a magnificent and liberating passion—the constant, continuous filling of the Holy Spirit. But Spirit-filling is primarily not for ecstasy but for redeemed living, for submissive and loving relationships (Ephes. 5:21) and for joy. Thus being in a community of faith, reading the Bible, practicing a life of prayer and inviting the Holy Spirit to inundate us continuously constitute the deepest answer for drivenness. This answer is not an alternative to dealing with the masks of denial, but without it we would be powerless to discover the intended content of the God-shaped vacuum in our souls.

Saint Augustine once said that God is always trying to give good things to us, but our hands are too full to receive them. Often our hands are full of the results of our drivenness. Gerald May suggests we may not be able to empty our hands by sheer willpower (p. 17). But we can relax them a little and admit that God’s strength will be demonstrated in our weakness (2 Cor. 12:9), for “sooner or later addiction will prove to us that we are not gods,” thus becoming to our extreme amazement a kind of good gift (May, p. 20). A German philosopher enigmatically expressed this same thought: “My burden carries me!” (A. A. Schröders, quoted in Thielicke, p. 238).

References and Resources

S. Arterburn and J. Felton, Toxic Faith (Nashville: Nelson, 1991); A. D. Hart, Healing Life’s Hidden Addictions: Overcoming the Closet Compulsions That Waste Your Time and Control Your Life (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant, 1990); R. Hemfelt, F. Minirth and P. Meier, We Are Driven: The Compulsive Behaviors America Applauds (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991); B. Killinger, Workaholics: The Respectable Addicts (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991); K. Leech, True Prayer: An Invitation to Christian Spirituality (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980); G. G. May, Addiction and Grace: Love and Spirituality in the Healing of Addictions (San Francisco: Harper, 1988); F. Minirth et al., The Workaholic and His Family (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981); T. J. Naughton, “A Conceptual View of Workaholism and Implications for Career Consoling and Research,” The Career Development Quarterly 135, no. 3 (1987) 180-87; W. E. Oates, Confessions of a Workaholic: The Facts About Work Addiction (London: Wolfe Publishing, 1971); W. E. Oates, “On Being a ‘Workaholic’ (A Serious Jest),” Pastoral Psychology 19 (October 1968) 16-20; A. W. Schaef, When Society Becomes an Addict (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986); H. Thielicke, Und Wenn Gott Ware (Stuttgbart: Qwee Verlag, 1970); R. P. Walters, Escape the Trap (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989).

—R. Paul Stevens

Drugs

When you think of drugs, what comes to mind? Do you think of heroin, cocaine, marijuana—the hard, illegal drugs? Do you think of more commonly used, legal drugs like alcohol, nicotine and caffeine? What about prescribed drugs like Valium, Ritalin and lithium and nonprescription drugs like laxatives, sedatives, analgesics and weight-control agents? Do you think primarily of drug use or abuse? Do your images of drugs emphasize a particular age, gender or ethnic grouping?

What Are Drugs?

Many believe that drugs like heroin and cocaine are at the heart of the drug problem because they are illegal, powerfully addictive and personally ruinous. Yet their use is minor compared to legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco. Millions of Americans are problem drinkers, and tens of thousands of deaths are directly attributed to alcohol each year. Furthermore, alcohol is considered a factor in most fatal car accidents, homicides, suicides and child abuse cases. Consider as well the harmful effects of tobacco with over 50 million smoking Americans, many of whom will succumb to lung cancer, emphysema or other ailments. One should also consider the negative effects resulting from prescription and nonprescription drugs that are sufficient to hospitalize over 1.5 million Americans each year.

A drug is any substance that can influence one’s mind, body or emotions and, when misused, can harm oneself or others. Most people use drugs for some purpose, and given that our bodies manufacture drugs like endorphins and adrenaline, everyone is a drug user. Our society clearly has a love-hate relationship with drugs—sending mixed messages of benefit and harm. We advertise the potential harm of drugs and the importance of just saying no. Yet we glorify celebrities and sports figures who model drug use as a means of popularity and success. One segment of society seeks to ban cigarette vending machines. Another segment rushes to paste colorful cigarette posters and decals at children’s eye level near elementary and junior-high schools. Drug abuse shakes the very foundations of our society by negatively influencing our homes, our schools, our political and law enforcement systems, and our economy.

Who Uses Drugs?

Although everyone uses some form of drug, use and abuse vary by such factors as gender, age, and cultural and ethnic background. For example, men of all ages are more apt to use and abuse alcohol and most illegal drugs. Women are more apt to use prescription and nonprescription drugs—especially sleeping pills, tranquilizers and analgesics. Late childhood and adolescence are the time for experimenting with tobacco and alcohol. Indeed, if a person reaches age twenty-one without experimenting with alcohol or tobacco, he or she is unlikely ever to use them or other dangerous drugs (Kandel and Logan). Although the elderly represent 10 percent of the population, they account for 25 percent of the use of prescribed drugs. Racial, ethnic and socioeconomic factors are associated with particular forms of drug use. For example, Native Americans have higher rates of alcoholism than do Asian-Americans. White college students are more apt to use cocaine, marijuana and hallucinogens than are black or Hispanic students. Whereas cocaine is the drug of choice for the affluent, problem drinking reaches its highest levels among shiftworkers and the unemployed.

Why Do People Use Drugs?

Attempts to seek a single cause for drug use and abuse are futile. The causes of drug abuse vary with the type of drug and involve interactions of biological, psychological, sociocultural and spiritual conditions. However, four major reasons or risk factors for substance abuse have been identified: personality, family, friends and crises (Newcomb, Maddahian and Bentler).

First, those who are angry, impulsive or depressed or who have achievement problems are more apt to abuse drugs. Second, individuals whose family relationships are distant, hostile or conflicted, whose parents use or abuse drugs or whose parents are permissive, ignoring or rejecting will more often abuse drugs. Third, those who abuse drugs have friends and peers who use or tolerate the use of drugs. Finally, a person is more apt to abuse drugs when in transition or crisis, for example, when experiencing problems with school, family or romantic relationships or during times when questioning values or religious commitment.

What Can Be Done to Limit Drug Abuse?

Strategies to curtail drug abuse generally focus on limiting supply or demand. It is popular to wage supply-side war on the sale and distribution of illegal drugs. However, strategies that focus on the demands of users are more promising. If we consider the factors that put people at risk for drug abuse, there are several logical strategies. For example, as we raise an individual’s self-esteem, promote meaningful achievement, improve family life and provide safer alternatives for gratification, escape or relief, we help to mitigate drug abuse. Also, prevention is definitely preferable to intervention or postvention. Children need to receive helpful skills and information before they develop drug habits and dependencies that are difficult to break.

Thinking Christianly About Drug Use and Abuse

A Christian should view drugs in the context of God’s creation of human persons affected by the Fall, redeemed by Christ and patiently sanctified by the Holy Spirit. This involves integrating a comprehensive biblical view with what God enables us to learn through inquiry and observation.

In Genesis 1:28-31 we read that God blessed woman and man in connection with the created order and called the whole relationship “very good.” In other words, God created us with needs and created elements in our environment to meet those needs. Undoubtedly our human capacities to explore and develop drugs like analgesics, allergy relief agents, antibiotics and laxatives are part of God’s creational design. Yet we must struggle to discern proper and improper uses for the drugs we discover. Some drugs should not be used at all, some are good only in moderation, some should not be used too early in life, and some are intended for good but produce great harm (for example, thalidomide). One might also question whether instant chemical relief is preferable to building character through exploring and coping with root causes of anxiety, depression or pain.

The major goal of the Christian is not the pursuit of self-interest but the well-being of all people and the glory of God. Short of complete abstinence from drugs, perhaps a good general principle is to consider the personal results of drug-related activities in light of the works of God’s Spirit and the works of the flesh. The work of the Spirit is to produce such qualities as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). Does a particular form of drug use help to develop or maintain such qualities, not just as transitory personal emotions but as concrete actions in our relationships? Does another form of drug use associate with works of the flesh such as fornication, uncleanness, enmity, strife, jealousy, wrath and envy (Ephes. 5:19-20)? We are to love God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength (Mark 12:30). Does drug use open a person’s heart to God, clear her mind, deepen her relationships with others and increase her strength? Or does the use of a given drug harden a person’s heart, cloud his thinking, close him in on himself or dull his reactions?

A Personal Account

Drugs are allegedly involved in 60 percent of all child abuse cases. During the summer I direct a Christian camp for six- to twelve-year-old children who have been removed from their homes due to life-threatening conditions of abuse, abandonment or neglect. In my work with social welfare administrators, caseworkers, foster parents and children, I see many ways in which child abuse and neglect are linked with drug use.

Victimization for many of these children begins in prenatal life when indiscriminate use of drugs and alcohol during pregnancy condemns some children to a “bio-underclass”—children whose physiological damage and underprivileged social position may doom them to a life of inferiority (Rist). Some children are removed from their families and placed in foster care because one or both parents are incarcerated for drug-related crimes. Drug abuse may shatter the lives of some parents to the extent that effective supervision of and provision for their children are severely compromised. Parents under the influence of alcohol or other drugs may torment, batter or sexually exploit their own children. A cigarette may ease a parent’s frustration but may also be used to inflict telltale circular burns on a child’s arms, legs or buttocks.

I see “parentified” children, that is, children who have not been allowed to have a childhood because they are prematurely exposed to adult activities or because they are left to supervise and protect their younger siblings. One such child I know drinks straight black coffee four times each day because it “helps me with my worries.” As many as half of the children who come to camp take prescribed medications for hyperactivity, depression and anxiety and for forms of withdrawal, dissociation and psychosis. And of course, the stress of working with these troubled children sends many a counselor or staff person to the nurse in search of an aspirin. Child abuse is just one example of how the consequences of drug and alcohol abuse reach deep within the fabric of Western society.

Summary

One child may be devastated by her father’s indiscretions while under the influence of too much alcohol. Another child’s aberrant development is greatly assisted by regular use of a prescribed drug. One may consume a moderate amount of a fine wine at a wedding reception while remaining clear-headed and deeply appreciative of God’s gifts of love, friendship and commitment. Another individual’s hallucinogenic trip may lead her to think of herself as God. The drunken stupor that clouds one’s perception and judgment, taxes one’s liver and alienates one from family, friends and work is anything but a proper state for any human being, let alone a follower of Christ. There are no simple answers that hold for all forms of drug use and abuse. We must use biblical truth and the minds God gives us to discern proper from improper forms of drug use.

» See also: Addiction

» See also: Advertising

» See also: Drivenness

» See also: Healing

» See also: Health

References and Resources

D. Kandel and R. Logan, “Patterns of Drug Use from Adolescence to Young Adulthood: I. Periods of Risk for Initiation, Continued Use and Discontinuation,” American Journal of Public Health 74 (1984) 660-66; M. Newcomb, E. Maddahian and P. Bentler, “Risk Factors for Drug Use Among Adolescents: Concurrent and Longitudinal Analyses,” American Journal of Public Health 76 (1986) 525-31; M. Rist, “The Shadow Children,” The American School Board Journal, January 1990 19-24; J. Van Wicklin, “Substance Abuse,” in Christian Perspective on Social Problems, ed. C. DeSanto, Z. Lindblade and M. Poloma, 2d ed. (Indianapolis: Wesley, 1992) 376-97.

—John F. Van Wicklin

Eating

“Tell me what thou eatest, and I will tell thee what thou art.” It was French gastronomer Jean Authelme Brillatt-Savarin who penned these words a century and a half ago. His argument is that what and how we eat say much more about us than our constant need of physical sustenance. But today eating is an activity so taken for granted that to seek after any deeper significance, especially from a spiritual perspective, would seem to most an odd pursuit. Yet the very fact that more of us do not take advantage of the wonders of modern science—not being content with meeting our nutritional needs with pills—is evidence that our eating habits have to do with much more than simply our digestive system. What significance does eating have from cultural and biblical perspectives? What do these perspectives say to us as we live out our Christian faith in the midst of ordinary life?

Eating from a Cultural Perspective

Eating and Culture. Anthropologists argue that when one knows what, where, how, when and with whom a person eats, one can understand the nature of his or her society. Eating is a transmitter of culture. Much of who we are as social beings is determined through repetitive participation in this common event. Such basic matters as who sits where at the family table, who prepares the meal, who serves, who is served first, what is served and what is not, who dominates or directs communication and who cleans up after the meal communicate a wealth of information about social obligations and customs, authority structures and gender roles. It is also true that a society as a whole expresses its uniqueness and personality through its eating habits. Identity, passions, biases, prejudices, history, priorities and convictions are all expressed through how and what it eats.

Eating and Relationships. In all societies of the world, ancient and modern, eating is a primary way of entering into and sustaining relationships. In fact, the English word companion is derived from the French and Latin words meaning “one who eats bread with another.” Eating plays an important, if not central, role in almost every social and family gathering. Restaurants from East to West are open and thriving night after night, playing host to the fostering of human relationships. Intimate dinner parties at home communicate a welcome into the life of the host. Family dinners express solidarity with a group of people to whom we are inextricably linked—business, collegial and family relationships, friendships both intimate and casual, romantic ties, political alliances—all these and many more are recognized, ritualized and celebrated through the sharing of food. If life revolves around relationships, then it would be true to say that food and drink lubricate the cogs.

Eating and Covenant. Much has been made of the significance of the meal in the ancient Near East, where, traditionally, sharing food with a guest was equivalent to establishing a covenant. Certainly the host was obliged to offer protection and shelter to a guest who had eaten at his table. This concept of food as the seal of covenant is not confined to days gone by. Even today the Bantu of southern Africa regard exchanging food as the formation of a temporary covenant between individuals. They call it a “clanship of porridge.” In Chinese society, the giving and sharing of food is considered to give flesh to relationships. And in the West, most major business deals are sealed with the mandatory business lunch. Negotiations begin, deals are made, and contracts are signed while the parties eat and drink.

Eating and Celebration. Celebration is incomprehensible within any society without the activity of eating. So central is it that certain food items are associated with particular rites of celebration. To a North American, Thanksgiving would not be Thanksgiving without the turkey, cranberry sauce, giblet gravy and pumpkin pie. For the English, a Christmas without plum pudding is hard to imagine, as it is for the Danes without the traditional rice dessert with almonds and whipped cream. For the Russians, a baked pascha is essential to an Easter celebration, as the moon cake is to the autumn festival for the Chinese. In the West, weddings are celebrated with an elaborately decorated cake, and a birthday requires a cake with candles. Formal good wishes are made with a glass of wine or champagne. Wedding anniversaries, retirements, special awards, engagements to be married, graduations and promotions are often the cause for a celebratory feast. Even funerals are marked by the sharing of food and drink. It would be true to say that almost every significant rite of passage in every society is linked in some way to eating.

Eating in Time. While those of us who live in technological or informational societies can be drastically out of touch with the agricultural rhythms of the earth, the majority of people in the world are controlled by the foods that they produce and eat. The crops that they cultivate and the livestock that they nurture set the rhythm of their lives. Thus the farmer does not set the pace of life. Rather, he or she works to the pace set by the growth and harvest of the crops. Our habits of eating also give form and rhythm to our days and weeks. Breakfast, lunch and dinner set the pattern for each day that goes by. Each household marks the passing of certain days of the week with the eating of particular foods and the rhythms of formality and informality that surround the sequence of meals. In fact, our meals structure our year. As we move from January to December we pass through seasons, feasts and celebrations that dictate the foods we eat and enjoy.

Eating as a Spiritual Experience. Food has long been a popular and significant medium through which the human family experiences, communicates with and touches the divine. Detailed dietary rules are a part of all the major, and most minor, religions of the world. By keeping dietary rules, a devotee will summon the blessing and protection of the targeted divinity. Appeasing a god’s wrath often calls for the sacrifice of animals, or perhaps vegetables, depending on the nature and tradition of the god being honored. Annual or more regular religious celebrations commonly center around the themes of sacrifice and consequent indulgence in a celebratory feast.

Eating from a Biblical Perspective

In the majority of cases, when the biblical ties between eating and Christian faith are discussed, it is the subjects of fasting and gluttony that rise to the surface. While the Bible has much to say on both issues, our canvas must be much broader to appreciate the real significance of eating from a Christian perspective.

Eating in the Old Testament. It is difficult to avoid the subject of eating as one wanders through the pages of the Old Testament. In the story of creation, God’s role as the Creator and Sustainer of life culminates in the provision of food for “everything that has the breath of life in it” (Genesis 1:30). Of course this provision came with restrictions (Genesis 2:16-17), and it was the disobedience of eating what was prohibited (Genesis 3:1-6) that resulted in God’s words of judgment, “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:17), and the subsequent eviction from the Garden.

In the world of the Old Testament, eating was an important step in the establishment of covenant. As two parties sat down at table together, their common meal indicated reconciliation, enabling oaths and agreements to be entered into (Genesis 26:28-31). It was by God’s initiative that covenant relationship was established with Israel (Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 15:9-21; Genesis 35:9-15). The complex rites and rituals of sacrifice (Leviticus 1-7), and later establishment of feasts that played host to these sacrifices (Leviticus 23), were essential to the establishing and periodical renewing of this covenant relationship. Sacrifices and feasts were moments in which God and the people would sit at table together.

Throughout the Old Testament the imagery of eating signifies the presence, promises and blessings of God. As the people of Israel wandered in the desert after fleeing the Egyptians, it was God who rained down manna from heaven every day for forty years (Exodus 16). As the people gathered the manna each morning and ate it, their eating served as a daily reminder of God’s presence with them. The Promised Land itself was repetitively described as “a land flowing with milk and honey” (Exodus 13:5; Numbers 13:27; Deut. 6:3). For the people this description came to symbolize the richness of what lay ahead of them. It was a promise they could almost taste! The Old Testament imagery of blessing and judgment is often tied to food. Satisfaction in eating was a picture of God’s blessing (Deut. 6:11; Deut. 8:10-12; Deut. 11:15), as lack of satisfaction was a picture of judgment (Leviticus 26:26; Isaiah 9:20; Hosea 4:10). Just as these more temporal of God’s blessings were tied to eating, so the ultimate deliverance of the people is described in terms of God’s invitation to an open table laden with an abundance of good food (Psalm 23:5; Psalm 36:7-9; Isaiah 25:6; Joel 3:18; Amos 9:13-14).

Eating in the New Testament. Around almost every corner of the Gospel accounts, Jesus can be found eating and drinking. He was labeled by some as a “glutton and a drunkard” (Matthew 11:19). It was not so much the fact that he appeared to enjoy eating that riled his critics, but where and with whom he chose to do his eating. In a society that drew very clear and precise social and religious boundaries through the customs of the meal table, Jesus demonstrated a blatant disregard for protocol and tradition. His willingness to eat with anyone, regardless of class, race, profession or moral record, was deeply threatening to those who saw it as their duty to enforce such customs. One commentator has even suggested that Jesus got himself crucified by the way that he ate! Through time influential Jewish groups had constructed a complex set of rules and regulations designed to protect their racial and religious purity. Jesus’ habit of sharing his meals with “tax collectors and sinners” (Luke 5:30) was threatening, for it demonstrated that his new kingdom order had little to do with religious customs and regulations. The kingdom of God was now symbolized by an open table to which all were invited to come and feast, an invitation without boundary or exclusion (Luke 14:15-24; Luke 15:11-32; Matthew 25:1-13). This imagery was later reinforced by a vision that God gave to Peter (Acts 10) in which it was made clear that the Levitical laws regarding clean and unclean foods were to be set aside. This signified the beginning of the early church’s mission to take the invitation to God’s table to the Gentile community, who had long been considered “unclean” and outside the community of faith.

Jesus also used eating imagery to define his own mission. He calls himself the “bread of life” (John 6:35-59) and the “living water” (John 4:10-14). As he met with the disciples for the last supper he established that until the kingdom of God is fully come, his presence will be made tangible through the shared meal. Jesus established this meal as a time of remembrance when he said, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance for me” (Luke 22:19; cf. Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22), a time of covenant renewal; “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20; cf. Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24), and an anticipation of the messianic banquet that is to come, “For I tell you, I will not drink again of the fruit of this vine until the Kingdom of God comes” (Luke 22:18; cf. Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25).

As we move on into the life of the early church, the community of believers found their identity as followers of Christ most profoundly and most tangibly in their eating together. It was through the breaking of bread (see Communion), as part of an ordinary meal, that the church expressed its unity, identity and destiny as the people of God (Acts 20:7, 11; 1 Cor. 11:33; 2 Peter 2:13; Jude 12).

Eating as a Christian

In the light of these cultural and biblical perspectives, how do we allow our Christian faith to affect and inform our eating habits?

Eating and Providence. Central to the prayer that Jesus taught his followers is the petition “Give us this day our daily bread” (Matthew 6:11). As we break bread, whether in an overtly religious ritual or in the daily routine of breakfast, we are gathered up into the mystery of God’s providence. Food is, indeed, the stuff of life, and the creation and sustaining of life are God’s business. But dependence on God as our Provider is not altogether obvious for the majority of people in the developed world. In the United States, only 3 percent of the population is needed to produce more than 100 percent of the required agricultural products. If food is lacking on our table, no longer do we look heavenward. A quick trip to the supermarket solves our problem. And yet, for those who still plough the earth, await the rains, milk the cows, cast nets into the ocean and nurture the grapevines, their dependence on a power outside of themselves is a daily experience. But whether we are aware of it or not, every time we eat we express our complete dependence on a power outside ourselves. As we spoon more potatoes on our plate, butter the bread and pour the water, we handle the grace of God. For those who bow to pray before eating, dependence is articulated; those who do not so pray are still unavoidably dependent.

Those of us who are urban dwellers in the Western world need to get back in touch with our immediate dependence on the God-ordained rhythms of the earth. Perhaps growing our own vegetables, baking our own bread or being less dependent on convenience foods are good ways to begin. We could also work at being less preoccupied with convenience and the economy of time—the law of the microwave oven—and more involved in the process of preparation and creation.

Eating and Sacrament. As Jesus broke bread and shared it with his fellow travelers on the road to Emmaus, “their eyes were opened and they recognized him” (Luke 24:31). While every meal we participate in is not overtly religious in nature, each time we sit down to a meal God is present. It is an expression of the principle of incarnation. We discover God in the midst of the ordinary. When we sit down to a meal, we sit down to a God-ordained part of life in which God is made manifest.

In the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, we articulate a spiritual truth: life is dependent on death. In order that we might enter into the fullness of life, life had to be surrendered. Jesus surrendered his life to death in order that we might live. In a sense, that same principle of “life for life” is at work in every meal we eat. Every time we swallow we enact that principle. Whether we are eating a bowl of porridge, devouring a sirloin steak or sipping a glass of orange juice, life had to be laid down for us. It is part of the order of things. It is so ordinary, and yet in this ordinariness is mystery.

Nurturing a conscious awareness of God’s presence at the meal table—a daily discipline in a fragmented and fast-paced world—is crucial if we are to develop an integrated spirituality. It will call for a degree of creativity as we seek to establish mealtime rituals that make God’s presence a daily experience. It will mean consciously watching for incarnational moments when God’s presence and purposes can be named and celebrated.

Eating and Community. It has been said that to be human is to belong. The need to belong is a need that has been central to our humanity from the beginning. As we have already discovered, Jesus extended the boundaries of belonging to the community of God’s people. He proclaimed God’s kingdom open to and inclusive of all those who respond to God’s invitation to eat with him.

Wendy Wright has written, “When we break bread together, we symbolically enact the basic truth that we are most complete when we are together.” A family is that group of scattered individuals who come together at the end of the day, most commonly around the meal table. They may or may not be related, but every time they meet there, they acknowledge their identity as a family and reaffirm together their sense of belonging. There is a sense in which our meal table defines the boundaries of our community. Occasionally, or regularly, an outsider is invited to the table. In welcoming them we communicate that, for the period of the meal at least, this person is no longer a stranger. They belong with us.

In a society that increasingly values individualism, where families are sacrificing their common identity in pursuit of individual interests, the common meal-time is disappearing or shared around the television set. Our task is to reinvent the household mealtime as a time to value relationships, listen to each other, extend welcome to the outsider and reaffirm our need for community. Guarding the sanctity of the shared mealtime is crucial. Finding ways to make meal preparation a communal event will only deepen the experience.

Eating and Service. Through his words and actions, Jesus painted a picture of a kingdom in which love and self-giving are central. His proclamations were, and still are, radical. For Jesus, genuine power can be experienced only in the laying down of personal ambition. It is in the kingdom distinctive of service that we discover the greatness for which we were created. Jesus’ example shows that there are few places where this can be so demonstrated as at the meal table. Whether a ministry of compassion or of simple hospitality, it is clearly a ministry of service that is offered at the table.

Ernest Boyer Jr. calls what we offer at the meal table “the sacrament of care.” Care is offered most often in the routine and the ordinary activities of the day—washing dishes, peeling vegetables, making beds and so on. Is the one who selflessly prepares meals for a family, week in and week out, year in and year out, conscious of it as a sacrament of care? Probably not. It is routine, instinctive, second nature and ordinary. Yet if we take Jesus’ words seriously, then what this provider offers to the family day after day is as significant and valued in God’s kingdom as any glorified act of service offered by prophet, priest or king.

As a church we should be looking for ways and opportunities to recognize and celebrate these “sacraments of care” being offered daily by often unrecognized members of our communities. As household members we can nurture those who serve us by regularly voicing our thanks for revealing to us more of God’s nature and character. We could even construct simple liturgies and rituals together which give voice to our mutual dependence.

Eating and Mission. In a sense, Jesus’ eating habits embodied his mission. His sitting at table with the despised, the disenfranchised, the closed-out was a clear indication that the kingdom of heaven is a place of welcome, refuge and healing for all. It indicates that the mission of the church is not merely proclamation of the “good news” to those outside the kingdom, nor is it limited to the clothing and feeding of the outcasts. It is a mission which calls for both of these, and yet more. It calls for intimate investment in the lives of those we call to the table. Jesus could have limited his ministry to the proclamation of the kingdom from the mountaintops and the synagogues. Instead, such moments were the exception. More commonly, Jesus was to be found brushing up against all manner of people in the most domestic settings and very often eating with them. The mission of the early church clearly reflected this pattern. Mission for Jesus and the early church involved initiating relationships and clearly demonstrating the nature of God’s inclusive kingdom. According to Jesus, welcome into the kingdom will be extended to those who extend to others the same open hospitality of the table: “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in” (Matthew 25:35).

Being invited into a private home for dinner is becoming the exception in American society. As a friend commented, “To invite me into your home is to invite me into your life.” Increasingly today such an invitation of intimacy and commitment is avoided. If we are intended to model the inclusive nature of God’s kingdom and yet fail to invite even those who are like us to the dinner table, then how in the world do we begin to address the call to the stranger and the alien? The mission of the church is about more than a distant proclamation or a free handout at the soup kitchen. It is about intimate investment in the lives of those around us. It is about securing our identity as a family and then opening the table to those who need the open embrace of Jesus.

While our eating may always be a very routine and ordinary part of our lives, essential to keeping us physically healthy and whole, it should not be forgotten that it is significant at much deeper levels. As those concerned to work out our discipleship in the midst of all the ordinariness of life, it is helpful to remember that the announcement of the gospel is like the ringing of a gong before the evening meal and the words “Dinner is served!”

» See also: Communion

» See also: Hospitality

» See also: Meal Preparation

References and Resources

S. S. Bartchy, “Table Fellowship,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. J. B. Green, S. McKnight and I. H. Marshall, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992); E. Boyer Jr., Finding God at Home: Family Life as Spiritual Discipline (San Francisco: Harper, 1991); J. A. Brillat-Savarin, The Physiology of Taste (London: Penguin, 1970); A. C. Cochrane, Eating and Drinking with Jesus: An Ethical and Biblical Inquiry (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974); S. C. Juengst, Breaking Bread: The Spiritual Significance of Food (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992); R. J. Karris, Luke: Artist and Theologian (New York: Paulist, 1985); J. MacClancy, Consuming Culture: Why You Eat What You Eat (New York: Henry Holt, 1992); M. Visser, Much Depends on Dinner: The Extraordinary History and Mythology, Allure and Obsessions, Perils and Taboos of an Ordinary Meal (New York: Grove, 1986); W. M. Wright, Sacred Dwelling: A Spirituality of Family Life (New York: Crossroad, 1990).

—Simon Holt