Missio Dei - Following Jesus into the world

Links for 2012-01-22 [del.icio.us]

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:00:00 PST

9 Reasons NOT to Plant a Church in 2012 | Out of Ur | Conversations for Ministry Leaders
9 Reasons NOT to Plant a Church in 2012 (Part 2) | Out of Ur | Conversations for Ministry Leaders

Links for 2012-01-20 [del.icio.us]

Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:00:00 PST

Like the Wideness of the Sea?

Young Adults and the Occupy Movement

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:58:00 +0000

I've got a new article up on the Living Lutheran web site about Young Adults and the Occupy movement.

Links for 2012-01-10 [del.icio.us]

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 PST

Study Says God-Connections at Church are "Rare" | Out of Ur | Conversations for Ministry Leaders

Links for 2012-01-06 [del.icio.us]

Sat, 07 Jan 2012 00:00:00 PST

Links for 2012-01-04 [del.icio.us]

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:00:00 PST

Will Mormonism Really Hurt Romney in Iowa? | Religion Dispatches

Links for 2012-01-03 [del.icio.us]

Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:00:00 PST

Links for 2012-01-02 [del.icio.us]

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:00:00 PST

Iowa

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:41:00 +0000

A recent article by Stephen Bloom, a University of Iowa Journalism Professor, has raised the ire of many of my fellow Iowans. Writing about Iowa in the Atlantic Monthly Bloom tosses about some rather incendiary comments like this one,

"Those who stay in rural Iowa are often the elderly waiting to die, those too timid (or lacking in educated) to peer around the bend for better opportunities, an assortment of waste-toids and meth addicts with pale skin and rotted teeth, or those who quixotically believe, like Little Orphan Annie, that 'The sun'll come out tomorrow,'"

Many have written about the article and the angry response it has received. Bloom asks some tough questions about whether a relatively rural and homogenous state ought to play such a crucial role in determining the Presidential candidates for our two major political parties. I found Bloom's article to be insightful and thought provoking at times despite the fact that many of his descriptions of Iowa bear little resemblance to the state that I know.

Of particular interest to me is Bloom's observations about Iowa's religious life. In many ways Bloom's comments about religion, particularly Christianity, exposes the often cozy relationship between Church and culture that still persists in Iowa. He observes rather accurately that there seems to be an assumed Christian culture in our state that can be dangerous to challenge.

After years and years of in-your-face religion, I decided to give what has become an annual lecture, in which I urge my students not to bid strangers "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Easter," "Have you gotten all your Christmas shopping done?" or "Are you going to the Easter egg hunt?" Such well-wishes are not appropriate for everyone, I tell my charges gently. A cheery "Happy holidays!" will suffice. Small potatoes, I know, but did everyone have to proclaim their Christianity so loud and clear?

Having lived in Phoenix and the Twin Cities before coming back to Iowa I am often struck by how religiously sheltered we are in Iowa. In Iowa Christendom is still alive and well, although judging by my interactions with College students that foundation is eroding. In fact I think Bloom makes the mistake of many religious commentators by identifying an aggressive Evangelical form of Christianity as our cultural norm. Referring to a student's use of the phrase "come to Jesus" to describe an encounter with her parent's following an arrest for public intoxication he writes,

On the surface, this Come to Jesus moment had nothing to do with religion. Instead, it described a meeting in which your butt was about to be kicked for some serious, errant behavior, and if you didn't repent your evil ways, then there'd be hell to pay. Come to Jesus was a nonsectarian, equal-opportunity expression that could just as easily involve Jews, Muslims, or Hindus (if you could find any in Iowa) as it involved Christians. But it was vintage Iowa, invoking the name of Jesus as though everyone believed in the good Lord's son and his providence.

Actually I would argue that because of Iowa's small town atmosphere, where there actually is still such a thing as Main Street, we may actually encounter religious diversity more frequently than those in other locales. Simply because there aren't that many of us we are more likely to actually get to know the relatively few religious minorities in our midst.

I can actually say with confidence that I have had more significant encounters with people of different faith traditions in Iowa than I ever did in Phoenix or the Twin Cities which are much more diverse than Iowa because small towns tend to make segregation more difficult.

Contrary to Bloom's statements, at the small Lutheran College where I work, we have actually had a recent Hindu graduate (who ironically is now a Law student at the very institution where Mr. Bloom teaches). I've also gotten to know Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and non religiously affiliated persons quite well since coming to Iowa. Obviously living in a town with a College has increased such opportunities, but there are dozens of communities in Iowa with small colleges where such interactions take place.

Mr. Bloom also fails to notice the many progressive Christians that call Iowa home. The mainline Church is still very much alive and well in Iowa. Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians and the UCC are just several of the prevalent denominations in Iowa. And while there are a variety of beliefs within these denominations the fact is that as a group they tend to be much more engaged in interfaith dialogue and cooperation.

Bloom is right to point out that the Christendom's days are numbered, but in my students I see much more willingness to embrace this change than he seems to see. And contrary to his statements about Christians in Iowa I'm actually excited that the cozy relationship between Church and culture is being challenged. Bloom states that in Iowa Churches often function as "neighborhood social clubs", which is often true. But he's wrong to think that all Christians in Iowa would like to see that continue.

Perhaps things aren't as simple as they seem in Iowa.

Changing the curtains doesn't make the Church missional

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:54:00 +0000

I was recently sent an article about the Mainline Church's need to make decisions with outsiders rather than insiders in mind. There was some really good stuff in this post which was written by a Mainline Bishop grappling with our cultural realities.

I'm sure this post was upsetting and troubling to many who read it because it proposes a very different way of being the Church than has been the case in most Mainline congregations. But for me it was troubling not for it's challenge to the status quo, but rather because it doesn't go nearly far enough.

The article starts out by asserting that the primary motivation of many mainline Churches is institutional survival. Essentially the author is arguing that the Church must make the move from a "tradition centered" ecclesiology to a "Missional" ecclesiology. (Although he never explicitly uses the term Missional, I think that's the direction he is going).

I totally agree with these statements, but the rest of the article actually demonstrates just how hard it is for us as mainline insiders to comprehend the radical shift that is needed. Let me explain...

The missional movement (that proceeds from David Bosh, Leslie Newbigin, etc.) is based on the notion that we are living in a post Christian age and must begin to think of ourselves as missionaries rather than privileged members of the culture. But being missional is an often misunderstood concept.

Take for example this statement..."the Church exists for the sake of those who are not yet its members". As far as I can tell this is a variation of a statement that has been attributed to several different sources. At face value it seems like a missional statement because, like author's comments, it is outwardly focused. And if it weren't for the phrase "not yet it's members" it would be. As it stands it greatly oversimplifies the missional concept by remaining focused on the idea that the Church's purpose is to make more Church members through the strategy of engaging those outside of the Church.

In other words, we engage in mission for the sake of institutional survival.

A truly missional ecclesiology is focused on participating in God's work in the world because it's what God calls the Church to do, not because it may increase our membership. We share God's love with the world by publicly embodying the Kingdom of God and inviting others to see the signs of the Kingdom that are evident in their own lives. While increased membership in our congregations may be a by product of our participation in God's mission, it is not the primary aim.

So when we propose that the Church ought to make decisions based on the needs of those who are not yet Church members, I think we're missing the point. The real question is "what is God doing in our lives, our neighborhoods and in the lives of our neighbors?"…and, "how can we participate in what God is doing?".

For too long the mainline Church has fallen into the trap of believing that it's problem is not being attractive enough to outsiders. So we default to easy solutions like changing the music, offering better programs, and building bigger facilities…as if these strategies alone will make us more relevant and attractive.

These strategies may appear to work as evidenced by the rise of megachurches, but in reality this "attractional" ecclesiology is still insider focused and driven by institutional survival. Over the past 40 years as the Church growth model has triumphed and many congregations have seemingly flourished as a result, but the ugly truth is that the actual percentage of Christians in the United States has decreased. Most of this so called "growth" has come through insiders switching in consumeristic fashion from one congregation to another in search of the best "spiritual goods and services".

In other words, even as a survival strategy, an attractional ecclesiology is sorely lacking.

I know the ideas expressed in the Bishop's article are intended to be proactive and inspiring to the Church, and there is a lot of good stuff here. But it would be a shame for us to settle for easy solutions centered in our own self interest rather than embrace the truly radical call to commit ourselves to God's mission, rather than our own institutional survival.

What we really need is not an attractional ecclesiology, but an ecclesiology of the cross, that allows us to die to our own ambitions and embrace God's ambitions for the world. This indeed may call us to do painful things like questioning our traditions, but they must be driven boy God's mission rather than pragmatic attempts to make ourselves more attractive.

In order for the mainline tradition to make the move to a missional ecclesiology we need to pursue a more radical renovation, not simply change the curtains.

For further reading on the topic I highly recommend Alan Roxburgh and Scott Boren's book "Introducing the Missional Church".

Why go to Church?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:33:00 +0000

You can learn a lot about a person by simply saying the words "I'm a Pastor". It's not the most common profession and people often don't know what to say when they receive this response to the common question "what do you do"?

I've had all kinds of interesting reactions. Anger, fear, disbelief, stunned silence. But far and away the most common reaction I notice is guilt. People seem to believe that Pastors have some sort of special power that gives us the ability to tell how often they've been to worship in the past year.

After revealing that I'm a Pastor it usually isn't long until the person confesses why they haven't been to Church recently. "We just can't find a Church we like"..."I don't like organized Religion"..."I don't get anything out of it"..."I worship in other ways"...etc.

Contrary to popular belief I really don't think much about whether or not someone goes to Church when I meet them. I like talking to new people and I don't consider the "religious" ones to be any more interesting than others. Nor do I think that one group is motivated by "better" factors than the other. In fact the really interesting thing to me is how similar the motivations are for both groups.

The most common motivation for attending or not attending worship seems to be the question "what am I getting out of it"? While many stay away from worship because they don't find it as personally meaningful as other activities, the same can be said for those who do attend worship regularly. We go because we feel spiritually uplifted, because it is how we were raised, or it helps us make sense of our lives, etc.

The second motivating factor is "what is God going to get out of it"? Someone who doesn't worship may say "I don't think God really cares whether I'm in Church as long as I'm spending time with God while doing other things". Similarly many people who go to Church do so out of a sense of guilt or obligation. We go because it's what we think God expects of us.

The problem with both these motivating factors is that they are individualistic. And I totally get that. After all I drive places because I want to get there faster, shop at certain stores because they have the best selection, and read things that I find enjoyable. At some level each of these individual actions have consequences for others, but those consequences usually aren't the primary driver of my decision making.

And that is precisely why I need to be part of a worshipping community. We need others, not just for what they can give to us, but for what we can share with each other.

Although no one likes to hear that the convenience of driving has an impact on the world that we share with others, the truth is that it does. In a similar way no one wants to hear that evaluating our participation in worship strictly by the standard of our personal needs (and/or what God needs from us) is shortsighted, in reality, it is shortsighted.

The former president of one of our ELCA Colleges once said that we need community because "we need each other to be who we really are". When we worship together we are not only "spending time with God" or being "spiritually filled". We are discovering who we really are, and helping others to do the same.

Leadership Frustrations

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:30:00 +0000

This is a really good post about the challenges of working with College students in ministry. As the author indicates there are no shortage of ideas and strategies from student leaders, but oftentimes as the semester wears on these plans fall by the wayside as workloads increase and interest wanes.

Figuring out how to handle the disconnect between ideas and action is one of the most difficult challenges of campus ministry. To be honest it's probably the most frustrating part of our work. I've always tried to be permission giving, never wanting to say no to any idea that students are passionate about. But after experiencing several years of new plans that don't materialize I often find myself wondering if we do more harm than good by not helping students face reality?

To be fair I don't think this is a student problem. Ministries are systems and to refuse to acknowledge my role in this system would be short sighted. The truth is that I want to say yes to everything because I want students to feel that I'm encouraging and supportive. I'm every bit as much responsible for this situation and have to figure out better ways to move forward. I don't want to be controlling, but at the same time as a leader it's part of my responsibility to help people see the bigger picture.

And the reality is that we probably are already trying to do too much, and adding another thing to our plates without throwing anything off the wagon is sheer folly. At some point we have to slow down long enough to ask whether what we're doing is really necessary. And certainly we need to ask, when presented with a great new idea, what are we going to let go of to make this new project happen?

I'm reading Ron Heifitz's book "Leadership without Easy Answers" right now. Heifetz argues that our common understanding of leadership is deeply flawed. We tend to evaluate a leader's effectiveness according to their influence; a successful leader is a person who is able to cast a compelling vision and get people to follow that vision.

He rightly notes that leadership ought to be measured, not according to influence, but by the leader's ability to help a group face their problems and consider adaptive solutions. When it comes to ministry one of our biggest problems is doing too many things without considering whether they're in harmony with our mission and values. Until we as Campus ministry leaders are able to face this issue we will never be as effective as we could be.

Online Church Reconsidered

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:26:00 +0000

I just got home from Eucharist, our Wednesday late night worship service. As usual it was a great time filled with lots of singing, a message from one of our seniors, prayers, and of course communion!

I love Eucharist for a lot of reasons, but the sense of fellowship and community are the biggest. Things from week to week but there are two constants; we receive communion in groups, around the altar, before joining hands for a blessing...and, we always end by sharing the Peace. (This can go on for a long, long time).

When I got home I read this article from a fellow campus Pastor about their Wednesday night worship service, which they did on Facebook this week because of a scheduling conflict.

I've often expressed on this blog that online Churches are not my favorite thing. I don't have a problem with Churches supplementing their ministry with an online presence, in fact I think that's a good thing, but an exclusively online Church would be hard for me to support.

My biggest concern with online expressions of Church is that they tend to individualize and privatize faith. There is something important about gathering with fellow believers, some of whom wouldn't be our first choice to spend time with, around a common purpose and experience. (One could argue that a physical gathering can also become an individualized experience, but I still think virtual experiences are more likely to be so).

But this quote from the article made me at least stop to think more deeply about my opinion. Explaining the intent behind this experiment the author says,

Let’s make a sanctuary out of the social network that weaves its way in and out of our daily lives already. Let’s invite our peers to stay in their dorms and apartments, gather with their friends around a computer, and celebrate with us as one congregation in hundreds of different places.

What caught my attention was the invitation to gather with others around the computer. I guess I've always thought of online Church as a solitary practice, but it doesn't necessarily have to be so. (Although we still exert a greater degree of control over who gathers around the computer with us).

So, maybe the online Church is a redeemable concept after all...

Maybe.

A Blank Canvas

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:20:00 +0000

I've got an article about the new school year up on the Living Lutheran blog site.

Worship is not a spectator sport

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 18:38:00 +0000

Anyone who has read my blog knows that I've been critical of worship as a spectator sport. This isn't an argument about style (i.e traditional vs. contemporary worship), it's about substance. Liturgical worship in which one or two people "do" everything is a spectator sport just as surely as a rock concert that is masquerading as a worship event. Both communicate that only a privileged few are qualified to participate while the rest are just consumers who need to get on board. (To be clear, most of the worship that I've planned over the years fits into this category).

I've been ruminating about this issue for some time now without a clear sense of what an alternative might look like. That began to change though when I read Mark Pierson's excellent new book "The Art of Curating Worship" this spring. That hope was buoyed this week when Clayfire unveiled a new worship planning site based on Mark's concepts and those of others. It's a positive step forward in reclaiming worship for the people of God and I encourage you to check it out.

I say reclaiming because that's what it is. Although most of us have never seen anything but spectator worship that doesn't mean that worship has always been this way. I was reminded of this today when I came across an interview with Robert Bellah about his new book on the evolution of religion. Bellah identifies the "ritual" and "play" of Greek drama as a precursor to worship. He goes on to suggest that modern forms of drama have become spectator sports.

Here's an excerpt from the interview;

Interviewer: How is a Hindu wedding ritual or a Catholic Mass different from experiencing art or drama?

(w)hen you're watching a play by Schiller or Tennessee Williams, the audience is observing it but is not part of it. We can identify with it to some extent but there's a split. Nietzsche pointed out--Nietzsche was crazy as can be but he was damn smart--that if you look at the beginning of Western drama, which is the Greek tragedies, the audience was in it. The chorus was the audience. The chorus represented the citizens of Athens. And furthermore, Greek tragedy was presented at the festival of Dionysus, and it was a sacred event. You had to be there at the crack of dawn and it was all day long. And so the beginnings of drama, of plays, were so close to ritual that the difference between the actors and the audience was minimal. We walk out of the theatre and we say, "Well, that was quite moving, but it's only a play. It's not real life." But for the Athenians, it was real life. It was a form of self-criticism, Greek drama.

I would argue that worship has evolved in the same manner. We moved from a participatory drama in which the congregation is engaged to a highly performative model in which the congregation resembles an audience. I hope that Clayfire and others will continue to help us reclaim the kind of engaging worship that invites participants into the drama of the Christian story, rather than continuing to force feed a captive "audience".

(And I have to add that I'm very encouraged that the publishing house behind this worship revolution is the ELCA's Augsburg Fortress. This was a big risk for them to take! Keep up the great work!)

Time to get off the fence

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 04:40:00 +0000

Each year Willow Creek Church hosts an annual leadership summit. It's always an impressive event featuring some of the best speakers in the world. I didn't have a chance to take in the summit this year but couldn't miss the controversy about the CEO of Starbucks pulling out of the event because of Willow Creek's stance opposing homosexuality.

Today Adam Hamilton a Pastor at a large Methodist congregation in Kansas posted an article on the Huffington Post Religion blog arguing that gay rights advocates had made a mistake when they pressured Starbucks CEO Howard not to speak. The Willow Creek controversy comes on the heels of another high profile flap about Sojourners, a major player in Christian social justice, which refused to run an ad from an organization that promotes gay rights.

Although these controversies happened months apart they have exposed some longstanding theological fault lines. Evangelicals and progressive Christians are working more closely on social justice issues and that means that our differences will continue to be exposed. Despite a great deal of common ground there are still significant disagreements over issues of biblical interpretation, and consequently, sexuality.

So the question then becomes, can we work together? And if so, what will that look like?

Hamilton and others have tried to fan the potentially divisive rhetoric on both extremes. I understand their desire to avoid the antagonistic nature of so much of our political debate. I think their motives are often good ones, but that doesn't mean they're right.

The fact remains that there are many Christian leaders sitting on the fence when it comes to issues of sexuality. There is alot of talk particularly in evangelical circles about being more loving and accepting to LGBTQ persons without actually accepting their lifestyles. As someone who sat on the fence about sexuality issues for many years I understand this impulse, but ultimately I couldn't avoid the fact that such a position is incredibly patronizing to those who are gay.

So where does that leave us? I still think that Christians on both sides of the issue can find common ground despite our differences. But those who oppose the full acceptance of LGBTQ persons in their Churches must recognize that "loving the sinner but hating the sin" feels like a proverbial pat on the head from a parent who knows that someday you'll grow up and understand.

Let's be honest with each other. Sitting on the fence is pretty uncomfortable, and keeps us from engaging in the work of God's Kingdom. I think we can work together, not by ignoring our differences, but rather by owning them honestly.

Preaching to/with young adults

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 03:07:00 +0000

Today I had an opportunity to preach at my home congregation St. Paul's Lutheran Church. It was an interesting experience because normally I preach to College students and this was a multi generational crowd.

One of the things that stood out to me is how differently young adults and older adults seem to engage with sermons. I preached a fairly typical 12 minute sermon on the feeding of the 5,000 from Matthew's Gospel. The congregation was engaged and attentive and I had several good conversations with people afterwards.

Now if I had preached that same sermon on campus I think the reaction would have been very different. I say that because it seems young adults are far less engaged with traditional sermons then older adults. In my experience young adults respond much more favorably to interactive messages that invite their participation, rather than one sided monologues.

I noticed this difference almost right away in making the move from congregational to College ministry, but it wasn't until visiting Solomon's Porch in Minneapolis that I came across an alternative.

At that service Doug Pagitt, the Pastor of Solomon's Porch, utilized a more participative model. Their community was in the midst of working through the Bible cover to cover. Each week they took a small chunk of scripture and a group of members worked through the text with Doug during the week.

By the time worship rolled around on Sunday Doug had combined his own research with input from the community to form the foundation for the sermon. When it came time for the sermon a couple of verses from the text were projected on the screen at a time. Different worshippers would take turns reading the passages and offer their take on the text.

Doug would add his own commentary but for the most part he facilitated a discussion about the text that left room for the participants to engage the text. I tried it a few weeks later and it worked really well.

Then last Spring I read Mark Pierson's book "The Art of Curating Worship" which pushed me further toward this participative model of preaching. Through interactive stations we found a different way to preach that invited the hearer into the text.

This shift in my preaching has not been without difficulty. It's harder to do with larger groups but still possible. The biggest challenge though is getting past my own ego. I love to preach and have always had that gift affirmed. And to be honest it's easier to preach as a monologue than to make it a dialogue, but in our context that seems less effective.

I'm sure there are many reasons for this, namely the participative nature of social media and other influences on young adults. Whatever the reasons I continue to be challenged to learn new ways to engage with this new generation of Christians. Never a dull moment!

What the Church can learn from Corporate Bankruptcy

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:31:00 +0000

I read an insightful opinion piece today about the demise of the Borders bookstore chain.

Author Richard Nash argues that the Company may have been a victim of its own success. Borders advantage was that it could provide more product (books) than traditionally smaller book stores. Borders (and others) helped saturate the market with media resources, but eventually this information tidal wave undermined itself. It turns out that it wasn't product quantity that consumers wanted but rather quality product. After all having 500 cookbooks to choose from does you little good when you don't know what kind of food you like.

Nash writes;

We have more culture, more media, than we can now consume in a thousand lifetimes -- we don't need any more choice. What we need is help in choosing. Borders was not offering that.

I found this opinion very interesting. One of the first lessons I learned in Campus Ministry is that too many options inhibits engagement. I assumed that College students would respond positively to open ended Bible Studies etc., because they offered individual choice and personalization. Boy was I wrong. It turned out that even the most independent students would shut down when confronted with two many options.

Additionally I've found that the biggest obstacle that many people face when it comes to exploring their faith is that they don't know where to start. There are so many options. I have a feeling that this is the reason that many conservative religious groups flourish. When things are presented simply and unambiguously it's a lot easier to get involved. I have my doubts about whether people will forever be content with such simplicity, but it's certainly an easier place to start.

Perhaps the lesson for the (Mainline) Church to learn from the Borders bankruptcy is that when dealing with an increasingly post Christian culture we need to keep things simple. After all, if I was going to learn how to fix an engine I wouldn't start with a jet.

This doesn't mean that people are shallow or uninterested in bigger questions, but we have to understand where they're starting from. It's a matter of hospitality.

Getting away from it all

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:24:00 +0000

I've got a new post over at Living Lutheran about our family's recent experience at Camp EWALU. Paul Frantsen who is the director of Family and Youth Ministries at our Church (St. Paul's Lutheran) put together a great weekend getaway. Thanks to the EWALU staff, Paul, and all the other families for a great experience!

Michelle Bachmann and Martin Luther

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:29:00 +0000

I'm not a big Michelle Bachmann fan. I don't agree with her on much of anything, even though until recently we both identified as Lutherans. But it's because she and I disagree on many issues despite sharing a common theological tradition, that I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt in the latest controversy to ensnare her.

At the center of the controversy is the recent revelation that the denomination that Bachmann until recently belonged, the Wisconsin Evangelical Synod (WELS), still asserts that the Pope is the anti Christ. To be clear I do not agree with this position even though Martin Luther himself is the source, nor do I believe that all WELS members necessarily hold to this teaching.

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Michelle Bachmann, but until we hear from her about this issue, this is not one of them.

It would be nice if Lutherans were deemed interesting for reasons other than controversy and Garrison Keillor. Wouldn't it?

Why do you want to reach young adults?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 01:02:00 +0000

I was talking to a friend recently that had been hired to reach out to young adults in the community. A lot of churches are moving in this direction and only time will tell whether such efforts will be successful. There certainly is a need. The 18-25 year old age group is the least represented demographic in the contemporary Church.

Every Church in the country wants to discover the secret to attracting young adults and there are a variety of strategies. But most of them are pretty predictable surface level attempts like changing the music or hiring a recent Seminary grad to "reach their generation".

But few churches actually take the time to ask an important question; why do you want to reach out to young adults? If the answer is "because we feel like we should", or, "because we're going to die without some new blood" then I can pretty much tell you that your efforts are going to fail.

If a Church wants to reach young adults they have to be able to articulate their reason in a non self serving way. Institutional survival simply isn't good enough.

Why I do what I do

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:44:00 +0000

I've got a new blog entitled "Living Lutheran in College" up on the Living Lutheran web site. It's a reflection on the uniqueness of the Lutheran College model and its promise for bringing together people of faith with an increasingly non religious culture. It's also a statement about why I feel called to the work that I do. I feel blessed to be serving in such an environment.

The Network Church

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 03:54:00 +0000

Just read an interesting article from The Atlantic about the New York Public Library. In an era of copious and instantaneous information you would think that this venerable old institution would be struggling, right? Wrong. The New York Public Library is thriving in the web 2.0 age due in large part to their decision to not simply embrace new technology but allow it to change the way they operate.

The Church and the NYPL have much in common. They are both old institutions struggling to understand their place in a new environment. Libraries once had a monopoly on information in the same way that the Church at one time served as the gatekeepers of spirituality.

Think about it.

There was a time when you had to go to the library to find information. People still crave information but they have so many alternative means of access. Instead of going to the library they have the option of looking up what they want to know on their phones via Wikipedia, searching 1,000's of journal articles online, and plugging into the 24 hour news cycle in order to keep up on current events. Add to this the increasing scarcity of resources and you have a recipe for disaster.

The Church finds itself in a similar situation. There was a time that the Church was seen as the almost exclusive arbiter of spiritual meaning. This privileged status has been steadily eroding for decades, not because spiritual desire has decreased, but rather that alternative means of procuring such meaning have flourished. Bestseller lists are filled with titles related to spirituality, sports have become an almost secular religion, and the idea of looking for spiritual sustenance outside of the Church has become
de-stigmatized...And to top it all off, our resource streams also seem to be drying up.

The Church has tended to respond to these changing trends in much the same way that many libraries and other traditional media outlets have done. We look for quick fixes that will allow us to get back to the glory days with little change. There is always some new campaign, program, or worship innovation that is supposed to take all of our anxiety away. Some of these work for awhile, but ultimately they are mere band aids that don't cover up the fact that the world has fundamentally changed.

In contrast to many other media outlets the New York Public Library has embraced these changes in interesting ways. From new smartphone and tablet apps to expanded off site access to information, they have changed the way they operate.

But what really impresses me about the NYPL's strategy aren't these technical changes but the deep and fundamental changes they have made institutionally as a response to the information age. Instead of just finding new ways to deliver information they have adapted to the new reality by changing the way they look at their identity. So now instead of thinking of themselves as a traditional library they now think of themselves as "a social network with three million users".

I see lots of efforts within the Church to make technical adaptations, but this will not bring about the kind of change we need. It's great that the Church is using new media outlets like Facebook and Twitter but there is a big difference between using these alternative methods of communication and reassessing our identity.

If the NYPL had simply come out with a cool iPhone app it might have made them slightly more effective, but what really sets them apart is their willingness to let go of their former identity as an exclusive arbiter of information and embrace the idea of a social network that provides information.

Which gets me to thinking...why can't the Church do this?

Why can't we move out from the shadow of the past and embrace the idea that we are a social network of Jesus followers with a common mission to love God and others?

How would a distributed network of Christian cells change the way we do ministry and invest our time?

Maybe it would mean less emphasis on Worship, Buildings, Church meetings, and programs...and more emphasis on trying to empower one another to live out the Gospel wherever it is that we're planted.

I wonder if we have the courage to do something like that?

library informationThey've actually made it easier for their users to influence the way they library

Fast tracking the Process

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:45:00 +0000

Check out this article from The Lutheran about an innovative new partnership between Wartburg and several ELCA seminaries. It reduces the number of years a student needs to complete their bachelor's and mdiv degrees and subsequently the debt load that many Pastors carry.

Getting off the Conveyor Belt

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Wed, 25 May 2011 03:10:00 +0000

Some time before I got into campus ministry I was talking to a friend who was a Pastor at a State school Campus. She told me that their ministry had a core group of regular leaders, but the vast majority of students were more casual participants. Oftentimes a student would be coming regularly to worship and other events and then suddenly drop off the face of the earth, only to reappear later and jump back in as if they hadn't been away at all.

Now that I've had two years working in the field I can say that my friend's description of College ministry is very accurate. We have a core group of students that are very faithful participants and others who come and go.

I used to assume that such attendance patterns were a sign that we were doing something wrong. A part of me that believed our mission was to try and get these casual attendees to become regulars.

Anyone that has ever read Church growth books are familiar with this strategy of trying to move people from "casual" attendees to "core" participants. (A couple examples of this strategy are "The Purpose Driven Church", "Creating Community", and "Simple Church")

I've been rethinking this "casual to core" mindset for a number of reasons.

First of all it treats people as commodities that need to be managed (maybe even coerced?) into predetermined roles. There's no better way to devalue people than laying out your plan for their lives...trust me, I'm speaking from experience.
Secondly, it assumes that discipleship is a linear process when in reality it usually isn't.
Thirdly, this modern strategy of "conveyor belt discipleship" is out of place in a postmodern world that is messy and seldom orderly.

That doesn't mean I think we should give up on the idea of discipleship. I'm simply suggesting that we ought to stop trying so hard to "manage" people's spiritual lives and let the Spirit do that work.

As this interesting article from The Christian Century suggests, faith communities need to pursue a both/and approach to discipleship. Such an approach respects where people are in their faith journey, but intentionally invites all members of the community to practices that can deepen their faith and practice.

But if you're still not convinced your Church should consider a different approach to discipleship...remember that our students are your future parishioners :)

(Special thanks to Pastor Clint Schneckloth for sharing the Christian Century article with me)

Dry

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Thu, 19 May 2011 05:08:00 +0000

I've been in a rather arid state lately. I feel dried up.

There's no good reason for me to feel this way. Life is good. I love my job, my family, and have had enough time for hobbies. Everything is fine. Yet I feel blah.

It may just be the end of the school year. No matter how much you love something you still sometimes need a break. But it's also been kind of a dry time for me spiritually. For whatever reason I haven't felt spiritually alive lately.

I suspect I'm not alone in having such dry periods. In fact I know I'm not alone. I remember feeling guilty for being relieved when I heard that Mother Teressa's biography revealed that she had long periods of spiritual drought. It's never good to enjoy someone else's hardship, yet it's also comforting to know that it's okay to be human.

There was a time in my life when an experience like this would have put me in a state of panic. Maybe I'm becoming more mature, or just indifferent, but I'm not real concerned about this dry period. I guess I've experienced it enough times now to know that it will pass. And undoubtedly I will discover, like always, that God has been present the whole time.

Thanks to Grace we're all "A" Students

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:16:00 +0000

A new post on Living Lutheran about grace and freedom.

Jesus died for this?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:38:00 +0000

A Church in the Twin Cities is pulling out all the stops for Easter this year. They're bribing people to attend worship by offering free tv's and video game systems. The pastor is quoted as saying "I have no problem bribing people with crap in order to meet Christ". (That's an actual quote, not an excerpt from an article in The Onion.)

I guess I'm past being shocked at the lengths we'll go in order to fill seats in worship. Now I'm just sad.

I'm sad because it's becoming increasingly obvious that the Church has been co opted by consumer culture.

I'm sad because it's contrary to the Gospel of Jesus, who would have been more concerned with meeting the needs of the poor, than giving away overpriced electronics to the upper middle class. Jesus often used ordinary things to communicate how he could fulfill our spiritual desires. He said "I am the bread of Life", but I can't imagine him saying "I am the 3D TV" or Nintendo 3DS.

In other words I'm sad because Jesus has so much more to offer people than electronic "crap". In fact that "crap" gets in the way of seeing what Jesus truly offers, but also how much it costs to follow him.

I realize that might not be as obviously enticing as a 3D TV or game system, but what Jesus does offer is certainly more lasting. This isn't a case of the ends justifying the means, unless what we're after is a temporary boost in attendance. It certainly won't lead to more followers of Jesus. That would involve a cross rather than a nintendo.

(On a more hopeful note, this article on the House Church movement is an interesting antidote to consumer Christianity)

Texting and the Second Commandment

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:51:00 +0000

A new post on Living Lutheran.com

The Consumer Church...again!

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 03:50:00 +0000

I've never fancied myself as someone prone to pet peeves. Sure. I've been known to get up on the occasional soap box, but rarely does my irritation with something become a consistent habit. But I've discovered that I do have at least one major pet peeve...consumer driven Churches and Pastors.

Let me explain what I mean by that. I think it's a given in a consumer driven culture like our own that the Church will at times succumb to the temptation to think of itself as a "business" with "customers". And I don't want to completely reject all Church leaders who find ways to glean wisdom from sources outside the Church, even when those sources are the corporate world. There are things that the Church can learn from the business world, but when such techniques begin to drive the mission of the Church I have a real problem with that.

I understand that oftentimes Pastors embrace such "techniques" with good intentions. We are called to share the good news of God's great love with all people. I get that. I even embrace it. But when I see Churches using lame publicity stunts to draw people to worship it literally makes me sick.

It makes me sick because it's disingenuous. It treats faith as simply another commodity to be consumed and it's a classic bait and switch. We attract people to Churches by pandering to their every need and then wonder why no one wants to embrace the cross of discipleship.

I'm sorry, but it's really not that hard to get a bunch of people to come to your Church if you give away money, cars, or flat screen tv's to worship attendees. (And no, I'm not making this up. This is the strategy several churches are using to lure people to worship on Easter Sunday. The only thing keeping me from posting the links is the fact that it might violate the eighth commandment's directive about bearing false witness against my neighbor).

But what happens then? What do we do the next Sunday to get them to come back? How about the one after that? And how do we expect people to become anything but consumers when this is the tactic we use to attract them in the first place?

I struggle with this issue mightily. I want to respect the practices of all Churches. I don't want to harbor anger toward my brothers and sisters in Christ. But I cannot bring myself in good conscience to endorse techniques that would make even a dishonest salesperson blush.

Why are we doing this? And how bad does it need to get before we recognize it's destructiveness? How does a world with hungry people, reeling from natural disasters, and full of economically motivated violence see such stunts?

Sadly the consumer mindset is so pervasive that many people don't think twice about going to Church for such reasons. After all, we're conditioned to do so every day of our lives. But I'm afraid that it's actually draining the life out of us without our knowledge. But those of us who embrace the cross have no excuse. We should know better.

Intolerance among the Tolerant Generation

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 20:10:00 +0000

I have a new blog post up at Living Lutheran.

Wrestling with gender roles

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:47:00 +0000

This week in Iowa the State High School Wrestling tournament is taking place. It's getting even more attention than normal (which is saying something in our wrestling crazed state) because the field includes two female wrestlers. Cassy Herkelman, from nearby Cedar Falls, became the first female to win a match at the State wrestling tournament. She won when her first round opponent defaulted because he didn't feel it was appropriate on religious grounds to wrestle a girl.

When I heard that her opponent had defaulted because of his Christian beliefs I immediately assumed that he was trying to avoid the kind of close physical contact that the sport entails. But as ESPN writer Rick Reilly points out the reason for her opponents default was actually based on concern that it would be inappropriate for a boy to inflict the kind of physical pain of a wrestling match on a girl.

But what does this fear of "hurting" a girl really about?

When I was in High School Women's athletics were really still developing. But today when I go to watch our Wartburg women athletes compete I can't believe how athletic and physical they have become. To say that I'm impressed would be an understatement.

The success of women athletes raises the question "are gender roles in our culture based more on social norms or God's design for creation"? In the Bible it seems that men and women are distinctively created and there are undoubtedly biological differences between the genders. But it seems to me that some of our attitudes about gender roles are more cultural than spiritual or biological. Many still cling to the notion that women are by nature emotional, weak, and helpless. But in scripture we see all kinds of instances in which women are anything but in need of protection, after all, life in a patriarchal world was neither easy or safe.

Perhaps it's time for Christians to ask whether the traditional Christian gender roles are part of God's design for creation or our own social norms?