Misio Dei - Following Jesus into the World

The Abundant Life

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 19:15:00 +0000

An article I wrote about summer, busyness, and the abundant life that Jesus intends for us.

When a child dies...

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Sun, 24 Apr 2016 20:29:00 +0000

There may be nothing more disorienting than the death of a child. It affects us in a way that other types of deaths do not.

I have no idea what it feels like to be related to a child who dies. I cannot even begin to imagine the anguish of a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt, uncle or cousin when a child dies. But I do know that the death of a child has a ripple effect that extends far beyond the immediate family. Quite frankly it feels like getting punched in the stomach.

Why is it that the loss of a child affects us in such a profoundly different way than any other deaths?

It certainly has something to do with age. When someone tells us about a death, we're always relieved to hear they were ninety instead of nine. We may grieve the loss of the ninety year old but somehow it feels different because that person has "lived a good life." There is no similar consolation when a child dies. It feels pointless, cruel, and sickening. Because it is.

It's not fair. It makes little sense. And if we're really honest with ourselves, the death of a child makes us feel a sense of insecurity and futility that challenges our faith in God. We want so desperately to make sense of it. To feel that there was some sort of reason this happened.

I'm not criticizing that desire, I feel it too. But ultimately such rationalizations still leave me feeling empty.

In his book God, Medicine and Suffering Stanley Hauerwas says this of our attempts to understand suffering and death.

There is no hope for us if our only hope in the face of suffering is that "we can learn from it"...Rather, our only hope lies in whether we can place alongside the story of the pointless suffering of a child...a story of suffering that helps us know that we are not thereby abandoned.

The Christian story is not one that answers the question "why", as much as I wish that it was. But it is "a story of suffering that helps us know that we are not thereby abandoned." For some inexplicable and maddening reason God has chosen to enter into our suffering rather than explaining it.

So when we stand at the foot of the cross and see Jesus hanging there we will not find answers. What we will find is a God who loves us enough to be willing to die for us, and thereby conquer the power of death.

But that's still not a reason.

On the way home from her soccer game yesterday my daughter asked me "why does God let people die?" She was asking because her friend's brother was being taken off life support today. His family lives right down the street from ours and we've been praying for a different outcome.

She caught me off guard as she often does. And I simply said, "I don't know sweetie." It felt like an inadequate response. I went to school to wrestle with questions like this. And yet I think it was the only answer I could truly give. Because even after all that wrestling none of this makes any damn sense to me.

And yet the cross tells me that, somehow, the death of a child is not greater than God's love for that child. And for all of us.

Godspeed Jace. You are loved.

Muslims & Christians

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 20:39:00 +0000

Here are a couple of recent pieces I've written about the relationship between Muslims and Christians. Theological agreement should never be the standard for deciding whether we stand with those who are being persecuted.

"Standing Together with Muslims"

"Bind us together, Lord"

Unlocking College student's Faith

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:35:00 +0000

I wrote a new article about "Unlocking College Student's Faith" on Living Lutheran. The article focuses on the challenges of engaging college students in faith exploration and some suggestions for how the Church and its Colleges can move forward.

Don't cry, Be a Man

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 13:54:00 +0000

I'm really passionate about confronting the unhealthy version of masculinity in our culture. It's an issue that I think the Church should take the lead in addressing. Here's a recent article I wrote about this issue entitled "Don't cry, Be A Man".

Lutherans, lefse, and adiaphora

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 01:30:00 +0000

I have a new article up at Living Lutheran about how Lutherans sometimes leave others out of the conversation.

Church "Shopping"

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Tue, 11 Aug 2015 00:37:00 +0000

Join me in a conspiracy. Let's eliminate the term "church shopping" from our vocabularies. Not only is it a consumeristic way of describing something that cannot be commodified, it's unfaithful to the actual concept of being the Church.

This is going to be a hard habit to break. We view nearly everything in American culture through the lens of consumerism and self fulfillment which is probably about as far from the message of Jesus as one can get. But at a more basic level we lack an understanding of the connection between "church" and "Church".

Church (big C) refers to the universal body of believers who despite appearances to the contrary are called by Jesus to stand together as the body of Christ.
(c)hurch (little c) refers to local expressions of the Body of Christ...individual congregations and the like.

They're not two separate entities in competition with one another. Whatever church we're involved with is an expression of the Church, which includes both the living and the dead. But when viewed through the lens of consumerism it's easy to see different churches as competing businesses. In that case we begin to evaluate churches like consumers asking who can meet my needs?

Churches don't help by the way we often behave. We compete for market share, always trying to outdo one another rather than lifting each other up. I wonder how different the American Church would look if we viewed one another as branches of the same organization rather than competitors.

So, instead of going "church shopping" ask yourself (or better yet God) where am I being called to use my gifts for sake of the whole Church and the world?

God and Leadership

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Mon, 03 Aug 2015 02:25:00 +0000

According to a 2010 book entitled "America's Four Gods" there are four dominant ways in which Americans view God.

31% believe in an Authoritarian God who is wrathful, holy, and sin hating.The
24% believe in a Distant God that is more like a creative force in the universe.
23% see God as a Benevolent figure who is forgiving, healing, and a peacemaker.
16% believe in a Critical God who brings justice to the world and sets things right.

Now granted these are just four ways that people might look at God and probably don't cover the full gamut. But have you ever thought about how your view of God affects the way you understand the world?

This past week during my Doctor of Ministry seminar we talked a lot about how our beliefs about God affect the way we view leadership. This isn't a topic that we think about much even in the church. But if we believe that we are created in God's image and called to emulate God in our leadership then the way we perceive God is pretty important.

What does your leadership say about your concept of God?

Maybe you haven't thought about the relationship between your view of God and your leadership. In that case you probably believe in a Distant God. Or maybe you tend to see the best in people which would indicate that you believe in a more Benevolent God.

My point is that the way we view God affects the way we see the world and practice leadership, oftentimes without even being aware of it. But how often do we actually think about it?

Most of us don't, which means that we are often living out of unexamined and even outdated conceptions of God. We accept hierarchical leadership structures that exploit and dehumanize people without ever asking the question, is this the way God would have us organize our lives?

When I think about my leadership I realize that the creative and permission giving God I believe in is often not the model I live out of. I tend to hold onto control in ways that God doesn't.

So, how about you? What image of God does your leadership reflect? And is it the one you really believe in?

Graduates, I don't wish you happiness in life

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Tue, 26 May 2015 14:14:00 +0000

I have a new article up on Living Lutheran entitled "Graduates, I don't wish you happiness in life." Don't worry, it's not as harsh as the title suggests :)

All can change in an instant

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Thu, 26 Mar 2015 19:49:00 +0000

I have a new piece up at Living Lutheran entitled "All can change in an instant".

Lent on Campus

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 23:51:00 +0000

Here's a new article that I wrote for Living Lutheran about the surprising resonance of Lent on campus.

A College of the Church for the 21st Century

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Sat, 14 Feb 2015 06:31:00 +0000

A presentation based on my initial work in Luther Seminary's Doctor of Ministry program in Congregational Mission & Leadership. Originally presented at Wartburg's Philosophical and Literary society meeting and at the Tree of Life Pastor's Conference annual meeting.

A college of the church for the 21st century from Brian Beckstrom

The Pastor is In

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:00:00 +0000

A story about an experiment I'e been trying from the ELCA's Living Lutheran Blog http://www.elca.org/Living-Lutheran/Blogs/2015/02/150210-The-pastor-is-in.

Does God care who wins?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 03:05:00 +0000

This hasn't been the best week for those of us who are Packer fans. On the verge of going to the Super Bowl the Packers managed to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory. Although it's upsetting when your team loses (and trust me I was plenty upset) I can say that I am still proud of this year's team. There are always mistakes in games and it's easy to play armchair coach, but overall this group has been incredibly successful. So I'm still proud of my Packers.

In the midst of a week where everyone seems to want to pile on the Pack there was one bright spot, and it came from Quarterback Aaron Rodgers. During his radio show this week a caller asked him if he believed that God cares about the outcome of football games. Rodgers said, "I don't think God cares a whole lot about the outcome. He cares about the people involved, but I don't think he's a big football fan."

Rodgers statement was a refreshing departure from the now cliche habit of players who give credit to God for their victories in post game interviews. As soon as the game ends you know it's coming, someone from the winning side is going to invoke God...interestingly the losing side rarely curses God for the perceived slight.

Now I'm sure that most athletes who praise God for their victories do so with good intentions. It's an act of humility in some ways to give the credit to God rather than take it all themselves. But there are unintended consequences of such statements. Because if God chose your team to win, doesn't that mean that God chose the other team to lose? And if that's the case it could be implied that God favors one team over the other. Which isn't really humble at all.

What's at stake here theologically is God's agency, how God is active in the world. There are some who would like to say that God isn't involved in our day to day lives in anyway. These are usually the folks that are critical of athletes who praise God in victory. I don't agree with them either. I do believe that God is active and at work in the world through the Holy Spirit but we have to be cautious about how much we claim to know about what God is doing. After all what does a football game really have to do with God's mission of healing and reconciling the world to Godself? Probably not a lot.

I'd love to see a new trend of losing players giving praise to God, because to be quite honest if God favors anyone it is probably the losers. Not because God caused them to lose the game, but rather because that is where God shows up most consistently...among the losers.

I think I'm done with Church Bashing

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Sun, 21 Dec 2014 21:30:00 +0000

It started about 7 or 8 years ago. I started seeing more and more blogs and books from Pastors and other insiders criticizing the Church.

It was invigorating at first. Reading the things we had all been thinking but never had the guts to actually say. There was a flood of church bashing. The problem with the Church is that it's too judgmental, hypocritical, anti gay, etc.

All of which is probably true.

I have to admit that I joined right in. I didn't realize it at the time but I wanted to believe that there was a new and better way of doing Church waiting to be discovered. If we could just become a more compassionate, justice minded, inclusive, accepting community we would be better off for it.

All of which is probably true.

But here's the thing I realized this morning while reading another article about why the Church is dying of self inflicted wounds...it may be true, but no one gives a damn. We're past the point of being able to tweak a few things by becoming more welcoming, affirming, etc. That ship has sailed.

As I read the comment section of this article I saw person after person saying that they had started a new Church that addresses all the concerns the author was raising. They were inclusive, accepting, involved in the community, relevant. And still, no one was coming.

All of which is probably true.

I get the pain of those who are exasperated that people aren't recognizing that their Church is trying to do something new. As part of a gay affirming progressive denomination I cringe inwardly when people offer stereotypes about Christians that don't apply to me.

But here's the thing...

1) Nobody cares...Really, nobody does. Outside of a shrinking circle of insiders most people are not thinking about the Church. At all.

2) Any illusions that being more tolerant, inclusive, affirming, (fill in your own adjective here) was going to save the Church were unfounded. No one knows for sure why the Church is dying (or even if that's a bad thing) and all we can do is the best we can with what we know...(which means trying to understand what is going on culturally, but more importantly, by listening to the Spirit).

3) Becoming more tolerant, inclusive, relevant, etc simply to save the Church seems like really crappy motivation. Do it because its the right and faithful thing to do, not because you think its going to save our skin.

And that's not the reason we do this anyway. I know it's only human to want to be successful, but what exactly does success look like for a movement led by a guy who was strung up on a tree and left to die?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be self critical, but realize that being able to identify some of the Church's problems doesn't mean that we've found the solution to its woes. There isn't one. We're going to have to fail continuously as we move forward.

So, I think I'm done with Church bashing.

I'm still more than happy to critique the ways in which we are falling short. But I'm not going to pretend that fixing those things is going to turn it around.

Confusion about being a "College of the Church"

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:12:00 +0000

As I continue to work on my Doctor of Ministry research it has become clear that many people on campus are confused about what it means for Wartburg to be a College of the Church. Much of this has to do with the fact that as a Lutheran College Wartburg does not fit into the two more familiar models for Church related higher education.

We're not a Bible College where everyone is asked to sign onto a doctrinal statement, in fact one does not have to be Christian or even religious to attend Wartburg.

On the other hand we are not a secular college or university where faith isn't a part of the institutional mission. We not only require students to take two religion classes but also have an active campus ministry.

But the confusion about what it means for Wartburg to be a College of the Church is not merely the result of not fitting into the preconceived categories for Higher Education. We also have to grapple with the tension in our mission between openness to all and our identity as Lutheran-Christian institution. And perhaps even more importantly how do we communicate this distinctive mission? It's really hard to explain to people who only know Bible Colleges and secular Universities.

Right now I am researching different perceptions among students, faculty, and staff regarding Wartburg's identity as a "College of the Church". I'm going to be sharing these findings (hopefully) at Phil & Lit on February 6th at 4:30 PM in the McCoy Rooms.

I hope this research will help us develop common language for articulating what it means for Wartburg to be a College of the Church in the 21st Century. So if you get a survey from me asking for your perceptions about the faith environment at Wartburg I hope you will take a few moments to fill it out.

Digital Ministry 2.0

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 20:27:00 +0000

Over the past couple of years I've become convinced that the Church needs to become more engaged in digital ministry, the use of online media to engage those who aren't going to come to Church. With in the digital ministry world I see several distinct populations emerging.

The first is the digitally churched. These are folks who have some connection with a faith community or at least familiarity. They will still worship in congregations but perhaps not as regularly as they once did. Online streaming of worship services will be a supplement to their spiritual practice.

This group is well served by what I call digital ministry 1.0, which mainly includes on line streaming of worship services. There are lots of Churches doing this now, including Spiritual Life and Campus Ministry at Wartburg College where we have a unique partnership with a student run online media broadcasting service called Knight Vision. The largest ELCA Church in the country, Lutheran Church of Hope, is also very involved in this kind of digital ministry as noted by my colleague and Professor of Communication Arts Dr. Bill Withers in this blog post called "The Net Effect of Streaming Hope".

Next is what I will call the digitally dechurched. Many in this group will also have some sort of experience with a congregation but they have no intention of being physically connected to a faith community. Their spiritual practice and experience of community will be almost exclusively online. This group is served by purveyors of digital ministry 1.5 and includes pioneers like Darkwood Brew.

As our population becomes increasingly unchurched a third group, the digitally unchurched, has begun to emerge. This segment of the population has had little or no experience with Church and probably aren't looking to become part of a Church community. For these folks Church practices seem foreign and they may not see any value in becoming part of a faith community.

But don't assume that they are actually uninterested in faith. They are spiritually curious and looking for ways to piece together a sense of meaning and purpose. They may do this by borrowing from a number of different traditions, and yes at times this will lead to theologically shallow expressions of faith.

But in order to reach out to the digitally dechurched the Church will need to develop digital ministry 2.0, a new category that will focus more on bite sized opportunities (no pun intended) for engagement. A good example of this would be the popular internet video from several years ago called "Why I hate Religion but Love Jesus". Although I dislike many things about the video it is the kind of short attention grabbing type of media that digital ministry 2.0 will need to develop.

Digital Ministry 2.0 will require a major shift in mind set for the Church. Typically the Church does outreach so that people will become part of our congregations, but this group has no interest in doing that. Of course this raises some serious questions about the nature of Church and community that we need to think through theologically. But if we approach the digitally unchurched merely as potential new members they will see our efforts for what they are, self interested attempts to sustain our dying institutions. To me that is as theologically problematic as abandoning the idea of Church as "ekklesia", the gathered people of God.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think the Church can give up on actual face to face community. We need to nurture communities of practice that gather around word and sacrament, but we also have to come to grips with the fact that fewer and fewer people are interested in being part of such communities. And if the Church exists for the sake of world we cannot turn our backs on those who don't fit into our notions of Church. Nor can digital ministry be merely a means to get them into our communities.

The Church needs to pursue digital ministry because it allows us to be a blessing to others, not because we think it will help us survive. This will require us to embrace an ecclessiology of the Cross. An attitude grounded in the conviction that like our Lord Jesus the Church exists to give itself away to our neighbors without thought of the consequences.

The Church can give itself away financially, spiritually, and digitally because of our confidence that Jesus has not left us alone to do this work. We have an
advocate, the Spirit, who is at work in the world watering whatever seeds we may sow and leading us into new ways of following Jesus. Even if they are digital.

Technology and Mission

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 15:43:00 +0000

I wrote a response to a recent article on Narthex News (a great new online magazine you should check out) entitled "Technology Recapitulates Theology: The Rewiring of faith across generations". Here is the post.

Thanks for another great article on Narthex News. This site is quickly becoming one of my favorites and I applaud the conversation you’ve started here.

The article raises an issue I’ve been struggling with in terms of our Digital Ministry strategy. In my work with College students there are two very distinct groups.

First are the “Church Kids” who as the article mentioned were raised in the Church and have a fairly durable faith. (Within this group there are also small numbers of unchurched young adults who are open to participation in a religious community). Their relationship to all sorts of institutions has been “rewired” making their participation more sporadic. As the article rightly notes they expect to be more than casual observers at worship and other events, although I find that they still need some sort of organizational structure to enable that participation.

This generation of “Church Kids” don’t attend worship and other community events as frequently as previous generations but they are definitely still engaged. Digital ministry is one tool that keeps them engaged even when they aren’t physically present, but we’re still learning how to bring these technological tools into worship etc. This article contains some great ideas for that type of engagement.

The “Church Kids” still remain a distinctly small subset of the college age population, and competition among churches for their participation has become fierce.

As Evangelicalism begins to face declining numbers particularly among young adults there are more and more attempts to entice this population to become part of their communities. Typically such churches don’t realize that because of the rewiring of young adult faith building a congregation around them is difficult. But what this means is that everyone is competing for this relatively small group of young adults who are actually interested in being part of a faith community.

Then there is the rest of the population, many of whom were raised in a faith community, but have little interest in participation. Practicing their faith is simply not something that is a priority at this point in their lives. Whether they will “come back to Church” as previous generations have once they “settle down” and their lives become more stable remains an open question. Even if they are inclined to return to the Church the fact is that they probably won’t “settle down” until much later than previous generations. After being away from Church for so long it’s natural to wonder if they will actually come back.

This article focuses a great deal of attention on using technology to engage with “Church kids”, but if this is a relatively small subset of the population that can only be a part of a digital ministry strategy. How do we engage with those who have no intention of becoming part of our faith communities? It seems to me that this may be an even more pressing question than how we connect with the “Church Kids”.

I’ve been thinking a great deal lately about the concept of “peripheral participation” that Jessica Duckworth talks about in “Wide Welcome”, her fine book on the catechumenate. Duckworth argues that we should not devalue such participation because there are many who are unable to participate because of their present life circumstances. Although I wouldn’t go so far as to say that college age students are “unable’ to participate in church communities the transitional nature of this life stage does make such participation more difficult than many realize.

It seems to me that this part of the young adult population is perhaps an even more important digital mission field than the “Church Kids”. Technology offers opportunities to maintain some sort of connection with a faith community even when one is uninterested or unable to physically participate.

Working at a College of the Church I see the benefits of “peripheral participation” every day. Because reflecting on one’s faith is part of our curriculum many students do eventualy find their way back to the Church particularly toward the end of their College careers when they are looking for meaning and guidance. Church Colleges like my own that don’t require doctrinal conformity or worship attendance give young adults the opportunity for self determination in their faith lives while still keeping students engaged in faith reflection. I believe that digital ministry provides another potential avenue to maintain such connections in a manner that respects individual choices but leaves the door open for engagement.

I offer these observations realizing that my experience is with college age students who are themselves a smaller subset of the young adult population. But there is ample evidence that the patterns of religious engagement typified in the College years persists long after graduation. It’s with this part of the population that I see the greatest potential for missional engagement through technological opportunities.

Now how to go about actually doing this is another issue…

Meeting Millenials Halfway

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:26:00 +0000

Every Friday at Wartburg we hear a message from a Senior student. They are some of our most popular services and I always look forward to them.

As part of the planning process Pastor Ramona and I always meet with the Senior Chapel speaker several weeks beforehand. Working with students as they express their faith has taught me a great deal about what God is doing in and through the Millenial generation.

A couple of week's ago I had a chance to visit with Seth Nutting who shared his Senior Chapel today. Seth grew up in the United Methodist Church and is a Journalism & Communication Arts Major. He does a lot of sports journalism on campus and hopes to find a job in that field some day. He is also a member of the Wartburg Basketball team (as you can tell in the video, he's rather tall).

When I met with Seth we talked a lot about the changing nature of the Church as we work with digital natives. I mentioned something about how many more options people now have when it comes to expressing their faith. Seth mentioned that the term for this in the TV world is "audience fragmentation". Basically it used to be the networks who were in charge because options were limited...but now with so many different options the power has shifted to consumers.

Seth does a much better job of explaining audience fragmentation and how it might affect the Church in this clip. He gives voice to his generation's need for the Church to meet young adults halfway, while also calling his peers to do their part. I found his message to be really insightful and so I share it here with you.

Responsible use of the Holy Spirit's Power

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:50:00 +0000

One of the fastest growing segments of Christianity are Charismatic and Pentecostal expressions of the faith. Many are drawn to the experiential power of such traditions. Meanwhile most mainstream Christians are unsure what to make of the Spirit and its gifts. On the one hand these gifts (speaking tongues, prophesying. etc) seem biblical. But there are also instances in which such gifts are used to set apart those who have them as somehow more important than the rest of the body.

Lutherans in particular are often confused about what to make of the Spirit. Garrison Keillor once remarked that Lutherans see the Holy Spirit as "the shy member of the Trinity" because we are reluctant to talk about the Spirit'w work. That analysis is fairly accurate and equally unfortunate. By ignoring the work of the Holy Spirit we are not equipping people with the theological tools to understand and discern the Spirit's work.

In her book "Holy Spirit: Creative Power in Our Lives" Lois Malcolm sets out a biblically grounded theological framework for understand, interpreting, and discerning the gifts of the Spirit. Malcolm argues that the gifts of the Spirit are indeed biblically grounded but easily abused. One of her more important points is that although spiritual gifts are biblically substantiated we must offer a fuller biblical perspective on their use. We may think that the Book of Acts contains everything we need to know about the Spirit but Malcolm argues that this understanding is limited at best.

She writes,

Acts gives us a gripping charismatic account of what the new community the Spirit created looked like and how that community spread throughout the world. John gives us a profound mystical understanding of how the Spirit of truth enables us to enter most deeply into Jesus’ relationship with his Father and our relationship with one another. Paul brought these two themes together.[1]

Malcolm continues to develop her argument, drawing from 1 Corinthians and other Pauline sources, to establish a set of principles for the responsible use of the Spirit’s power. The first is the assertion that Jesus is Lord and that these gifts are exercised under his authority. The second is that these gifts must be used for the common good of the community, building up the Body of Christ rather than tearing it down or elevating some members because of their gifts.

Looking more closely at my own context I find these guidelines very helpful. It’s not that spiritual gifts are relics of a bygone era or simply too weird to accept, but the way in which they are exercised is important. If the power of the Spirit isn’t for the good of the entire community, or gifts become a source of divisiveness, then in the interest of the whole body we must look at how these gifts are exercised.

In an individualistic culture the creative power of the Spirit can easily be subverted and abused. Malcolm’s work provides a helpful corrective to such misuse.

[1] Malcom, Lois. Holy Spirit: Creative Power in Our Lives. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2009. Pg. 48.

Will College Kill Your Faith?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 16:32:00 +0000

Every fall I encounter students who are scared to death. Not of being away from home, the amount of homework they will receive, or getting lost on the way to class. They're afraid of losing their faith.

It's easy to understand why. Christianity has a long history of viewing culture suspiciously, and higher education especially. Drinking, radical politics, and contact with people from other faith traditions are just some of the evils that supposedly await Christian students on campus.

The stereotype of the atheistic Professor who cannot wait to destroy the faith of their Christian students has become a part of the Christian psyche, as evidenced that in the recent movie "God is not Dead". This fear has inspired books like "Staying Christian in College" and become the rallying cry for various para Christian campus ministries like Campus Crusade for Christ (now called Cru), the Navigators, etc.

The question however is whether or not this stereotype is true? Although it is true that College students (unless they attend certain Colleges) will inevitably encounter partying, atheists, and people from other religious traditions...recent research indicates that College actually tends to make students more religious.

What is even more amazing about this research is that roughly half of all College students won't actually practice their faith in College at all. But what they will do is learn to think critically about their beliefs and values, ask questions, and live in an environment that is probably more diverse than the one they came from.

This isn't really surprising to those who study faith in Higher education. In her landmark book "Big Questions, Worthy Dreams" Sharon Daloz Parks identified "a constructive engagement with otherness" as an important factor in the faith development of young adults.

In my experience Christian students that participate in faith conversations with people from other Christian traditions, world religions, and no faith at all, actually grow more deeply in their own faith. Doing so forces one to think more deeply about what one believes, and although there is often a period of wandering and confusion, most return to their Christian roots with a deeper commitment.

At Wartburg we believe that the best way for students to grow in their faith is encounter these supposedly challenging influences in an environment where faith is nurtured. We don't force students to participate in our worshipping community, interfaith conversation, or discipleship groups but they are readily available. When students voluntarily take us up on the invitation to practice their faith they are more likely to actually stick with it.

And fortunately for the roughly half of our students that won't ever darken the door of the Chapel, faith is in the water at places like Wartburg. You can't graduate from the College without having to reflect on your faith and vocation through classes both in and outside the Religion department.

So don't be afraid students (and parents)! Ultimately faith does not depend on your actions anyway, it rests in the hands of a God who is holding on to you even when you feel like you're letting go.

The Red Herring of Mainline Decline

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:51:00 +0000

There are a number of blogs still floating around tying the decline of Churches, namely Mainline Protestantism toward recent decisions regarding human sexuality. Such blogs follow a predictable format...

1) Every major denomination that has adopted more liberal policies regarding homosexuality have declined.

This is true. There is no doubt that these Churches have declined significantly and for some time it was assumed this was a direct result of these liberalizing trends. Certainly in my own denomination (the ELCA) there has been an exodus of more conservative members since the Churchwide decision to allow non celibate GLBT clergy to be ordained.

But that isn't the whole truth. Every major denomination in the US is now in decline. And that includes Churches that are on the more conservative end of the spectrum. according to Diana Butler Bass in "Christianity After Religion".

The old argument that liberal churches are in decline and conservative ones are growing is not true. The denominations that once seemed impervious to decline are beginning to look like most other American religious groups. Everyone is in the same situation: a religious bear market. Indeed, the first decade of the twenty-first century could rightly be called the Great Religious Recession. (Bass, Kindle Location 303)

Mark Chaves from Duke University echoes this sentiment,

The evidence for a decades-long decline in American religiosity is now incontrovertible—like the evidence for global warming, it comes from multiple sources, shows up in several dimensions, and paints a consistent factual picture—the burden of proof has shifted to those who want to claim that American religiosity is not declining.

Have the losses in Churches that have recently reversed their positions on human sexuality been greater than they would have been otherwise? Probably, but decline is the new normal for all American denominations.

2) The second argument of these blog posts tends to focus on the fact that these changes in human sexuality policy have not meant a surge in membership. This is also true, but the argument rests on the assumption that this was expected.

It's probably too early to definitively say whether this will happen but I think it's unlikely. There may be modest gains but the overall decline of religious affiliation in the United States is a bigger factor. I don't think any of these Church bodies made their decisions as a church growth strategy. They did so because they felt it was the most faithful response to the Gospel.

Writers of these blogs need to catch up with the times. The idea that Churches die because they are liberal has been around since Dean Kelley's book "Why Conservative Churches Are Growing" was published in the 1970's. But recent evidence seems to suggest that it's a red herring.

Churchism

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:42:00 +0000

Is it possible that Churches are unfairly stereotyped? It seems there is a growing (and intellectually lazy) tendency to describe all Churches as the same. I've read numerous articles like this recently. They all go something like this...

"Dear Church. You lost me. When I was growing up you were intolerant, homophobic, and generally objectionable. Therefore I am writing off all Churches from now on." - Sincerely, Former Christian.

It's not that there is anything patently untrue about these statements. There are many Churches that embody these characteristics. But not all Churches do. In fact there are many Churches that have more progressive stands on issues like homosexuality, the role of women in congregations, etc. These Churches are no less imperfect, hypocritical and flawed than their more conservative counterparts, but clearly they are not the conservative homophobic communities that are the subject of such ire.

These broad generalizations about Churches are partially the fault of progressive Churches. We don't do a great job of telling our story and can be so focused on inclusion that we seem not to stand for nothing. But we aren't all the same. If the same broad generalizations about Churches that are bandied about today were to be repackaged in racial terms we would be appalled (at least most of us). To say that the actions of a few individuals or groups is indicative of the whole is just plain ignorant.

Now I'm not suggesting that Churches are the victims of the kind of systemic injustice that racial minorities are. This isn't a lament about the persecution of Christians in our country, I'm simply asking for a little theological accuracy. More progressive Churches like my own denomination the ELCA (but also Churches like the UCC, Episcopal Church, Disciples of Christ, etc) are certainly not monolithic groups. We have conservatives as well as progressives, but when our official denominational policies regarding say homosexuality are causing a mass exodus of more conservative members, being lumped in with the far right of Christianity is simply adding insult to injury.

The truth is that there is a lot of ignorance about what Churches actually believe. I can't tell you the number of times I've had conversations with students that are passionate about GLBT rights who are attending Churches that are anything but open to those rights. Much of the blame has to be laid at the doorstep of these congregations who seem to do everything they can to disguise their actual beliefs. But if you're going to be part of a Church you need to actually take the time to figure out what they believe. Having a worship band and a Pastor that wears jeans is usually not the mark of a progressive congregation. Surprisingly it's often just the opposite.

And to those who are casting stones from afar...please stop characterizing all Christians as the same. We deserve to be treated with the same respect that you treat others with.

If you build it...they probably still won't come that often

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 05:00:00 +0000

Part of the new normal for Churches is realizing that young adults are not going to attend worship as frequently as previous generations. There are two possible ways to address this reality.

The first is a technical response, to tweak what we are already doing. Make worship more exciting, bring in a worship band, talk more about why worship attendance is important, build a more intimate sanctuary.

There may be good reasons to pursue these strategies. In fact your Church may want to implement some of these changes. For instance we have been cultivating a group of student leaders over the the past years and one of the things we ask is that they simply worship on campus weekly. This is important because in order to have a community you need people. But for the vast majority of young adults it simply isn't going to work.

Why?

It's not because young adults are narcissistic self obsessed deviants...at least not any more than you were at their age. It's because their lives are significantly different from previous generation in ways that make regular Church attendance difficult.

Their lives are in transition. Unlike previous generations young adults are getting married and "settling down" later. There is now a period of post college "extended adolescence" marked by less rooted lives. This is a difficult time for young people and beating them over the head is not going to change the reality of their lives.
The Economic realities have changed. The job market is tougher than ever before and many young people have to work when and where they can. Oftentimes that means working on Sundays and other times that your Church offers worship services. This isn't their fault and no amount of pressure to "settle down" and grow up is going to change this reality.
Some of them have limited experience with Church. This is a generation that grew up being dropped off at Sunday School, playing sports on Sundays, or having no experience whatsoever with the Church. Expecting them to suddenly acclimate to Church culture makes little sense.
They are an "on demand" generation. Young people have grown up with technology at their fingertips and are used to being able to access things when they are able, not necessarily when they are happening. The internet has fundamentally changed the way young people relate to one another and institutions. We can wring our hands about the evils of technology (and there are some) or look for how to serve them through these mediums.

I would suggest a more adaptive approach to ministry with young adults. Instead of continuing to operate as if the reality hasn't changed the Church needs to figure out what God is doing amidst these changes. How is God calling the Church to respond to the new normal?

There are no quick fixes, but there are some things the Church can experiment with.

Digital Engagement: At the very least Churches ought to be thinking about how they can use technology to connect with younger adults in between their more sporadic in person interactions. Up until the 20th century not that many people attended Church every week because (at least int his part of the country). Churches were often far away and clergy were in short supply. In between they figured out how to worship at home. How might God be using technology to equip young people to practice their faith when they can't go to Church?
Discipleship: Cultivate a small community of young adults who are committed to more regular participation and keep that group open to newcomers. There has to be a way for disconnected young adults to become reconnected to the Church and learn about what it means to follow Jesus. That doesn't mean just teaching them about potlucks and Church committees. Help them explore what it means to be a disciple and be willing to be changed by their questions.
Think outside the building: Where in your community are young adults gathering to find community? Certainly online, but also at bars, coffee shops, gyms, etc. How is God at work in these places and how might the Church join in?

This is a brave new world for the Church but perhaps the real threat to the Church's future isn't getting young adults to adapt to our traditional patterns of behavior, but rather for us to adapt to the new things God is doing?

Can Missional be saved?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Beckstrom) — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 13:04:00 +0000

The Church finds itself in a very strange position at this point in its history. We've lost our place of cultural prominence and clearly old ways of doing Church are becoming less relevant. This decline reaches across the theological spectrum and mirrors an increasing tendency to eschew all forms of institutional faith expression. Whether we label this being "spiritual but not religious" or some other term, the game has clearly changed.

So the question on everyone's mind for the last twenty years or so has been "what's next"? The Church has floundered about looking for a new model for ministry despite the fact that no one really knows what the future will look like. In the meantime corporate models of Church seemingly continue to flourish but I think we're seeing the beginning of the end for these huge communities. The percentage of Christians in our country continues to decrease while large Churches continue to get bigger. It's not hard to figure out that this growth is primarily coming from savvy Church consumers who are finding "better" religious goods and services from other sources.

In the early 2000's everyone was talking about new postmodern worshipping communities called the "emerging" Church. The emergent movement took seriously the changing context for ministry in the postmodern post Christian context. Sadly over time the term has been applied to so many disparate expressions of Church that it has lost much of its meaning. People are still using the term "Emerging Church" but it doesn't have the same panache it once did. It was also a reaction against the megachurch model that didn't resonate in the same way with millenials as it did with their parents.

More recently the new buzzword (or model) for the Church has become the Missional Church. The Missional Church conversation has been going on for some time but really flowered with the publication of "The Missional Church" in the late 1990's. In a more recent book "The Missional Church in Perspective: Mapping Trends and Shaping the Conversation" Craig Van Gelder (one of the original authors of "The Missional Church") and Dwight Zscheile have traced the roots of the movement and the proliferation of its usage. Sadly it seems that the Missional Church is going the way of the Emerging Church having been coopted with a variety of competing definitions that Van Gelder and Zschei
le helpfully define.

So, what is the Missional Church and can it be salvaged?

Typically the missional Church is defined via negativa, by what it is not. The Missional Church is not a model, it's not reducible to either evangelism or social ministry, nor is it merely about being an externally focused Church.

I believe the Missional Church is best defined positively. To put it simply the Missional Church is grounded in the conviction that God is active in the world and the Church's role is to discern how it might best join what God is already doing. As such the missional Church may look very different depending on the context.

The biggest mistake that Church's make when it comes to the Missional movement is to jump from discernment to action without really taking the time to ask "what is God up to"?

The Missional Church is about God, not what the Church can do for God. And when understood in this way it can take much of the pressure off the Church. It's not necessary to create the perfect strategic plan or find that one "silver bullet" program. The Missional Church assumes that God knows what God is doing better than we do with all our planning and strategizing.

I don't know if the term missional can be saved. I feel rather pessimistic about the prospect while remaining hopeful that no matter how it may be misused the core belief that the Missional Church is about God rather than the Church's plans can continue to guide us. Some have suggested that we may be moving into a "post missional" age that focuses less on the Church and more on God. I'm not sure if that term will stick but I fear that the term "Missional Church" may have run its course.