As a part of a church-wide focus on stewardship, Sheila and I recently put together – and are now teaching – a five-part series on living responsibly. However, rather than focusing solely on the issues that typically get covered in this sort-of series (budgeting, etc.), we are looking to hit on both (a) a broader theological perspective on God’s love for creation and how that impacts our role as God’s eikons/representatives in the world, and (b) a deeper examination of the spiritual poverty that can become pervasive in the midst of a consumer-driven culture.

Tomorrow, we’re going to focus on the way that our spending habits – particularly on consumer goods – impact the world around us, and for support materials, I’ve been spending a lot of time poking around at www.storyofstuff.org. If you’ve ever felt overwhelmed by the complexity of the issues involved in ecological and economic sustainability issues, the 20 minute film that serves as the heart of storyofstuff.org is a great place to start. Here’s the film:

You can nit-pick at some of the statistics that Annie Leonard presents in the film, but the “big picture” that (literally) hangs over her head is undeniable. The global materials economy, geared to serve the all-important “golden arrow” of consumer sales in the West, is literally destroying the Third World, as well as our own future. In the meantime, we find ourselves on this work->watch->spend treadmill that is making us miserable.

It strikes me as so insane that it is almost surreal.

The biggest political challenge of our day is not the sharp divide between Right and Left, nor the so-called "culture wars,” nor Fox News nor CNN nor talk radio. It is, simply, that we do not seem to have the capacity to focus on the issues that matter. Left and Right work themselves into a froth over the wrong things.

Pick your metaphor. Its rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Its straining at gnats while swallowing Camels. Its fiddling while Rome burns.

During the last two and a half centuries, Americans have done something remarkable – we have created an economic system that is unparalleled to anything in human history. We enjoy unprecedented levels of wealth, comfort, individual freedom, and convenience. In many ways, our system, which combines open markets and a liberal democracy, can be considered one of the greatest contributions ever made to human civilization. Yet, there is also dark side to this system. In spite of our great wealth, we have become dependent on the need for more and more and more growth to sustain it.

The price for our dependence on constant economic expansion can be seen all around us. Our national debt continues to spiral out of control, in part because we have borrowed money to bail out failed financial institutions that sustain our economy and to conduct costly military campaigns in regions of the world that are critical to our energy needs. Scientists grow increasingly worried about the way our ever-growing energy consumption is affecting the environment. Economists and political observers are beginning to discover that the Third World is paying a terrible price to sustain our way of life. And, at home, large, revenue-hungry corporations and financial institutions are making remarkably imprudent decisions that affect our economy and our environment in an effort to keep their “bottom line” growth moving in an upward direction.

Most politicians know about these problems. They also know that, given the unprecedented level of wealth and infrastructure at our disposal, any and all of them can be tackled with what we ought to consider a relatively minimal sacrifice.  Yet, somehow, we simply don’t have the fortitude to deal with them. Thus, as if to distract ourselves, we are constantly picking the wrong issues for debate. For example:

• A single state, Arizona, enacts constitutionally questionable immigration legislation that will – at best – have only a marginal effect on illegal immigration, and the entire array of the media, from talk shows to news television networks, focuses on it for weeks on end.
• BP loses control of a rig, and the focus of the discussion is not on how can we hold large corporations and similar institutions accountable so this doesn’t happen again, but on things like “Are they doing all they can to clean it up?” and “Have they shut off the leak yet?”

The result is what my teenagers would call an epic fail. We simply can’t (or won’t) talk about the issues that really matter. Both the Left and the Right have good ideas to contribute to the discussion, but until we acknowledge that we need to make tough choices in order to sustain our nation, our world, and our children indefinitely, we are going to continue moving from one insignificant issue to the next.

Before I go any further, I should point out that I do not consider myself to be a progressive Christian. If you insist that I label myself, I will tell you that I am a post-evangelical, who considers himself to be a part of the emergent movement/conversation. My theology tends toward a third-way mentality that seeks to incorporate the best of orthodox, evangelical, and progressive teachings. As such, this is not an argument for progressive Christianity, but for the inclusion of progressive Christians within the “tent.”

I should also tell you what I mean by “progressive.” Here is my short description (any progressives reading this should feel free to comment/augment on this point):

1. Progressives view scripture as a human-generated document. It is a human effort to describe experiences of the divine. It is not – in that sense – “God’s word.”
2. Progressives tend to question the historical validity of scriptural accounts. Many progressives will even question the historical validity of essential, creedal concepts, such as the virgin birth or the bodily resurrection of Jesus. God, they may argue, does not act in a way that is inconsistent with the known laws of the physical world.
3. Progressives view the teachings of Jesus as being the essence of Christianity. Living in the “way of Jesus” is this a critical component of their faith walk. Creation care and social justice are important issues to progressives.

In the past, the tendency of more conservative/orthodox churches has been to shun people who meet this description. The belief in scripture as an authoritative, inerrant document has become so central in many traditions (and not just the evangelical traditions) that it is considered an element that is foundational to the gospel. In other words, for many of us, it is impossible to “get” to the gospel unless we can first have confidence that scripture is literally beyond question. Progressives challenge this notion.

An underlying concern, I think, has been that progressives will tend to erode the faith development of more conservative Christians. Progressive Christians have often been able to point to an extensive body of academic literature that assumes/supports their way of thought. These ideas were thought to be “dangerous” to the Church.

As Christianity begins to face the philosophical, environmental, and social challenges of the twenty-first century, the time has come for the conservative elements of our churches to embrace, not the beliefs of progressive believers, but the progressive believers themselves, accepting them as important, necessary part of the body of Christ. Here’s why:

• Progressive believers are not a threat to conservative beliefs. Most of them are people who – try though they might – simply can’t bring themselves to believe that people can survive in the belly of fishes or get up and start talking and breathing after they have been dead. They respect, and sometimes even envy, those of us who can. They find the teachings of Jesus to be beautiful and life-affirming, and want to live in the way of Jesus. There is simply no reason to exclude them from the communion of the saints.
• Conservative theology and biblical scholarship is no longer at a disadvantage. With the voices of people such as NT Wright in play, those who wish to defend the orthodox faith are at no loss for support in the face of more liberal academic thought. What in the past has been war of words between people who cannot fully understand one another can now, and should now, become a respectful conversation among friends.
• There is much to learn from progressive Christianity. Those who approach scripture with a skeptical historical eye often develop a keen sense of metaphor. Likewise, rigorous historical examination of scripture often yields profound insight that is difficult to achieve when one just takes scripture “as it is.” Here, I am thinking, in particular, of Marcus Borg’s work on the Gospel of Mark.
• Progressives have much to learn from evangelicals. Progressives are strong scholars and activists, but they are often ineffective at attracting people to the gospel and managing institutional change. When their relationships with more conservative churches are strengthened, they are likely to find better techniques to thrive within our culture.
• Progressives can minister to doubters. People who enter our churches are often full of intellectual doubt. They are already asking the sorts of questions that progressives have been asking for ages. By lifting up progressive churches and church members as a part of the larger community of faith, we encourage those who still come with intellectual doubt to continue on their journey toward the cross.
• Both conservatives and progressives are needed to deal with global issues, such as poverty, war, and environmental crises. If the Church is to be relevant to the biggest issues of the twenty-first century, we must come to see both bold action and strong message as essential elements of the gospel. Conservatives and evangelicals are great at message-oriented ministry. Progressives are great at organizing and taking gospel-inspired action. Acting together, we are much more effective than we will ever be if we act separately. 

I could list some other factors, but hopefully by now, you get the point. Conservatives and progressives have much more to gain by embracing each other in unity and dialog than by continuing on with the theological cold war that has characterized the last century. I hope we can find a way to make the tent big enough to include both.

The photos from the wedding tell it all. They were young, happy, and – like most of us when we marry – naïve. They were surrounded by friends, who shared their naïve smiles, and parents who looked on with weathered expressions – joyful, to be sure, but also more deeply aware of the unknowns that lie ahead.

Fifty years later, it is tempting to wax sentimental – to apply gloss and sheen to the events that have transpired in the intervening years until they become a history that we hardly even recognize. There is something noble about this effort. We need to believe that the simple, innocent expectations that they embraced with their first kiss as man-and-wife were fulfilled. We want the fairy tale to come true, because, in some strange way, our own stories have come to depend on theirs.

But the remarkable thing about a marriage that lasts a half-century is almost never that everything just worked out. Often, it is – simply – the fact that they are still here.

Within less than a decade, both of them would lose a family member to sudden, and untimely death – his younger sister in an accident, and her much-loved father the victim of a heart attack. They would go through what seemed like an eternity of heart-wrenching miscarriages before, seemingly miraculously, one child – now a lawyer and blogger in Abilene – would be carried to term. (They would later have three more children – two of them, adopted. The fourth child would be the result of an unlikely “surprise” pregnancy that came as they advanced into middle-age.)

Then, there are all of the sometimes-amusing, sometimes strange adjustments to married life – the inevitable grievances that develop when two people, with two different ideals for domestic life suddenly find themselves having to live under one roof. We joke about differences over the way the toilet paper should sit on the spindle because the other differences can sometimes be too personal and painful.

A lot of things can – and did – happen in 50 years. The years of laughter and holiday gatherings are part of a bittersweet mixture: Cancer. More loss. More cancer. Kids – even the first-born miracle babies – are bound to occasionally disappoint.

We want to think that “happily ever after” is what comes after the wedding, but the truth is that “happily ever after” only makes a good ending. Its a very uninteresting beginning.

Instead something deeper, richer, and more mysterious happens. In short, what happens after the wedding is life. And for those who are willing to shake off the wedding photo naiveté and roll up their sleeves, something remarkable can occur in the midst of all the pain, loss, and chaos: a marriage.

It should be no wonder that the Christian tradition places marriage among the sacraments of last rites, baptism, and the Eucharist. All of the rites brush against the mystery of how – somehow – God transforms pain and death into life. In marriage, the two become one, and the one finds a way with joy and strength to weather the uneasy currents that flow through our fallen world.

While I think that congratulations are in order on my parents’ 50th, I’m convinced that words like “thank you” and even a somewhat inarticulate “Wow!” are more appropriate. Somehow, the mysteries of the divine life that bound them together some 50 years ago continue to astound and amaze, and I can only hope that my own sacramental journey will be filled with the same light and life.

[Second photo courtesy of Jessica Seay]

Now…a few final thoughts for church leaders about how to deal with the introverts in your flock.

First, I am not a proponent of rearranging everything in your church to accommodate introverts. Statistically speaking, introverts are – at best – going to comprise about 30% of your membership, and even then many of those may be so mildly introverted that much of what I've said in the last two posts doesn't even apply to them. Introverts are, relatively speaking, a minority, and – unless "introvert outreach" is your church's mission – it makes no sense to structure your entire community around the needs of this particular group.

Having said that, I do believe that fostering some degree of sensitivity toward the way your church "culture" affects introverts can pay huge dividends. Primarily, you need to avoid a mentality in which attendance at "chatty" social events and bold personalities are somehow equivocated to healthy spirituality.  Watch out for the subtle ways the theological language of the church regarding ideas like "community" and "fellowship" get translated into casual socializing and gregariousness. They are not the same thing. When people become convinced that 45 minutes of talking about the news and sports at the weekly men's breakfast is "authentic community," you are fostering unnecessary guilt among introverts (who probably don't attend) and complacency among the extroverts.

In addition to more social events, find a way to organize some events that center on contemplative spirituality. Many introverts, particularly those that have never experienced this sort-of thing, will love this stuff. Think about mid-week prayer services that are mostly about silence and meditation. Encourage the practice of lectio divina in your Sunday Schools. By all means, keep the "stand up and greet your neighbor" segment in your worship service, but also include an extended time of silent contemplation. Some amazing things can happen – for extroverts and introverts – when, in the midst of a time of prayer, a full sanctuary is simply silent for 2-3 minutes.

As introverts arrive at a place where they are ready to contribute, take some time to get to know what interests them. Do they like to build things? Think about asking them to do community service (either alone, or with a friend or two – don't make it a "big event"). Do they like to read? Perhaps they would contribute a 2-3 paragraph book review to the church bulletin. Are they into hobby board games or pen-and-paper roleplaying games? Encourage them to invite people to the church for a regular game night with people who share the same interests.

Once the introvert becomes comfortable with you and with the Church surroundings, you may be surprised to find that it is like uncorking a bottle of wine or perfume. They may look very mundane on the outside, but on the inside there are a lot great things just waiting to come out. Often, they are things that will benefit not only the fellow introverts, but others in your church, as well as in your community as a whole.

As I mentioned in my last post, most churches in America tend to be places where there is lots and lots of talking. The emphasis is usually on casual, spontaneous conversation. This type of atmosphere is often fostered by Church leaders because it creates a sense of friendliness and informality – something that is appealing to a lot of people. However, for introverts such as myself, it can feel intimidating… even hostile.

I’m not an expert on the topic, but – having been a part of several Churches over the course of my lifetime – I do have a little advice for my fellow introverts who are struggling to “fit” in these types of churches.

• Choose Your Church Carefully.  Most of my advice is going to be for people who, like me, have been part of Churches for some time. However, for those who are just trying to join-up, I think you should take some time to pick the right place. Take some time to meet with a Pastor or staff member from the Church to tell them about yourself. Ask them if they think  you would be a good fit. If you attend for 2-3 weeks, and you are just feeling that there is too much “social” pressure, move on. There may be other places where you are more comfortable.
• Accept Your Limits and Embrace Your Strengths. The reality for most introverts is that we are not going to socialize as extensively as most of the rest of the people in the Church. For that reason, you may not attend every event that is offered up. That’s okay. The fact that God created you to operate on a different “wavelength” doesn’t make you defective. Rather, it provides you with a unique set of gifts to contribute to your Church; gifts which it may be missing.
• Own Your Introversion. I wish I had learned this a long time ago. Learn to talk about your personality. Help them to understand who you are and why you may not be as chatty as others. Something as simple as “I really need my down time to recuperate from the work week” can be enough to give others great insight as to why you behave the way you do. It also helps them to know how to “handle” you when you don’t seem talkative.
• Learn to Affirm Others. Because of the heavy emphasis that our culture places on casual conversation, people can get the idea that you don’t like them because you don’t talk to them much. A great way to deal with this is to find a few words to speak to others that acknowledges their value. On one occasion, after my daughters’ dance recital, I ran across a dancer that our family knew, but to whom I had hardly ever spoken. I felt awkward not talking to her, so I mentioned to her how beautifully I thought she performed in one particular piece. When she heard this, she lit up, because – in one sentence – I had managed to dispel her fear that “maybe he doesn’t like me/approve of me.” A few words that let people know you admire them and value them can often make up for the 30 minutes of chit-chat that will slowly drain the life out of you!
• Make a Well-Connected Friend. This is basic networking theory, but its really important. Make a conscious effort to develop a good, working relationship with an extrovert who seems to be well-connected in the Church. This will not only help you to be known by others, but it also gives you a level of “visibility” within the community that will bring ministry opportunities.
• Look for Ministry Needs that Suit Your Temperament. One of the most memorable ministry projects of my life involved building a 7 foot-tall volcano for a Vacation Bible School. I did almost all of it myself, working in my back yard, after I finished work each day. After I was done, I called up a friend with a pickup and we delivered it to the VBS site. The kids loved it, and I was gratified that I had found a way to contribute, without pulling my hair out the next week in 3-hour interactive marathons at the church.
• Sometimes You Gotta Suck it Up. Like it or not, extroverts love to talk to you. Sometimes, when you have the spare reserves, the best ministry that you can offer to someone is to simply listen to them. Remember how I talked about my disdain for the “stand up and greet your neighbor” part of worship in the last post? I think our Church should do that every week, just like we do. Not because I enjoy it, but because it gives me a chance to be hospitable to others.

I could add a few more things, but by now you are getting the idea. Accept yourself. Own your personality when you speak to others. Find ways to make sure people know that you value them. Then, look for ways to contribute that “fit” your personality.

Any other suggestions from fellow introverts?

Some people are surprised to hear this because I am a litigator. A lawyer? Not so surprising. After all, someone needs to sit in front of their computer for hours on end drafting things like those license agreements that we never read when we install software on our computer – and who better to forego hours on end of personal interaction than an introvert, right? But a litigator? Who has to deal with witnesses? And judges? And juries? And other lawyers? And – gasp! – clients? How does that work?

It actually works out much better than you would imagine. I have arranged my work and non-work patterns so that I get a lot of quiet time, and the rest of my practice actually helps to get me “out” and interacting with people on a day-to-day basis, something that my extroverted wife insists is good for me.

Dealing with church, however, has always been an interesting challenge. This isn’t because introverts are incapable of rich, healthy spiritual lives, but because – to the introvert – most modern-day, Western churches look and feel like social minefields.

Inspired by a recent reading of Adam McHugh’s Introverts in the Church, a book I would heartily recommend for pastors (introverted or otherwise) and introverted lay-leaders as well, I will try to explain – in this post – why doing church (as its come to be called) is challenging for introverts. Then, in a couple of posts to follow, I plan to provide brief survival guides for introverts in the church, and for the church leaders who deal with them.

So…what makes church such a challenging experience for the introvert? To answer the question, lets look at some typical traits of introverts, and consider the way they impact their interactions within modern-day churches.

• Introverts often prefer solitude over socializing. Introverts require a certain quota of time in which they are either (a) alone or (b) in the company of a only select person or group of people, such as a spouse or family member (and even then, not conversing very much). This gives us time to process the things that happen to us in our lives and to recuperate from the difficult task of interacting with the world. Some people go crazy if they spend too much time alone. Introverts go crazy when they spend too much time with people, even people that they like.
• Introverts value conversational quality over quantity. Introverts are not interested in constantly talking when in the presence of others. If you happen to stumble over a subject that interests the introvert, you may find yourself in a deep conversation a few minutes later (like it or not!). However, if not, the conversation is likely to strike the extrovert as awkward and puzzling. For the introvert, small talk is hard work, and generally unpleasant. I often think of it this way: extroverts like to talk about what is on their mind at the moment, while introverts like to talk about what has been on their mind lately. The first is contemporary, spontaneous and semi-random; the second is an expression of a more purposeful train of thought that has likely bee in the introvert’s mind for weeks, months, or even years.
• Shyness and introversion are not the same thing. Some introverts suffer from communication apprehension, or the fear of personal interaction. However, many – like me – don’t really fear interaction per se. Rather, casual conversation – something that comes very naturally for most people – is simply experienced as hard work. When we are involved in purpose-driven communications – such as lectures or group meetings – introverts often shine. I’m pretty sure that some of the best preaching ministers/pastors that I’ve ever known have been extreme introverts. Give introverts a good format and forum in which to express their thoughts, and you may be surprised at the results!
• Introverts are Anxious About Being Misinterpreted. As I’ve said, casual interaction is hard work for the introvert. This isn’t because we dislike people, or because we think the subject matter of casual conversation is too trivial for our “deep” thoughts. Its just very difficult for us to stay focused on this particular type of conversation. We avoid extensive small talk because we are inadequate at it. However, at the same time, we fear that people misinterpret this as a form of rejection/withdrawal. Its a very awkward thing, and we often don’t deal with it very well because…well…we’re introverts. So the problem tends to spiral downward.
• Introverts talk less about themselves. At this point, it probably goes without saying, but introverts tend to be “closed” personalities. Though close friends and spouses know them well, they tend to talk about themselves less with their casual acquaintances. This makes it difficult for them to become well-known in social organizations, and they are often thought of as mysterious and reclusive.
• Introverts tend to prefer mediated communication. Books, email, and (even) Facebook are great forms of communication to an introvert, because they allow the introvert to communicate as much as they want, and only to the extent that they want. These tools allow the introvert to regulate the quantity and rate of communication at a level that is more tolerable.

Some people, I realize, have a lot of trouble “getting” what the big deal is when it comes to the lack of capacity for extensive, casual interaction. For those, a workable comparison can be made to the feeling that students get when they have to study for a test on a subject area that doesn’t interest them. The act of forcing oneself to concentrate can itself be very stressful and anxiety-inducing. Again, this isn’t because we dislike people – we just like to talk (a) less and (b) on a different “wavelength.”

So why are Churches such difficult places for introverts? The short answer is: modern Churches tend to be places where people are expected to talk – a lot! This is not necessarily a bad thing. It makes the Church an attractive place for most people. However, the problem lies in the introvert’s perception that they are required to participate in the chattiness. A great example is the “stand up and greet your neighbor” segment that many churches utilize during their worship time to help encourage an atmosphere of friendliness and informality. It works great for most folks…but – if the statistics are correct – every time it happens in a church with more than a handful of visitors, at least one of them is made less comfortable by the experience. The request to stand up and introduce yourself is actually experienced as something that is inhospitable. I know it sounds counterintuitive to say that the first thing an introverted visitor needs is to be left alone for several worship sessions, but that is often exactly what they need to acclimate themselves!

The theological language of “community” can also pose a problem. Church leaders often use terms like “authentic community” to describe something that members are supposed to experience. Another, similar term that I used to hear a lot was “fellowship.” While I think these are valid theological concepts, Churches often translate them into informal events, often involving meals and “fun” activities, in which everyone is supposed to come together and interact. All of the talk, no matter how superficial, is seen as the embodiment of “community.” Again, these types of gatherings are perfectly normal activities for most folks, but they have little to do with forming the type of “community” that is described in the Bible. Equating them with healthy spirituality can make the introvert feel like a second-class member.

One last example: small groups. Some churches put heavy emphasis on getting new members into small groups very quickly. The initiates are then asked to attend regular meetings and to interact with the strangers in the group about spiritual issues. Introverts need these experiences, but they probably need to start much more slowly, and they probably need to be a part of smaller, more intimate groups (even pairings). Rushing everyone into groups like this – while it may be effective on a larger scale – tends to drive out the more extreme introverts.

I write all of this because I think that both the introvert and the community suffer when a heavily “extroverted” culture develops in a Church. I’ll explain why as we continue in the next post or two.

The Bible uses the language of the demonic to describe this experience. The “powers and principalities,” it tells us, are in control of these entities. And while modern Christians may or may not think of angels and demons in the same way as early Christians, we should at least understand that all things have outer and inner characteristics – even (especially!) nations and large corporations. BP and America have their own “spirituality” – for good or bad – as much as any individual.

How, then, should we think of the Powers? Here, unfortunately, Christians have a tendency to shift into one of two extremes. And since Independence Day is upon us once again, lets consider two very different ways of characterizing America itself:

Characterization #1: America is a great nation, founded upon principles of individual liberty. It affords economic opportunity and personal freedom to all of its citizens. While all religions are allowed within our system, many of us are committed followers of Jesus who seek to do God’s will, and we should also be proud of the way that our country and culture are shaped largely by our commitment to the teachings of Jesus and the Christian scripture.

Characterization #2:  America is a great world empire, along the same lines as the Roman empire of scripture. It has a history of racial intolerance and imperialistic meddling. Its voracious consumeristic appetite is slowly draining the world of resources, while simultaneously doing irreparable damage to the environment. In the meantime, the aggressive military policies that are necessary to protect these interests are causing thousands of needless deaths in the third world.

These characterizations, both of which are common among Christians, correspond, rather obviously, to the two “poles” that make up our political system. One is clearly sympathetic to the right/conservative view of America, and the other is clearly sympathetic to the left/liberal view of America.

So which is it?

If I am understanding Wink correctly, the question itself is the problem. We have come to see the Powers as purely good or purely evil, and – without a more nuanced view, we are never going to be able to speak about or to the Powers in an intelligible manner.

The funny thing about the powers is this: they are created things, just like you and I. “In Jesus,” Paul writes in Colossians, “all things in heaven and on earth were created….whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers…” Thus, Paul goes on to say, God is reconciling himself to all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of the cross.

Paul is convinced, not only that the Powers are created things, but that they have a proper place in a universe that is ordered with Jesus as its supreme authority. The failure to appreciate this aspect of Paul’s perspective on the Powers is, I think, is a fundamental flaw the “anti-Powers/anti-Empire” mentality that results in the second characterization I outlined above.

Wink puts it this way: In order to place the Powers in proper perspective, we must simultaneously uphold three concepts: (1) the Powers are good, (2) the Powers have fallen, and (3) the Powers must be/will be redeemed.

This makes sense to me. Lose #2, and you will fall victim to blind, pro-nationalistic patriotism. Lose #1 and/or #3, and you may lapse into pointless anti-Empire blogging (a crime for which I have probably been guilty).

Consider the case of the “Powers” that are at work behind BP. We must think of BP as (a) good, (b) fallen, and (c) in need of redemption.

The first premise, I would guess, is difficult for many of us to contemplate, given the constant stream of criticism that is directed at BP these days. Yet it is true.

Energy corporations employ thousands of Americans, almost all of whom – I would guess – would never do something that would intentionally hurt people or unnecessarily damage the environment. Their ability to supply and deliver energy resources into our society enables all sorts of good things: world-class facilities for quality health care, transportation systems that keep our economy moving, and cool homes and workplaces during heat-intensive summers. These are all good things, and there is nothing per-se wrong with any of them. If BP “behaved” and brought only these benefits to us, I think we could fairly say that it is serving a good and appropriate purpose within our social and economic systems.

But, of course, it doesn’t behave, because – as is the case with every other business – the Powers are at work, subverting its good purposes. Safety standards that gradually softened and executive decision-making under difficult financial pressures eventually resulted in the Gulf catastrophe. As such, what is now needed is not pointless criticism and fault-finding directed at the individuals who were – on the surface at least – “in charge,” but an appreciation of the way our system of multinational corporations is in need of redemption.

The same is true of America. Is America a great land of opportunity with a system of self-governance that is markedly superior to the systems that came before it? Yes. Is America’s economic and political system deeply flawed, resulting in some of the abuses that I mentioned above? Yes.

Christians must be willing and able to see both of these things as true to develop the nuanced perspective of the Powers that is presented in the Bible. This is why Paul can say that Jesus is Lord (and not Caesar) at one moment, and encourage us to submit to the Powers because they are established by God in the next. It is why Peter objects that he “must obey God rather than man” on one occasion, and can encourage people to “honor the Emperor” on another.

The Powers are good. The Powers are fallen. The Powers must be redeemed.

So…when July 4 rolls around, there is nothing wrong with celebrating the things that are good about our country. My advice is: Pop some firecrackers. Eat some ice cream. Celebrate the innovations of a constitutional system of government and the Bill of Rights. If you aren’t comfortable celebrating the War of Independence itself – at least celebrate/uphold instances of non-violent resistance, such as the Boston Tea Party.

America is a deeply flawed society, prone to abuse its power – but it is not, by any stretch of the imagination (or by any characterization that is Biblical), all bad. By finding good things to celebrate as citizens, our voices as prophets can become even stronger.

• Women
• Married
• 45 or older
• Southern
• Protestant
• Politically conservative
• Members of larger churches
• Devotional Bible-readers

(Notably, as a percentage of their population, African Americans are highly involved in their churches, when compared to whites and other minorities.)

For me, Barna’s profile of a Church “participant” raises some interesting questions: Are those who don’t fit this mold choosing not to participate? Or do churches tend to cater to the needs of a particular sector of the population? In particular, I am wondering whether activities that are designed to satisfy the needs of middle class families (a population that probably helps to keep the Church budget in balance) tend to alienate the unchurched and younger singles (who, conversely, are less likely to be significant givers).

Any thoughts on the subject? In particular, I’d be interested to hear from those who don’t fit Barna’s profile.

Here is how the pattern operates: First, a particular sector of the economy generates a public crisis. People panic. Legislators, keen on satisfying the people’s need to perceive that they have control over the situation, enact legislation and call for increased regulation of the industry. Then, over time, the regulations are relaxed when the economy itself becomes the crisis-of-the-day (“The red tape is holding us back!” the industry argues). Furthermore, when the public eye is turned away, regulators invariably get cozy with the industry.

Then, suddenly, another crisis. Oil flows into the gulf. Sub-prime mortgage securities turn out to be worthless, triggering a devastating banking/mortgage crisis. Savings and loan institutions fail. Retirement plans shrivel as a result of deceptive public reports, backed by questionable accounting practices.

And now we find ourselves back at the start of the cycle, facing another crisis triggered by another entity which is so large, and so crucial to the economy, that it can’t be effectively “punished.” In the wake of the Gulf oil spill, the cries are rising again for regulation and for accountability in the energy industry, but…

We feel like we already know what is going to happen, don’t we? Despite our best efforts and intentions, the forces that brought about the Exxon Valdiz crisis of 1989 have cycled around to the BP oil spill of 2010, which will cycle around to another environmental disaster in another 20 or 30 years.

Things that ought to be within our power to control – democratic governments, publicly held corporations, regulated industries – behave in ways that we don’t intend. At times, their behavior even seems malevolent.

So what is happening here?

On one level, we could simply say that it is a failure in our system of government to sustain important regulatory policies over the long-term. However, I am pretty sure that Walter Wink (whose work I’ve been eagerly reading lately) would offer a much different answer.

Wink observes that the people who wrote the New Testament believed that there was more to the world than what the eye could see. Every human institution, no matter how humble or powerful, had its own angel or demon – a counterpart that existed in the “spiritual realm.” This counterpart influenced the behavior of the institution. Thus, for example, in Revelation, the heavenly visage of Jesus speaks not to “the Church in Ephesus,” but to “the angel of the Church in Ephesus.” The Ephesian church, like the other six churches in Revelation, has its own “spiritual” existence. And that spiritual counterpart reflected the nature of the church itself.

In particular, the phrase “principalities and powers” was used to refer to the spiritual counterparts of the most expansive and influential institutions of the day – chiefly nations and empires. The Apostle Paul often spoke about the threat of these “principalities and powers” and the manner in which they would ultimately be made subject to Jesus. It really is impossible to fully understand Paul’s belief system without accounting for his concept of what scholars now refer to – in shorthand – as “the Powers.”

As I mentioned in the last post, this ancient worldview (which holds that everything “down here” has a corollary existence “up there”) is not one that is widely accepted in the West, even by Christians. However, when we interpret scripture through an integrated worldview – one which is readily accessible in our culture, and which understands that all things have both a material, “outward” aspect and a spiritual, “inward” aspect – we can begin to make sense of the seemingly out-of-control nature of governments and corporations.

Here is Wink’s argument: each of these institutions does, in fact, have its own “spirit.” There is, he says, a “spirit of America.” For students in a High School, there is such a thing as “school spirit.” Every corporation – including BP – has its own spiritual nature. Any employee or executive officer can tell you that, even if they don’t want to admit that it includes a dark side.

When things go bad, you can decide for yourself, he says, whether it is nothing more than an unfortunate socio-political phenomenon or whether there really is an intelligent force – a “demon” – behind it. It doesn’t matter, because we can all experience it and observe it in the same way: the thing that we created is more than the sum of its parts – it is out of our control, working against us.

Wink believes that you cannot understand how the writers of the Bible viewed the relationship between Jesus and Rome or God and culture without appreciating the nature of the Powers, and I think his work in this area provides an important signpost for Christians who – like me – are struggling to understand the institutional problems that I’ve described above. In short, if Christians are to effectively speak to the seemingly endless stream of crises that are emerging out of our socio-political system, we must begin by understanding that the institutions that are at the center of each crisis (whether it be the US government, BP, or the finance industry) are under the sway of the Powers.

Stay tuned. There’s more to come.