Talking About Jesus on the Pacific Coast Trail

Last June, my wife Lynn and I went on a final backpacking trip in the Sierras before moving east. We went up to Silver Pass from Edison Lake. Much of the time we were hiking on the Pacific Crest Trail. We were out for five days, the PCT’ers we encountered on the trail had already hiked weeks. Most of them zoomed past us with little more than a wave or quick greeting—understandably focused on covering as many miles as possible. Yet, even a year later, I have distinct memories of the rich conversations we had with the half dozen or so who did stop and talk—including our conversation with “Legend” and “Bee.” (Most PCT’ers use a trail name.)

            About an hour after we left our campsite at Silver Pass Lake, we met them as we crossed Silver Pass Creek. They told us they had met on the PCT two years earlier and gotten married. Legend has done the trail a number of times. It was the second time for Bee. Conversation flowed as easily as the stream beside us. Legend, with jolly blue eyes, philosophized about life and the trail. He exhorted us to live in a way that our kids and grandkids would call us legends. Knowing of our upcoming move he said, “don’t worry about stuff, give it away.”

            We asked him if he knew “Paint”—a man who also had done the PCT several times. We told Legend how Paint, who works at the lodge/campground at Edison Lake, lent us his tent when the zipper broke on ours. Legend’s eyes got even brighter. Yes, he knew Paint. He told us how hiking the trail had brought significant healing for Paint in a dark period. Then, referring to his lending the tent, Legend told us other stories of Paint’s helping others and how his unselfishness has grown. Then, becoming more reflective he said, “I’m convinced the way to live is to give unconditionally, not expecting something in return. If I offer another hiker a plate of spaghetti and expect them to do the dishes that is conditional.”

            When he said “conditional” and “unconditional” I immediately thought of God. Since he had so freely exhorted and philosophized, I decided to jump in and do some theologizing. I said his comments led me to think of God and that many people view God’s love as conditional. I then told some examples of how I had noticed that in Honduras and how I responded. I wanted to help people know and experience God’s unconditional love. I led Bible studies to encourage people to let Jesus shape the way they thought about God. I said to Legend and Bee, and by now another PCT’er who had stopped as well, “Although not academically oriented I decided to get a Ph. D. in theology so I could help release people from the toxic theology of a God of conditional love. I just retired after 25 years of teaching at a seminary in Fresno.”

            Lynn, figuring I would not say it myself and that it would pique their interest said, “And he has written 13 books.” Bee immediately said, “What’s your last name. I want to look up your books. Which one do you recommend?” Probably because of what I had just talked about, I recommended Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, explaining how it offers alternatives to understanding the cross as God punishing Jesus so God could offer forgiveness. But then I thought, “why not recommend another book too.” So I said, a newer one is Centered-Set Church. I repeated it slowly hoping she’d actually remember it until she had an internet connection. She asked quizzically, “what is a centered-set”?

            I picked up a stick, and in the middle of the dirt of the Pacific Crest Trail I drew a circle with O’s inside and X’s outside and gave a three-minute version of bounded, centered and fuzzy. When I got to the part about fuzzy, and people reacting to judgmentalism and wanting to get rid of the line, I just took the toe of my boot and wiped out the line in the dirt. That worked great, better than when I have done it on a napkin or piece of paper. After mentioning some weaknesses of fuzzy, I told them that what we see in Jesus is something different and I drew and explained a centered approach. My drawing of the directional arrows in the dirt was not as clear as the napkin version—but clear enough to grab their attention. Bee responded, “I want to get that book!” Legend said, “that’s what we will talk about today—about the center and the line.” Lynn said, “it’s all about what direction people are headed.”

            I was bold that day; I took initiative. In that sense the conversation at Silver Pass Creek was like evangelism I did at the mall in my youth. But it differed in significant ways. First, rather than walking up to a random stranger and beginning a conversation—by asking if they had heard of the four spiritual laws—my initiative with Legend and Bee took place in a conversation already happening. Second, the evangelism at the mall was saturated with obligation. In a general sense, as a Christian I felt I ought to be doing it, and in the specific sense the youth group leaders saddled me with the obligation by taking us to the mall to do evangelism. In contrast, standing beside the stream, the initiative sprung from within. It flowed from a well of desire for people to experience the God revealed by Jesus and be liberated from toxic theology and bounded and fuzzy churches. I felt much different walking down the trail after the conversation that day than I did leaving the mall decades ago.

            The day before, Lynn and I ate lunch beside a jewel of a lake just a few hundred feet below the pass. After lunch I walked over to a tree, picked up a pine cone and threw it in the lake.

When I saw the ripples start to spread out, and eventually make it all he way across the lake, I thought of the picture above my desk of ripples on a lake. Every morning I pray that the ripples of the centered approach will spread. I stood, looking at the lake, and prayed. In a small way the conversation the next day was answer to that prayer. I pray now that this story may contribute to more ripples spreading. May it increase your imagination for the evangelistic potential of the centered-set paradigm. May it increase your confidence that conversation about it will be comfortable and many people will respond positively. May it spur you to look for ways to bring it up in conversations—with people you know and ones you happen to cross paths with. Let us pray for opportunities. Let us pray the ripples will spread.

Restoring Personhood – In the Early Church and Today

Gaius, mentioned in Paul’s letter to the Romans (16:23), was head of a household—meaning he likely had a large house that included his family and other workers and slaves. Andy Crouch observes that Gaius would have been a client to patrons above him as well as a patron to others with less status and power. Then Crouch makes this statement: "There is one other significant thing about Gaius that we need to grasp . . . He was a person" (15). Well, isn't that obvious? Do we need someone as brilliant as Andy Crouch to tell us that? What makes the statement significant is what Crouch explains next. In the Roman world at that time personhood was a legal category—someone with standing before the law. “Many people in Gaius’s world were, in fact not persons in this sense. Slaves, above all, though they were undeniably human, were treated under the law not as person but as property” (15). That helps us understand why Crouch told us he was a person, but why is Crouch writing about Gaius in a book on technology? (The Life We’re Looking For: Reclaiming Relationship in a Technological World.)

 Just as in Gaius’s day world forces hindered many humans from living as persons, Crouch argues that today technology and Mammon hinder humans from living as persons. Our machines and devices make us machine-like.

 Erastus, the next one mentioned in Romans, was a city official and also a person. The man mentioned before Gaius, Tertius, and the one after Erastus, Quartus, were not persons in Roman society. As Crouch observes, we know Tertius was a nobody partly because of his job—to take down dictation from important people like Gaius and Erastus. He may have been a slave, but even if a hired hand, he was still not considered a person. His name, "third," also points to his lack of status. Sons of slaves did not matter much, so they were often named by the month they were born or their birth order. Even non-slave families sometimes did this—only the first-born son really mattered. Out on the street, Gaius and Erastus are men of rank—persons, and Tertius and Quartus (Fourth) are nobodies—non-persons. But when they all gathered together as Jesus followers, the categories and stratification were left at the door. Slaves and free, scribes and city officials, men and women, all ate together at the same table. They all became persons.

 Crouch leads us to see this in the letter itself. He imagines Paul stopping dictation of his greetings and saying, “’Tertius, you should greet them.’ . . Suddenly the scribe is not just writing; he is speaking—and he has a name. . . Paul sees Tertius. He is Paul's brother, not just a hired hand" (115-16). Borrowing from Madeline L'Engle, we would say, Paul named him. “[T]he circle of brothers and sisters [expands] to include those who do the anonymous work, those who normally take orders, those who arrive without being greeted and depart without being noticed. Those who were named something like ‘number three’. . . But as they arrive and join the feast, every one of them is welcomed in the Lord. . . Because every one of them is a person” (116, 120).

The need for humans to be treated as persons, not things, is just as great or even greater today. There are still categories of people who, in the eyes of some, are less-than-human. Others perform machine-like labor and are often treated like machines. Yet now, even the personhood of those with status, today’s Gaius and Erastus, is lessened by technology and Mammon.

 Let us, the body of Christ, as individuals and communities, be instruments of naming—of restoring personhood to those who have lost or are losing it. Here are some ideas on how to do that.

          Table Fellowship – As in Gaius's time, inviting someone to share a meal communicates acceptance, restores dignity, and fosters human connection.

         Technology Fasts – In an earlier book, The Tech-Wise Family: Everyday Steps for Putting Technology in Its Proper Place, Andy Crouch shares some of his family’s practices, including fasting from their devices, one hour a day, one day a week, one week a year. Share the ideas, read the book with others—practice it together.

        Alternative Activities  – Don’t just take breaks from technology, but with intentionality do things that foster personhood—with friends, family, church community.

          Be Present  – Another area that calls for intentionality. In an age of absence be present to others.

          Give Dignity – Look for ways to increase the dignity of those with a dignity deficit.

         Evangelism – How might technology and Mammon's attack on personhood reframe how you think about and practice inviting others into a relationship with Jesus?

For Further reading –  In addition to the two books by Andy Crouch mentioned above, I recommend the following historical fiction books:

A Week in the Life of Rome  by James L. Papandrea

Lost Letters of Pergamum by Bruce Longenecker

 These narratives will help you feel and understand in greater depth the personhood-denying practices of Roman society and the radicalness of Christians' response.

The Need to Hear the Good News Again, and Again

People often think of biblical commands and ethical direction in the Bible as a test and imagine God gave them as an evaluative tool. I begin my ethics course by stating that that ethical direction and commands in the Bible are a gift from God. In responses that students write to the class, they frequently share how radically the idea of ethics as gift contrasts with the view they had. Often they reflect on how this new perspective changes their view of God (or at least it points to the possibility of seeing God differently than an accusing figure ready to scold them). It is both a very fulfilling moment as a teacher, to observe the positive impact of the class material, and very sad to see how many need liberation from this mistaken image of God and Christian ethics.

A God of conditional love and bounded group religiosity are intertwined and mutually supportive. So, a couple weeks later in the course when I teach about bounded, fuzzy, and centered churches I once again have a fulfilling and sad moment. Many students respond to the class by sharing how they have struggled under the weight of trying to stay on the right side of the lines of a bounded church and the God associated with those lines. Some write of having been shamed and wounded by bounded churches. Again, as in the first week, talk of a centered approach and a God of unconditional love sparks hope for the possibility of an alternative.

This happens each time I teach the course. I expect it. Yet this semester it impacted me more than usual. I had follow-up conversations with a few students who seemed both especially eager to experience an alternative and unable to imagine how they might do so. They had been Christians for years. You might sit next to them at church, in a Bible study, or in a seminary class and not guess that under the surface, deep in their being, they do not feel unconditionally loved by God. You may be unaware that they strive to measure up to the expectations of God and their bounded churches.

I talked to one of the students by phone as I took a walk, listening, empathizing, asking questions, and then talking about Jesus. I encouraged her to read through a gospel looking at Jesus and continually reflecting on how Jesus differed from her view of God. I suggested she do this with a friend of hers who I knew had experienced significant healing in this area. After we ended the call I kept walking; I felt a deep conviction. There is such great need, we must proclaim the good news that God is love; we must invite people to relationship with Jesus and help them experience Jesus’ loving embrace.

A voice within me said, “those words sound familiar, like saying, ‘we must do evangelism.’” Yes, certainly, but what I felt in that moment was a need to re-evangelize, continue evangelizing—proclaiming to not just non-Christians but also Christians the good news that God is not the God of bounded group religion, but the God revealed by Jesus Christ.

I encourage you to do three things. First, take a moment and rest in the reality of God’s love for you. What parts of your being need to experience Jesus’ loving embrace today?

Second, in settings where you teach, preach, counsel, lead Bible studies look for opportunities to more frequently proclaim this good news. Odds are in those settings, as in my class, there are people desperate to hear it. (And with our natural religious tendencies, the truth is all of us need frequent reminders.)

Third, pray and listen. Are there people in your life who in the depth of their being do not believe God loves them unconditionally? How might you help them know and experience that God loves them?

I Once Was Lost

 

Book Review:

I Once was Lost: What Postmodern Skeptics Taught Us About Their Path to Jesus
By Don Everts and Doug Schaupp

There is much to critique about many evangelistic approaches. In my first months as a campus minister with Inter Varsity Christian Fellowship at Syracuse University I did a lot of critiquing of the methods of other Christian groups on campus. Then a mentor said to me, "fine Mark, you have good critiques of their way of evangelizing, but what are you doing? Do you have an alternative approach you are actually practicing?"

This is a book that helps me imagine alternatives to the methods I critiqued.

The pragmatic side of me loved this book. It is not just theory; it contains a lot of “how to’s” illustrated with examples. The part of me that has grown skeptical of formulaic “how to” lists did not react too strongly because the practical emphasis of the book is rooted in a very different paradigm of evangelism. In large part that is because it is based on careful observation of and listening to people who have converted. I had hoped for thicker narratives of these people. The subtitle of the book mislead me, but actually it is exactly right. The book is not so much about postmodern skeptics, but it is the lessons learned from them. The thesis of the book is that “one trick” evangelism does not work well because it treats all people as if they are in the same place. 

In essence, for example, it is of no use engaging a person as if they are a seeker if they are not even curious about Jesus. I thought the first threshold was especially important, moving from distrust of Christians to trust a Christian. The other four thresholds were: 2. Moving from complacent to curious, 3. Moving from closed to being open to change in their life, 4. Moving from meandering to seeking, and 5. Crossing the threshold of the kingdom itself.

I appreciate that they emphasize the importance of an actual call to take this last step. Many, I think, are hesitant to make an explicit call. In part out of reaction against the “one trick” packaged evangelistic techniques, and in part because of how it goes against the grain of our tolerance-as-supreme-virtue-society. Yet, if we are going to move people from fuzzy to centered they do need to turn to the center at some point. Calling for conversion feels much different in their approach because it is not seen as the goal of every conversation with a non-believer. If the person is only at threshold two, don’t make the call of threshold 5. It is a short book (132 pages), easy to read, many illustrative stories, and includes not just description of the stages, but also suggestions on how to engage non-Christians at each stage.

On one hand, by emphasizing process the book takes away a lot of the un-natural, uncomfortable, alienating feel of evangelism. On the other hand by identifying thresholds and calling Christians to work to lovingly help people move from one threshold to the next it maintains the evangelistic imperative that often seems to get lost when the emphasis is on process rather than on one-time contact evangelism focused on “praying the prayer.”

How to Invite People to Shift from a Fuzzy Paradigm to a Centered Approach

Thomas Bergler went to the white board and invited students in a class at a Christian college to list some traits of spiritual maturity. They were very resistant—said things like:  “nobody is perfect” or, “to make a list like that would be the same thing as being judgmental” (Mars Hill Audio, Vol. 115).

He had encountered what I described in my previous blog as a fuzzy group approach. Why is there an increase in a fuzzy approach today?

In part it is a reaction to the problems of a bounded approach. If strict lines of judgmental exclusion are the problem, then erasing them is an obvious solution. As one student wrote this fall, “One of the things that I had not thought much about was just how easy it can be to react to a bounded group approach by becoming fuzzy.” A fuzzy church approach, however, is not just a product of people fleeing from bounded churches.  Many in society see tolerance as the supreme virtue, and individualistic moral relativism has increased. The combination of these two means that many Christians are pulled toward a fuzzy approach, and many new Christians bring fuzzy group thinking with them as they begin life in Christian community.

Although a fuzzy church does provide an antidote to judgmentalism and exclusion, it creates new problems. When the supreme concern is to not label anyone else as wrong, or “out,” ethics and the community itself quickly become ill-defined. It may feel loving, but to truly love someone will, at times, mean saying “no,” setting limits, or calling them to something. As another student this fall observed, “From a fuzzy approach, my allowing [my friend] to behave in any way she saw fit neglected to name and address the unhealthy decisions she was making.” As I now teach and have written a centered approach provides an alternative to the bounded approach, and also avoids the weaknesses of a fuzzy approach.

The question of this blog post is: how do we help people to shift from a fuzzy approach to a centered church approach?

Not an easy question for me to answer. It is not my reality. I grew up drinking from the wells of modernity, not postmodernity. Moving from bounded to centered is something I have experienced. I get that in the inner core of my being. What I know about moving from fuzzy to centered I have learned from others—including some of you. I have addressed this question in class three times, and done it differently each time. I am still working on this. So I share these ideas on how to aid this shift with the hope that they will be helpful to you, but also with the hope that you will share your insights with me—add to them, suggest revisions or corrections.

Love

As Jesus so powerfully models, a loving embrace most effectively erases the oppressive lines of a bounded approach and heals its wounds. It is also fundamental for helping a person step from fuzzy toward centered. Why? Because a fuzzy-approach-person, a person who holds tolerance as supreme virtue, is very wary of ethics being used as a means of judging and condemning. Unfortunately many churches, especially evangelical churches, are seen as exactly that--judging and condemning. So in response to this reality we must go out of our way to show the opposite. Bruxy Cavey urges us to practice aggressive grace, front-load acceptance as Jesus did. Love is central in making clear to people that we are not a bounded church, and also must be the seasoning in all that is done.

Have a stance of humility, practice confession and apology

A bounded approach exudes a sense of superiority—we are right, you are wrong. A valuable way of undermining that and lowering the defenses of a person embracing relativism in reaction to boundedness is to be humble and practice confession and apology. (For a couple of great stories that display this point, and more depth on the previous point see my book.)

Strengthen the Center - Work to create trust in and passion about the center.

Introduce them to Jesus.  

Faith depends on who we follow, and that depends on who we love. Believing in a person--having utter confidence in someone--creates a very different set of expectations than believing in 'beliefs.' For Christians, faith means cleaving to the person, the God-man, Jesus Christ, joining a pilgrim journey with other lovers and following him into the world." Kendra Creasy Dean (Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church)

Promote the practice of spiritual disciplines to strengthen relationship with the center.    

Instruction about God’s ways, commands, the Creator’s “grain of the universe”:  A bounded group has rules, laws and commands. Therefore, to reframe them in a centered way is valuable. In the case of the fuzzy group, someone steeped in individualistic moral relativism there may not be commands there to reframe. Therefore, we must teach the content of the center. But it is not just informing, giving the information about God’s ways…

Paint a vision of the Kingdom of God, feed their imaginations of a different way of living:  Think of the well example from Australia. What is pulling? What is drawing them in, shaping them? But it is not just painting the vision; it is also important to call, to invite participation in the vision

Intentionally call people to participate in God’s mission:  This is a significant step away from fuzzy relativism. To be FOR something is a key step toward also recognizing some other paths are destructive.

Call to conversion and repentance:  In a centered approach the key move is to turn toward the center. A fuzzy group does not have a center.  It implies that the difference between two alternatives is subjective and personal preference. To turn to Jesus is to turn away from some things. Fuzzy group people very likely will resist, or at least be surprised by this. To do this in a centered way, however, rather than a bounded way will help lower resistance. The character of conversion is different in a centered approach: not a judgmental “We are right, you are wrong” as much as “come and join us in this way.” BUT it is conversion. The character of it is different, but still there is a sense of calling from a path judged to be negative for the person and others.

NOTE ON LANGUAGE: A centered church must embrace and practice the concept of conversion and repentance, but we do not necessarily need to use these words which will set off alarms for a fuzzy person. Look at this example from Bob Hill preaching in a mainline liberal context. Many in his audience are in the fuzzy/relativisitic category. What do you observe about how he calls for conversion without using the word? From a sermon on Mark 1:14-20:

“To lay hold of faith, you may just have to turn.  You may have to leave the nets, or leave the nest.  To lay hold of the future you have to let go of the past.  To lay hold of life we may need to summon the courage to leave.  To leave the inherited for the invisible.  To leave the general for the particular.  To leave existential drift for personal decision.  To leave the individual for the communal.  To leave renting for ownership.  To leave auditing for registration. (Some of us have been auditing the course on Christianity long enough.  It’s time to register, buy the books, pay tuition, take the course for credit, and get a grade!)  To leave engagement for marriage. . . [it] takes courage to turn. Faith, as human response, is a decision, a choice, that inevitably includes some risk.  As D. Bonhoeffer wrote on this passage, ‘When Christ calls a man he bids him come and die.’” Robert Hill, Marsh Chapel, Boston University, 1/25/15

Ethics

Now, building on all of the above, we turn to the direct work on ethics and behavior—how to do this with people who have a fuzzy approach?

Be intentional about character and virtue formation:  This is helpful because it does not trigger a fuzzy person’s resistance; it is not language/command based. How is it developed, promoted? It is: shaped by stories of character and virtue, by observing others, through repeated practice of virtuous actions (examples: service projects, intentional invitation, inclusion and embrace of outsiders) by affirming and thus reinforcing displays of character and virtuous action, and through rituals that highlight and celebrate virtuous action (examples: footwashing, offering, passing the peace). Not to mean we abandon commands….

State imperatives, language of exhortation that describes some behaviors as right or better than others, in a centered way:  Avoid or refram problematic language, including words like the one I just used: “right.” Rather than “right” and “wrong”: helpful, hurtful, alienating, life-giving, inappropriate.

Provide direct teaching about the downsides of individualistic moral relativism and tolerance as supreme virtue.

 Challenge people to reflect on what is lost, and point out that tolerance as supreme virtue is not really honoring or valuing people. The “you think what you want, I will think what I want” approach lacks true engagement and respect. It communicates that the other person’s ideas are not worth paying attention to.

Provide direct teaching about a Centered approach and how it differs from bounded and fuzzy.

Practice and thus model a centered approach.

To return to where we began, the character of the church is most important. It is not so much talking about naming and a centered approach as living it. People will see and feel the difference. Create a climate of loving acceptance; model disagreeing respectfully with others within and outside of group; and practice loving confrontation in a centered way (Gal. 6:1-5).

What are ways you might put some of this into practice?

What might you add to the list?

Revise or change?

As you work at this please let me know what you learn and what would be helpful for me to know as I continue to teach and write about this challenge.