My faint parallel to what you describe here: I was a student assistant minister in a campus ministry, a student associate pastor in seminary, then have had four ministry positions with "letters of call" along with a period in there as an unpaid staffer (long story), and now have been the long-term supply pastor for a small mainline church not of my tradition. Point being: that's seven locations, six if you discount a campus ministry, across three states, in urban to county seat to rural locations. Okay. In four settings, I tried to do a study of C.S. Lewis's "The Screwtape Letters" -- EVERY time, it did not work. The language, the verbiage was simply off-putting to the people, and these were folks who "self selected" for a study. After a few weeks, the more outspoken would just say "I can't follow this at all" and quickly the group would petition for a shift.
I did have a bit more luck in three settings with Gene Peterson's "A Long Obedience in the Same Direction" which was largely built on Psalms (the psalms of ascent, 120-134), but there was a general running commentary of "what's he trying to say?" about Peterson's chapters, and two of the three were very nearly derailed on the same grounds as I describe with "Screwtape." And I was an early part of Gay Reese's "Unbinding the Gospel" book & sequels, and "The Bethany Project" which evolved into the still extant "Bethany Fellows" program. But one BIG problem with the Unbinding project was that it was difficult beyond words to get people to actually read the chapters, and do the exercises. And this was back in the 1990s, early-early 2000s.
When I've posted in Disciples ministry groups about these issues, I get a torrent of posts from people who insist, and I do not doubt them, that in THEIR congregation there's a small but mighty cohort who read books, discuss them intently, and share insights thereby gained. More interestingly, there are always a few people who say they have had similar experiences: they share this directly to me, in messages or emails, not in comments on the post. Because they know what the reaction will be.
It is surely possible I have just lost at the lottery, as many do. Perhaps I have served by dumb luck or blind misfortune only congregations which were post-literate -- it's not that each did not have a critical mass of professionals (teachers, nurses, lawyers, principals, mid-level managers) or had no post-secondary degrees in the membership and leadership, because they all did -- and there are many Disciples of Christ congregations out there which find books and reading for discussion to be spiritually enlivening, I just didn't end up at any of them. It's possible.
More likely, I think, is that it's not common, but it's very discomforting to seminary trained ministers to concede that in general, our congregations don't love literature, let alone talking about it. There's a huge carve-out for Bible stuff, but by extension, do we really read our Bibles, or consult them for confirmation of the concepts and images we bring to the page? Do we discuss biblical passages or narratives, or glance over them, and talk loudly about what we have been trained to think they address? My experience, again, is that it is pulling teeth without novocaine to get a heterogenous church group to really delve into a scriptural text.
But my point, which I claimed to have, is that there's a parallel here to me, at any rate, in how my colleagues tend to reject this as a general description of our churches or our congregants. Our people love books, love reading, love discussion groups. And any attempt to push back on that has gotten me a fair amount of tsouris, again from fellow ministers. Not so, not so! And I generally sigh quietly, and let everyone else go on about their last five or six successful reading groups. Yet still I wonder...
I see two issues. One is the correlation between well-being and worldview (including on religious matters). The other is the rejection of results that don't fit with one's own opinions.
This confirmation bias happens on many issues across various spectra of opinion. It's troubling when the most highly credentialed fail to let contradictory evidence open their minds. This goes to the heart of what critical thinking and education are supposed to be about. Most troubling, such a bias makes it hard to correct possibly dangerous errors.
This is all the more reason to have diversity of opinion in processes of decision-making. Although this lets a degree of error through the door, the alternative blocks unpopular truth from having a hearing.
Hi. I am probably not your intended audience because while I am somewhat liberal or progressive or whatever the heck that means, I also do not deny the benefits that religious belonging (i.e. worship, church) give. I also find that everyone's experiences and stories are way more complicated than charts, which is frustrating. As a retired pastor and someone who has spent my whole life in the church, I know both the benefits and also the deep, dark spaces, the hurt and abuse that some experience in churches. So how do we extol the virtues of belonging (which are real) while also acknowledging the real harm? I still remember the Sunday morning a visitor showed up to my little Lutheran church. She said she recognized that she really needed to get back to church, and was excited to see a woman pastor. Then she saw my vestments and heard the organ playing. Before the service started, she exited the front door. I followed her, concerned that she wasn't feeling well, and she said. "I'm sorry. I didn't know you were so close to Catholics. Too many bad experiences...." Do I have an ideological blind spot?
There’s lots of places a person can find “community and support” and maybe even good vibes if prayer isn’t your thing.
But community organized around the Living God, support from brothers and sisters joined to one another by the blood of Jesus, and prayer that calls on the Most High God unceasingly in good times and bad….what if we just are embarrassed to name what we’re measuring? Church is NOT a bowling league or book club. Maybe church-goers (or “conservatives” if that’s a code for such) actually are participating in something real? Why can’t we ever just say that?
I'd agree that we are participating in something real. A subtheme I'm trying to gently name here is that many don't think (or at least act) like it is real.
Love this. I think that is the question: What can’t we ever just say that “church-goers actually are participating in something real”? Why didn’t anyone believe the women when they came from the tomb? Christianity is transformative. Most people are afraid to live like that. Among other things, it means an end to binaryisms (that may not be a word).
I don’t think we can examine these questions thoroughly sola ecclesia, if you will. Nor sola scriptura! This is a both/and question, requiring the resource of scripture celebrated in the life of the Church and, yes, the world. Paul has a lot to say about all of this.
To answer your question, when I turned 60 I made up my mind that as much as I was going to church now, as a newly ordained Episcopal deacon, I should feel like an angel. And why didn’t I? Largely because I was engaging in political warfare and comparing myself to others. So I stopped. I feel better, I look better, I preach better. I have no problem saying that I’ve had problems with depression and anxiety most of my life, too. It finally occurred to me that I could Romans 6 that stuff. In other words, I’m all in. I was tangled up in old patterns. I got some good help. It’s all still in progress, but, with God’s help, I refuse to spend the next 40 years the same way. I’m still no angel ;-) but I have hope today.
My faint parallel to what you describe here: I was a student assistant minister in a campus ministry, a student associate pastor in seminary, then have had four ministry positions with "letters of call" along with a period in there as an unpaid staffer (long story), and now have been the long-term supply pastor for a small mainline church not of my tradition. Point being: that's seven locations, six if you discount a campus ministry, across three states, in urban to county seat to rural locations. Okay. In four settings, I tried to do a study of C.S. Lewis's "The Screwtape Letters" -- EVERY time, it did not work. The language, the verbiage was simply off-putting to the people, and these were folks who "self selected" for a study. After a few weeks, the more outspoken would just say "I can't follow this at all" and quickly the group would petition for a shift.
I did have a bit more luck in three settings with Gene Peterson's "A Long Obedience in the Same Direction" which was largely built on Psalms (the psalms of ascent, 120-134), but there was a general running commentary of "what's he trying to say?" about Peterson's chapters, and two of the three were very nearly derailed on the same grounds as I describe with "Screwtape." And I was an early part of Gay Reese's "Unbinding the Gospel" book & sequels, and "The Bethany Project" which evolved into the still extant "Bethany Fellows" program. But one BIG problem with the Unbinding project was that it was difficult beyond words to get people to actually read the chapters, and do the exercises. And this was back in the 1990s, early-early 2000s.
When I've posted in Disciples ministry groups about these issues, I get a torrent of posts from people who insist, and I do not doubt them, that in THEIR congregation there's a small but mighty cohort who read books, discuss them intently, and share insights thereby gained. More interestingly, there are always a few people who say they have had similar experiences: they share this directly to me, in messages or emails, not in comments on the post. Because they know what the reaction will be.
It is surely possible I have just lost at the lottery, as many do. Perhaps I have served by dumb luck or blind misfortune only congregations which were post-literate -- it's not that each did not have a critical mass of professionals (teachers, nurses, lawyers, principals, mid-level managers) or had no post-secondary degrees in the membership and leadership, because they all did -- and there are many Disciples of Christ congregations out there which find books and reading for discussion to be spiritually enlivening, I just didn't end up at any of them. It's possible.
More likely, I think, is that it's not common, but it's very discomforting to seminary trained ministers to concede that in general, our congregations don't love literature, let alone talking about it. There's a huge carve-out for Bible stuff, but by extension, do we really read our Bibles, or consult them for confirmation of the concepts and images we bring to the page? Do we discuss biblical passages or narratives, or glance over them, and talk loudly about what we have been trained to think they address? My experience, again, is that it is pulling teeth without novocaine to get a heterogenous church group to really delve into a scriptural text.
But my point, which I claimed to have, is that there's a parallel here to me, at any rate, in how my colleagues tend to reject this as a general description of our churches or our congregants. Our people love books, love reading, love discussion groups. And any attempt to push back on that has gotten me a fair amount of tsouris, again from fellow ministers. Not so, not so! And I generally sigh quietly, and let everyone else go on about their last five or six successful reading groups. Yet still I wonder...
Thanks for this post.
I see two issues. One is the correlation between well-being and worldview (including on religious matters). The other is the rejection of results that don't fit with one's own opinions.
This confirmation bias happens on many issues across various spectra of opinion. It's troubling when the most highly credentialed fail to let contradictory evidence open their minds. This goes to the heart of what critical thinking and education are supposed to be about. Most troubling, such a bias makes it hard to correct possibly dangerous errors.
This is all the more reason to have diversity of opinion in processes of decision-making. Although this lets a degree of error through the door, the alternative blocks unpopular truth from having a hearing.
Hi. I am probably not your intended audience because while I am somewhat liberal or progressive or whatever the heck that means, I also do not deny the benefits that religious belonging (i.e. worship, church) give. I also find that everyone's experiences and stories are way more complicated than charts, which is frustrating. As a retired pastor and someone who has spent my whole life in the church, I know both the benefits and also the deep, dark spaces, the hurt and abuse that some experience in churches. So how do we extol the virtues of belonging (which are real) while also acknowledging the real harm? I still remember the Sunday morning a visitor showed up to my little Lutheran church. She said she recognized that she really needed to get back to church, and was excited to see a woman pastor. Then she saw my vestments and heard the organ playing. Before the service started, she exited the front door. I followed her, concerned that she wasn't feeling well, and she said. "I'm sorry. I didn't know you were so close to Catholics. Too many bad experiences...." Do I have an ideological blind spot?
I should probably write my own blog….
There’s lots of places a person can find “community and support” and maybe even good vibes if prayer isn’t your thing.
But community organized around the Living God, support from brothers and sisters joined to one another by the blood of Jesus, and prayer that calls on the Most High God unceasingly in good times and bad….what if we just are embarrassed to name what we’re measuring? Church is NOT a bowling league or book club. Maybe church-goers (or “conservatives” if that’s a code for such) actually are participating in something real? Why can’t we ever just say that?
I'd agree that we are participating in something real. A subtheme I'm trying to gently name here is that many don't think (or at least act) like it is real.
Love this. I think that is the question: What can’t we ever just say that “church-goers actually are participating in something real”? Why didn’t anyone believe the women when they came from the tomb? Christianity is transformative. Most people are afraid to live like that. Among other things, it means an end to binaryisms (that may not be a word).
Yeah, agree. I think that's going to be a part two. What if this isn't correlation--what if it is causation? As in, John 15.
I don’t think we can examine these questions thoroughly sola ecclesia, if you will. Nor sola scriptura! This is a both/and question, requiring the resource of scripture celebrated in the life of the Church and, yes, the world. Paul has a lot to say about all of this.
To answer your question, when I turned 60 I made up my mind that as much as I was going to church now, as a newly ordained Episcopal deacon, I should feel like an angel. And why didn’t I? Largely because I was engaging in political warfare and comparing myself to others. So I stopped. I feel better, I look better, I preach better. I have no problem saying that I’ve had problems with depression and anxiety most of my life, too. It finally occurred to me that I could Romans 6 that stuff. In other words, I’m all in. I was tangled up in old patterns. I got some good help. It’s all still in progress, but, with God’s help, I refuse to spend the next 40 years the same way. I’m still no angel ;-) but I have hope today.