Grace over Karma

I've seen the term "karma" come up a couple of times lately and it strikes me that karma really is a basic human belief. I've always thought of it as only a Hindu or Buddhist thing. But in reading Jonathan Haidt's recent article, What Tea Partiers Really Want: The passion behind the populist insurgency is less about liberty than a particularly American idea of Karma (WSJ), it dawned on me that he was right. Except that I don't think it's just the Tea Party that believes so strongly in karma. I think Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians are just as likely to subscribe morally to a karmic system of belief. Different groups simply come at it from different angles. Conservatives tend to want justice to be enforced - which is the latter half of karma. Liberals tend to want mercy to be given - which is the former half of karma. These are gross generalizations, but I think it's fair to summarize it this way -- Conservatives believe that if we live wrong then we should be punished. Liberals believe that if we live mercifully then we should be rewarded. Both subscribe to a system of karma, they just focus on different sides of the same coin.

This morning I came across some excerpts of an interview with Bono from the book Bono: In Conversation with Michka Assayas. He mentions karma also, and in much the same way. (And the fact that he's across the pond means that this isn't just an American way of thinking.) Here's an excerpt from the excerpt:

Bono: Yes, I think that's normal. It's a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the difference between Grace and Karma.

Assayas: I haven't heard you talk about that.Bono: I really believe we've moved out of the realm of Karma into one of Grace.Assayas: Well, that doesn't make it clearer for me.

Bono: You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics; in physical laws every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It's clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I'm absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that "as you reap, so you will sow" stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I've done a lot of stupid stuff.

Assayas: I'd be interested to hear that.

Bono: That's between me and God. But I'd be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I'd be in deep s---. It doesn't excuse my mistakes, but I'm holding out for Grace. I'm holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity.

Assayas: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that.

Bono: But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there's a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let's face it, you're not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That's the point. It should keep us humbled . It's not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.

I think Bono's got it right. Karma is at the heart of all religion, probably because it's at the heart of our understanding of how the world should work. It seems to be something ingrained in us from birth (in the same way that sin and selfishness is ingrained in us from birth). If we are wronged then we want justice. (Of course, when we are the ones doing wrong, then we either choose to ignore it or we see it and hope for mercy. What the other guy did is always worse than what we've done ourselves, right?)

Karma is a harsh mistress. I know very few people who would come back as Brahman or cows. I know a lot of people who would come back as maggots or monkeys or dogs. If left to karma, I think we have no hope of improvement. If history has taught us one thing it's that humans suck. We screw up with a regularity that would impress any GI doc. If karma is our lot, then we really have no hope. Humanity hasn't improved morally. We are no less likely to enslave or murder our fellow man today than we were 5000 years ago. And we have better technology to do it with. It is estimated that there are more slaves in the world today than in all other previous time periods combined. And it goes without saying that WMD beat swords and arrows hands down.

Karma says that you will be rewarded according to what you have done. But grace turns that on its head. Grace runs in the exact opposite direction. It says that you will be rewarded despite what you have done. It doesn't turn a blind eye to my sin. It looks it full in the face, calls it what it is, and then it meets the requirement of karma through the sacrifice of another. The result of my bad karma falls squarely upon the shoulders of one who graciously gives me his good karma in return. That's grace.

Would Jesus Push the Button?

There's an interesting article in yesterday's New York Times about a midshipman who grew into pacifism during his matriculation at the US Naval Academy. When he was confronted with a test that asked, "If given the order, would he launch a missile carrying a nuclear warhead?" he decided that his answer was no. (WWJD) He was eventually discharged with a conscientious objector status.

There was one bit of the article that popped out at me as being freakishly backwards (but consistent with the military, of course).

"I realized that I could not be responsible for killing anyone," he later explained. His answer flagged him for psychological testing....

I just found that funny. I don't really have any particular point on that one.

And later in the article this question was posed.

If Jesus was a pacifist, why didn't he tell all Roman soldiers to leave the army?

I thought that was an excellent question. What do you think? Why didn't Jesus tell soldiers to set aside their weapons? Or did he?

Church Growth

Our church is pretty small. It's grown and shrunk numerically several times since it started in the early 80s, but at the moment we're at 27 official members and we average between 35-45 people (including kids) in attendance at a Sunday morning service. The topic of numerical church growth has come up now and again within the congregation and just recently the pastor sent out a pdf-ed copy of a publication on church growth (which I've attached at the end of this post in case you'd like to read it). I do think that our church would be healthier if it grow numerically by another 10 or 20 people (at the least). But the publication, though it had some good things to say, still struck me as a bit fishy. So this is my response to it.

Location, Location, Location
I think this section and the accompanying graph say a lot more about the American population and real estate trends than anything else. I suppose the take away here is, "if you want to grow numerically, locate your congregation where people are moving to." That said, it's this exact mindset that has traditionally left the poor and impoverished (those who can't move as easily as the rest of the population) with anemic churches. Central Alliance, the church that I was a member of back in Detroit, is a perfect example of this. The congregation carried on and had important ministries within the city, but it was a shell of what it had been. And once the white folks left town, they didn't really look back and help support the church they'd abandoned. Out of sight, out of mind. As Keith Green said, "Jesus commands us to go." But at the same time, Jesus said we'll be his witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria to the ends of the earth. (Acts 1:8) So it seems to me that we start where we are before we move out. If all the Christians were to leave Jerusalem, where does that leave Jerusalem? (CFHL) So location is important, but I don't think following the masses is always the answer.

The "fact" that "Congregations grow in locations where they find like-minded people" tells me that the gospel does more in regards to numerical growth when it's ignored. What about Galatians 3:26-28?

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

If the gospel breaks down superficial barriers of race and class, why would we seek to rebuild them by searching out and collecting people that think and act just like us? Is the gospel so weak that we need to ignore it in order to spread it?

A Combination of Factors
The article then explains that there are several factors that lead to numerical church growth: denominational loyalty, congregational vitality, confidence in the future, and serving as a moral beacon to the community. It then does a great job of not explaining those areas very well.

Denominational Loyalty: The article doesn't mention this again. I also don't see how denominational loyalty fits anywhere into the gospel, so I'll likewise jump right past it.

Congregational Vitality: The article doesn't explain what it means by this term. However, it does say that congregations that report having high vitality also promote themselves through radio advertising, evangelistic campaigns, personal witness, revivals and big events. In other words, with the exception of personal witness, the "vitality" of a congregation depends upon how well the church markets itself - how big and grand the congregation is portrayed through advertising and events. In other words, vitality has very little to do with the spiritual maturity or growth of the congregation or individuals within her and has quite a bit to do with how the congregation is perceived by people at large, whether or not the perception in any way matches the reality of who the congregation is.

Confidence in the Future: Apparently having confidence in the future means having "a clear sense of mission and a crisp organizational style." In other words, a congregation that has confidence that the path they have set before themselves is right is the congregation that will grow. They don't have to have confidence that God holds their future as long as they have a clear sense of what they hold for their own future.

Moral Beacon to the Community: Why be a spiritual beacon to the community when you can direct their morals instead? Why call people to God when you can call them to good works? I'm all for outreach ministries and committing to social justice issues. But God didn't call us to be a church in order to affect the morals of those around us. He called us to be a church to, as a group of believers, incarnate him. (Romans 12) Sure, that will lead us to commit to social justice issues and to reach out to others, but the forming of the body (Romans 12:5) comes before the actions of the body. We should be calling people to join us in the body, to join us in following Jesus. If we're growing because we have a social agenda, then what are we calling people to after all?

Uplifting Joyful Worship and Spiritual Nurture: Worship and nurture weren't listed in the combination of factors, but they were mentioned in a small paragraph in the midst of the articles elaboration on the other points. Again, it doesn't define these phrases and, in fact, it doesn't mention spiritual nurture again in the paragraph, focusing instead upon how churches with contemporary forms of worship grow more than churches with traditional worship. (What counts as contemporary or traditional is anybody's guess, but we'll assume they're referring to praise songs over hymns and the "sing then preach" format of service over a more traditional or liturgical style.)

Everything Else
The article then briefly mentions several other factors that lead to larger congregations: more worship services, a plan for growth, a website related to growth, a young congregation, and a newer congregation are all positive inputs towards having a numerically growing church. In other words, to grow you should increase your number of services, write a plan, make a website, kick out your old people, and if you're already an older congregation, you should just give up now.

The Gospel and the Church
In Matthew 28, Jesus told his disciples to go and make disciples of all nations. That certainly implies growth. It also implies disciples. I find it striking that this article doesn't really talk much about discipleship. In fact, the closest it seems to come to that comes on page 5 where it says,

Another critical interplay to consider is that between numerical growth in membership and participation, and growth in other critical dimensions of congregational vitality such as spirituality, commitment, discipleship, service, and financial giving. All are important!

All are important, but the article isn't going to waste more than one sentence on those topics. And I think that's telling.

What is more important, that 1000 people come to Sunday services and feel more positive about themselves and the world around them when they leave? Or that one person comes and learns how to be a disciple of the Christ? Sure, 1000 disciples would be better than 1. I get that. But 1000 non-disciples? If growing means abandoning the gospel, or circumventing it with Evangel-babble, then I'm not down with that.

Cornerstone, a mature little church
Like I said at the beginning, our church is pretty small. It fails on most of these areas that the article says we should be strong in. We've been around since the 80s, which makes us an old congregation. We sing hymns and follow an order of service, so we miss out on the contemporary boat. We don't have any radio advertising, no evangelistic campaigns, no revivals, and the last big event the church had led to a church split. In other words, when it comes to following the facts laid out in this article, we suck. It's no wonder we're so small.

But if we look at that one little sentence in the article, the one that mentioned stuff that was so important that it got an exclamation point, then I think we're doing alright. In terms of spirituality, commitment, discipleship, service, and financial giving I think we have a mature and well grown congregation. We've been put through the furnace on a number of occasions and a whole lotta dross has been burned off. Just in the decade that our family has been members in this church, I've seen people grow in ways that I haven't seen in most other congregations I've been a part of. Sure, there's still more dross to be burned off. We still have a long way to grow. But I am confident that what Cornerstone is growing is disciples, not attenders.

Some Good Things to Say
When I first mentioned the article I did admit that it had some good things to say. There are some areas that we need to grow and I think that having a sense of ourselves and our purpose is one of those. When we were looking for a new pastor a few years back, the search committee spent quite a bit of time talking about who we were as a congregation. I thought it was really helpful to be part of those conversations and to get a sense not just of what I thought of us, but what others of us thought of us as well. There was a lot of agreement on our strengths and weaknesses -- our congregation definitely has its own personality. But we've never had those talks as a congregation.

There's something about getting together with other people and talking things out that helps build ownership. When I was in InterVarsity in college we spent a week at the end of each school year talking about where we'd come and where we were heading. It gave the leaders a better sense of where they should be leading and it gave the rest of us a better sense of what to expect and how we would fit in over the coming year. It built community, it gave us direction and it built cohesion of purpose and activity. In the ten years we've been at Cornerstone we have yet to have a church retreat (where discussions like this often take place). We've had many congregational meetings, but they're often a matter of covering specific issues rather than brainstorming about who we are and where we're headed. I think Cornerstone would benefit from something like this. It might not make us grow numerically. But it would help us to acknowledge where we're mature and where we're still lacking. And it would give Cornerstone another chance to do what we already do pretty well -- BE the church rather than just go to church.

Attachment: FACT_Cong_Growth.pdf

Amoeba: plant or animal?

What day would you put the amoeba under?

6 Days of Creation - from Genesis 1
Day One: (vs. 3-5)	Day Four: (vs. 14-19)
Act of Creation: Light (God separated light from darkness)	Act of Creation: Lights (Sun and stars)
Day Two: (vs. 6-8)	Day Five: (vs. 20-23)
Act of Creation: God separated the waters into heaven/sky and earth	Act of Creation: water creatures (fish) and sky creatures (birds)
Day Three: (vs. 9-13)	Day Six: (vs. 24-31)
First Act of Creation: Gathered water, creating dry land	First Act of Creation: Animals
Second Act of Creation: Vegetation	Second Act of Creation: Humans

While we're at it, what does the word "authentic" mean to you?

What is culture? I'm reading a book on culture and I don't agree with the author's definition. How would you define culture?

Texas makes Jesus Facepalm - Yom Chechecheche

I'm laughing so hard I think I'm going to choke. I'm not kidding, this is hilarious.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jewish Speaker of Texas State House
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook