Brady Bowman

Lesslie Newbigin:

Jesus appears to have taken no steps to embody his teaching about the kingdom in a written form, which would be insulated against distortion by the fallible memories of his disciples. The Christian church possesses nothing comparable to the Qur’an. The teaching of Jesus has come to us in varied versions filtered through the varied remembering and interpretings of different groups of believers. What, on the other hand, did occupy the center of Jesus' concern was the calling and binding to himself of a living community of men and women who would be the witnesses of what he was and did. The new reality that he introduced into history was to be continued through history in the form of a community, not in the form of a book.

It’s easy for Protestants (like me) to balk at what Newbigin says here about Scripture, leading us to then tune out the rest. But I do think he’s making a really important point about Jesus calling “a living community of men and women” to be his witnesses—a community that exists in history and extends across history. Newbigin’s point is that Jesus cared supremely about equipping his disciples (and, by extension, the church) for the task of bearing the presence of God’s kingdom through history. To be sure, Scripture plays an absolutely essential role in that whole process. But there is an unavoidably visible, tangible reality to the church (as the community of Jesus in time) that we can see and point to and trace its development (and declensions) and submit to and so on. This is what, in another context, I referred to (drawing on Richard John Neuhaus) as being an “ecclesial Christian.”

Marva Dawn:

The greatest danger of a marketing approach to sharing the gospel with the world around the Church is that it treats people as consumers—perhaps religious consumers, but consumers nonetheless. In The Culture of Narcissism, Christopher Lasch describes consumers as “perpetually unsatisfied, restless, anxious, and bored.” They have been educated by advertising and a milieu that champions consumption as a way of life into “an unappeasable appetite not only for goods but for new experiences and personal fulfillment.” Consumption is expected to provide “the answer to the age-old discontents of loneliness, sickness, weariness, lack of sexual satisfaction,” the malaise of boring and meaningless jobs, and “feelings of futility and fatigue.” At the same time, “it creates new forms of discontent peculiar to the modern age.” Since consumption can never keep its promises to fill the aching void in people’s lives, to create congregational members who treat religion as another consumer item is to train them not to appreciate the way in which God really does fill our emptinesses.

Blame the Victorians for our modern obsession with self-optimization.

Study of Cirrus Clouds (1815) by John Constable:

Currently reading: Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down by Marva J. Dawn 📚

Finished reading: Praying Like Monks, Living Like Fools by Tyler Staton 📚

I read this with a few guys from church. Some really good, memorable chapters on prayer. Staton is an engaging writer. Not sure if this is owing more to the book or me, but I found my attention waning somewhat in the latter chapters. Overall, would still recommend.

achieving final form

David Zahl: “Free Will is Idolatry.”

our day-after-Thanksgiving tradition continues

“Gen Z Now Leads in Church Attendance.”

There are some interesting findings in the article, but I’m not going to comment on any of that. I want to pause here and offer a more general comment on this kind of piece: My biggest qualm has nothing to do with the data itself, which I have neither the expertise, nor the interest, to dispute. My assumption is that it accurately portrays real trends in American religious life. My concern arises chiefly because I have basically no confidence that people can translate the findings of social science into coherent strategies for action. Or, at the very least, I believe it to be a much more challenging and demanding exercise than we often assume. Towards the end of the article, Brad Hill, president of Gloo, is quoted as saying (surprise, surprise!) that churches that “prioritize” digital engagement will be more effective at reaching younger generations. Did the President of Gloo need to see this data in order to pursue the strategy of greater digital engagement? The data does not demand such a strategy; indeed, it’s not hard to imagine a radically different response to the same facts. Silliman ends the piece by quoting David Kinnaman, CEO of Barna. According to Silliman, Kinnaman’s hope is that “the data will help church leaders be proactive and encourage them to focus on how they can best meet people’s spiritual needs.” If they weren’t already proactive and focused on meeting people’s spiritual needs, I have no idea why this data would light a fire under them. As a counterfactual, let us imagine: What if Gen Z weren’t leading in church attendance? What if they were woefully behind some of the older generations? Or, what if most Americans attended four out of every five Sundays? If you don’t know how that would alter your “response” or “takeaway” from the data, there’s a good chance that you already knew the strategic response before you looked at the data. Again, let me be clear: none of what I’ve said is meant to disparage this type of study. I’m simply wanting to flag that “the data” cannot tell us what we should do in response. For that, we’ll need to look elsewhere.