The catch-22 of change and bureaucracy

Yes!

Yes!The phrase Catch-22″ comes from Joseph Heller’s amusing and disturbing book  about World War II. The book introduces that phrase in reference to how someone (a man named Orr, in this case) can get out of combat duty.

“Is Orr crazy?”

“He sure is,” Doc Daneeka said.

“Can you ground him?”

“I sure can. But first he has to ask me to. That’s part of the rule.”

“Then why doesn’t he ask you to?”

“Because he’s crazy,” Doc Daneeka said. “He has to be crazy to keep flying combat missions after all the close calls he’s had. Sure, I can ground Orr. But first he has to ask me to.”

“That’s all he has to do to be grounded?”

“That’s all. Let him ask me.”

“And then you can ground him?” Yossarian asked.

“No. Then I can’t ground him.”

“You mean there’s a catch?”

“Sure there’s a catch,” Doc Daneeka replied. “Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn’t really crazy.”

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

You should read the book.

A pastor friend from another state called me today frustrated about bureaucracy in the church. He referenced my article on “Why the UMC is dying a (somewhat) slow death.” He had agreed to join a committee, went to lots of meetings, made some big decisions… Then it all got undone. Why the wasted time?

The quote that was most devastating: “I’ve said some crazy things, but that might be why I don’t have any influence. [thoughtful pause…] That’s the game: you have to choose between having influence and speaking up. You’re only allowed influence if you don’t pose a risk of shaking things up too much.”

Is he right? This may apply to bureaucracies far outside the church.

Do most of the bureaucrats get where they are by not posing too many threats to the system?

And can you change the system from a top-down level without becoming one of the bureaucrats?

That’s some catch-22. Be moved deeply by its absolute simplicity.

And so again, beware the suggestion that you can make major change within the bureaucracy.

Ask these questions first:

  • How many others have to approve it before it happens?
  • Where are you in the pecking order?
  • Have they reached absolute crisis level?

Unless your answers to those three questions are respectively, “very few,” “the very top,” or “definitely,” beware.

“We don’t need more Christians,” or “The Christian Bubble”

bubble“What a lot of us are saying in our private discussions is that we don’t need more Christians.”

A prominent theologian and leader in the evangelical world said that to me recently, and it took me by surprise. He went on to explain a scenario that sounded like several of the other “bubbles” we’ve seen recently.

Remember the dot-com bubble? Or the real estate bubble? In both cases, things got artificially inflated beyond a level of sustainability, and then they burst with a messy splat all over the people holding them. A bubble can go on growing for a while, but ultimately, every bubble is doomed to burst.

This Christian leader was telling me that American Christianity has blown up one of those bubbles, and we’re due for a pretty messy bubble-bursting at some point in the near future.

How we ended up with a bubble

The great Christian movement is a result of discipleship. Jesus called disciples. Then he sent his disciples to “make disciples.” Those disciples made more disciples, and on and on. Discipleship is the lifeblood of the church. [1]

As this Christian leader pointed out to me, the primary location for discipleship throughout history has been the home (see “The Best Children’s Ministry in Town“). And when not in the home, in another setting of intimate, mentoring relationships–à la Jesus with his disciples.

And so, in American Christianity–where providing more activities and drawing large crowds have clearly taken precedence over intimate discipleship–we run into a problem:

Essentially, we have a large number of professing Christians, but very few disciples, few leaders, few who see themselves as pastors, or have any expectation of becoming pastors.

In a culture where “church” is more often associated with attending and “shopping” than serious, intimate discipleship, we largely see ministry as something done by a few (e.g. those on stage or those hired to do it) for the masses to consume.

When the ratio of serious disciples to mere attenders gets this far out of balance, you end up with something unsustainable. There simply aren’t enough equipped Christian disciples and pastors who are able to transfer the faith to the next generation. That bubble can keep growing for a while, but eventually it will burst. If you’ve seen some of the shocking statistics about how few youth and young adults are active in the Church today, you know that we may now be seeing signs of collapse. If you see the even more staggering statistics about how much of the church’s giving today is coming from those ages 55 and over, it will show you just how quickly a collapse could come.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote about this brilliantly in Discipleship [affiliate link–I highly recommend this new translation]. You should read at least the first chapter on “cheap grace” and “costly grace.” He wrote that in 1937 in Germany. Seventy-five years later, we can look at German Christianity and see the steep decline he expected.

Leaders dealing with the bubble

If you’re a leader of a congregation that has been around longer than you, there’s a decent chance you came into leadership of a congregation that has a lot of Christians, but not a lot of disciples. Your congregation might look a lot like that bubble.

If that’s the case, what do you do? If you devote most of your time to personally discipling a few leaders, will the rest jump ship because they’re not receiving what they want (enough interesting programs and variety; a well-crafted, entertaining weekend event…)?

For anyone living in a bubble, there’s a great fear that we must keep the bubble going. It can’t burst on our watch, or we’ll take a lot of the blame.

And how do you keep a bubble going?

The going wisdom would be to keep doing what created the bubble in the first place… and hope to get out before it bursts. There are surely American pastors right now looking at the financial numbers and wondering whether they’ll have reached retirement before the financial bottom falls out.

The courageous thing to do–the risky thing to do–the most promising thing to do for the sake of the Christian movement–is to invest in the substance that will allow long-term growth. Invest in genuine, intimate discipleship. As much as possible.

That’s courageous because it will come with a cost. You’ll almost surely have to shift your focus from some of the fluffy and flashy options that the bubble-people like.

That makes it risky. It’s likely to lead to a short-term loss in numbers, and in money. It starts slower. Intimate, dedicated discipleship takes time. And it makes high demands of people. Demands that are likely to scare a lot of them away. Remember Jesus asking his disciples, “You do not want to leave too, do you?”

But this investment is the most promising. Attractive, flashy, and fluffy can draw big, excited crowds. For decades even. And it’s not just fluffy that works. People can come and get good, deep substance, but if we don’t require anything more from them, the masses generally won’t go further than to listen and enjoy the good, deep substance. None of that transfers. It creates a bubble, then keeps trying to sustain it until the pop. But if you invest in the discipleship of a few, you invest in a few who can (and are expected to) transfer that faith to a few more, who go to a few more, then a few more. You won’t amaze anyone with the mega-church you build in five years’ time. But the movement that comes out of it–the number of genuine Christian pastors and apostles who come down from that lineage–can be staggering.

Was the Christian leader I mentioned at the start saying that we shouldn’t evangelize? Not at all! He’s quite an advocate for evangelism. What he was saying is that we need to be converting people into real, legitimate disciples. And we already have a huge number of un-discipled Christians on our hands. We need to be converting the pagans and the Christians, alike. Just getting people to say they’re Christian doesn’t cut it, and we’re about to start feeling that.

Notes

[1] Hear these statements as penultimate. Ultimately, and without question, the great Christian movement is a result of God’s love in Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the lifeblood of the Church.

Legislating Sexual Morality

for-against

for-against

A few times recently, I’ve mentioned the church’s debate over the practice of homosexuality (trying to establish a framework for the debate, and showing how the UMC has [or exercises] no authority regarding its statements of belief). Those were addressing issues internal to the Church. I don’t want them confused with how we handle issues external to the Church.

Here, I’d like to look at an issue that goes beyond the Church:

How should the Church be thinking and acting regarding the legalization of same-sex marriage?

First, I should share my personal history. In 2004, the state of Kentucky had a proposed amendment outlawing same-sex marriages and civil unions. I voted for it. That’s the only vote I’ve ever cast on this issue.

I’m ashamed of that vote now. Here’s why…

At least within the Church, I hear two primary reasons people give for keeping same-sex marriage outlawed:

  1. If we believe homosexual behavior is against the will of God, we shouldn’t endorse it by making same-sex marriage legal.
  2. We should preserve the sanctity of marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman.

Obviously both positions only hold true for those who are convinced homosexual behavior is incompatible with Christian teaching. If someone starts with that presumption (whether it’s right or wrong — not the issue I’m attempting to discuss here), do either of the two points above have merit?

Let me ask some other questions:

Are these same Christians interested in outlawing cohabitation outside of marriage?

Are they interested in making it illegal to have sex with anyone other than one’s marriage partner?

Would they be willing to pass laws that make divorce an option only in a few rare cases?

To all of the above, I think the answer is no.

You see, even “conservative” Christians aren’t really interested in legislating their sexual morals. Many would probably say that though they don’t endorse some of these things, they can’t presume to outlaw them for all people.

And if we were so concerned about using the law to preserve the sanctity of marriage, we would need to start passing some pretty strict laws about divorce – or even much stricter laws about which heterosexuals may get married in the first place.

But we’re not passing these laws or trying to. And we shouldn’t be. It’s good and needed for the Church to work out its understandings of sexual morality. But none of us are serious about legislating that for all people. That doesn’t leave us with much to stand on in any continued attempt to outlaw same-sex marriages.

Some may find political or pragmatic reasons to keep up this fight (reasons I find unconvincing) but their biblical or theological reasons to keep up the fight fall apart, I think, when we look at their responses to other issues.

There you go. All I have to say about it in under 500 words. I know you’re shocked. Am I thinking too simplistically about this?