Why Catechesis Now?

catechumen
catechumen
This isn’t the kind of catechumen we’re working toward.

If you’ve been reading for a while, you’ve seen that I have a great interest in catechesis. I believe this ancient Christian practice is desperately needed in the church today.

I’m excited to see that I’m in good company! Please go read this article by Tim Keller: “Why Catechesis Now?” It succinctly articulates why we need to bring back this “almost completely lost” practice.

A snippet:

The church in Western culture today is experiencing a crisis of holiness. To be holy is to be “set apart,” different, living life according to God’s Word and story, not according to the stories that the world tells us are the meaning of life. The more the culture around us becomes post- and anti-Christian the more we discover church members in our midst, sitting under sound preaching, yet nonetheless holding half-pagan views of God, truth, and human nature, and in their daily lives using sex, money, and power in very worldly ways […]

This is not the first time the church in the West has lived in such a deeply non-Christian cultural environment. In the first several centuries the church had to form and build new believers from the ground up, teaching them comprehensive new ways to think, feel, and live in every aspect of life. They did this not simply through preaching and lectures, but also through catechesis.

Some other things I’ve written on catechesis:
Why we’re teaching our kids a catechism
“How is it with your soul?” – a question we ask every week in catechesis groups
2 more questions to ask and be asked every week
How Sunday School created a theologically illiterate American Church
Why the United Methodist Church needs a catechism
Do catechisms create parrots?

And go see the Echo Catechism that we developed for use in our community. 98 tweet-length questions and answers to address the most important historical Christian beliefs, along with the Apostles’ Creed, Lord’s Prayer, and 10 Commandments.

Prophets and Pragmatism

zechariah stoned

zechariah stonedWhat if we judged the prophets of the Bible based on their results?

Most would be considered miserable failures.

The Prophets

The general story goes like this. The prophets’ were sent to a people who had rebelled against God. The people had committed idolatry or neglected and oppressed the poor. Usually both. And the prophets told them that destruction was coming if they didn’t repent. The response? The people scoffed at them. In several cases, they killed them (see 2 Chronicles 24:20-22, 36:15-16, or Jeremiah 26:20-23 for some examples). Then the people went back to their idolatry and oppression and neglect of the poor.

Pragmatists today would look at the prophets and say they wasted a lot of time. Or had bad strategies.

Perhaps they should have spent more time working on PR and networking. Maybe they should have had a gentler approach. If they hadn’t burned so many bridges (and gotten killed) for speaking up so strongly, they might have been able to achieve a bit more progress over time—maybe not a full turn from idolatry, but at least a few Asherah poles cut down.

The Pragmatist

The consistent cry of the pragmatist is to only do what works. And (though it’s rarely stated outright) to be willing to compromise the real message and impulse of Christianity just enough to make it acceptable in our culture.

That music director who’s a terror to others, but who draws a large crowd each Sunday? Let’s not do anything too drastic. People may be coming to Christ through her work.

The biggest giver in the church is having an inappropriate extramarital relationship? Let’s not confront this too directly and face losing him. Just think of all the ministry that’s taking place because of his giving.

No, a new creation economy surely wouldn’t have our top-level people being compensated at five times the lowest-paid. But that’s the way it works, and we’re not going to be able to change it.

There may be a general question about compromising a bit of holiness to gain the appearance of more relevance.

You get the picture…

The Difference between the Prophet and the Pragmatist

At root, there is a single difference between the prophet and the pragmatist. They have different goals.

And both of their goals are good goals. But I believe one is far better.

The goal of the prophet: be faithful to God. The prophet is sent by God to address sin, injustice, and heresy, wherever they may be found. Now certainly there’s some discretion about how to do this. Look at the various methods of the prophets. Isaiah walked around Israel naked and barefoot for three years (Isa 20:3). Hosea married a prostitute. There are times that they hide and wait and other times that they go boldly. But the message of God is never compromised, even if they may have achieved better results otherwise.

The goal of the pragmatist Christian: achieve results for God. The pragmatist really does want to achieve these results for God. I don’t question that. His intentions are good. But in the process, he is willing to make [what he considers] small compromises for the sake of results.

While I believe both prophet and pragmatist aim at something good, I believe the prophet’s goal is far better and more appropriate. Paul said, “Neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow” (1 Cor 3:7).

We don’t make things grow! God does. We plant and water. And I think it’s best that we plant and water with only the purest seed and purest water. We faithfully do as God calls and leave the results to God. Anything else confuses our role in the process.

So to put it plainly, I believe full faithfulness to God is more important than anything else. Even than evangelizing and converting more people. Even than eliminating more injustice. Even than preserving the church for its future work.

Ask a pragmatist, and it will be hard for them to say the prophets were “successful.” At the least, they’ll have to skew their definition of success for the prophet, then refuse to hold that some definition for their own work. Oddly, the most successful prophet, by pragmatic standards, was probably the least faithful of all the prophets: Jonah. Whatever it presents, I don’t think the account of Jonah is trying to persuade us to be like him.

The questions that will come

Some valid questions will come back, and I don’t want to take the space to answer them now. Perhaps later or in the comments. The challenges and questions I expect:

– “Great. Make it all about faithfulness to God and not results. Sounds like an easy way out when you don’t achieve any results.”

– “The prophets were sent by a clear word from God. You can hold to their standards when you hear an audible word from God as clearly as they did.”

– “Paul became all things to all people so that by all possible means he might save some. Sure sounds pragmatic to me…”

These are all legitimate. “Faithfulness to God” has been used for all sorts of laziness, personal agendas, and outright evils throughout history. What I’m trying to combat is perhaps a bit more plain – those situations where someone says, “Well that’s true/right/better, but it just won’t produce results.”

The Pastor Salary Fallacy

preach for food

preach for foodMany people promote a common half-truth about pastors’ salaries, and it needs to end.

I just heard it again last week. “Hey, I only make $50,000.” Well, that was true. Technically.

What it neglected was the $20,000 housing allowance this pastor receives. And the $4,000 utilities allowance.

The truth about pastoral compensation

Pastors’ compensation packages are arranged differently than most. Whereas almost everyone else in America is responsible for paying for their own housing and utilities, these expenses are usually covered for pastors. We usually receive either a parsonage (a house provided by the church) or a housing allowance that covers the cost of our mortgage, along with any furnishings, maintenance, and renovation. And then the church pays for our utilities. This will often include the cost for lawn care, and probably some other things I’m forgetting.

One other benefit: Housing and utilities allowance are exempt from federal income tax. And pastors still get to claim a deduction for the mortgage interest they pay. It’s a double dip, and I have no idea why the IRS allows it, but they do.

Those in parsonages will tell you that they get a bum deal sometimes. They get a house that’s far from ideal and poorly maintained. This is a reality for many, and a genuine concern. Church – if you provide a parsonage for your pastor that you would never consider living in, you need to do something. Then again, you’d be surprised at the quality of some other parsonages. I’ve seen them valued up to $600,000 (in an area where median is $158k).

In all, here’s what this means: The pastor I reference above who only makes $50,000 actually receives $74,000. And $24,000 of that isn’t subject to income tax. Which makes his relative compensation – when compared with people in other professions – roughly $88,000.**

Yes, the IRS allows this – although I expect that to be challenged sometime in the next few decades. But let’s stop telling half-truths about pastors’ salaries.

Pastors, please don’t tell people, “I [only] make $XX,XXX,” and leave out that all costs associated with your housing are taken care of on the side. The people you’re talking to have to use their salaries to pay for their rent/mortgage, their utilities, their home maintenance, their lawn care, their cable bill…

As I read over this, I know it could be taken in a bitter or antagonistic tone. That’s not my intention. I receive a housing allowance and utilities allowance, too. I’m just imploring us to be more honest when we talk and think about our compensation. The lowest compensation package for a United Methodist elder in Kentucky (where median household income is $42,000) is just shy of $60,000. As compensation goes, none of us have anything to complain about.

Thinking theologically about pastoral compensation

My greater hope is that we would stop thinking about pastoral compensation in the business-world pragmatic sense and start thinking theologically about compensation in the church. See this earlier piece: “Pastors’ Salaries and Church Buildings.”

The pragmatists will say we can’t do it or we’ll lose our most talented people. There are a number of problems with that, which I might try to address another time.

For now, I would venture this with the pragmatists in my Methodist tradition. When we look at the relative compensation of our pastors and the numerical growth of Methodism, I bet you’ll find the greatest growth in the times and places where relative compensation was the lowest. And I bet there’s a pretty surprising negative correlation (i.e. one number goes up while the other goes down) between those two numbers over the last 200 years. I’d love to run some numbers on this, but I feel pretty confident about it based on what I’ve seen.

—————–

** Some more details, for those who are really interested…

Because the pastor I reference was a UMC pastor, he has a pretty nice health insurance package, for which his church pays nearly $13,000 annually. They’re also required to make an annual $11,000 pension contribution on his behalf, regardless of whether he contributes anything. Ignoring any other expense allowances or continuing ed, this is a $98,000 pay package. I point all this out just so we know the reality for this person who claimed to make “only $50,000.”

One other unusual thing that comes into play for pastors: we file as “self-employed.” Odd, isn’t it? This means the church doesn’t make FICA/SECA payments on our behalf. If the pastor in this example pays SECA taxes, this is a loss of $5,661. Adjust that comparable compensation number back down to $82,339.

But the final unusual piece: pastors can opt-out of Social Security. That’s a great economic boon to them! It’s also highly questionable, as far as I’m concerned. Anyone who opts out has to sign a statement that states,

I certify that I am conscientiously opposed to, or because of my religious principles I am opposed to, the acceptance (for services I perform as a minister, member of religious order not under a vow of poverty, or a Christian Science practitioner) of any public insurance that makes payments in the event of death, disability, old age, or retirement; or that, makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care. (Public insurance includes insurance systems established by the Social Security Act.)

“Conscientiously opposed to […] the acceptance of any public insurance.” Hmmm… I see far more opt-outs out of economic convenience than out of troubled conscience.