Energion Direct

Author: empower

  • Transforming (Mainline) Congregations II

    Today we continue the series of interviews with Energion authors on transforming mainline congregations. Last week Dr. Bruce Epperly responded to the interview questions. Today, Dr. Bob LaRochelle, pastor of Second Congregational Church, Manchester, Connecticut, (United Church of Christ), and author of Part Time Pastor, Full Time Church (Pilgrim Press, 2012), Crossing the Street (Energion Publications, 2012), and the forthcoming book So Much Older Then … (Energion Publications, 2013).
    1. How do you take a church with an old, historical landmark building and a congregation of maybe 50 on a really good Sunday, average age about 60, and transform it into a living, growing faith community?
    This resonates with my current situation. I believe it involves the following:
    1. Attentiveness to good preaching and worship
    2. Active, intentional engagement of participants in the process of INVITING others into participation
    3. Stepped up visible presence in the local community and wider communities, including exploration of technological options, possibly including the use of cable TV
    4. A church retreat offered once a year. I describe that in my book Part Time Pastor, Full Time Church (Pilgrim Press, 2012)
    5. Looking to create youth opportunities that bring young people and their friends onto your property!

    Establish a personal pastoral relationship.

    2. How can you engage someone brought up as a scientific rationalist in (say) the last 30 years in your church sufficiently long to enable them to have some kind of transformative experience, and how do you get them to stay?
    Establish a personal pastoral relationship, invite to be an active participant in educational programming-
    3. Can a charismatic, evangelical. mission-based church find a home for a post-modernist theologian/mystic?
    I believe so, though I would caution that it must also be a church that takes intellectual inquiry seriously and is open to different expressions and to serious inquiry. The church must be seen as less than monolithic in approach. Overall, I think most churches benefit from pluralism in worship styles.
    4. What are the possible roles for young people in a church in renewal? Would you give them opportunities to read, speak, lead a service, provide music, etc.? In other words, how fully can those in their teens (and even younger) participate in leading renewal?
    Young people are CRUCIAL in church renewal…. They should be engaged in all church committees, including board of deacons…. Yes on reading, music and PREACHING! Churches should be seen as comfortable places for youth.

    Churches should be seen as comfortable places for youth.

    5. What role would theological or doctrinal distinctives play in such a church? Is the particular theological flavor of the church important?
    It is. Personally, I like a ‘big tent’ approach as exemplified in Augustine and John XXIII- ‘In things, essential, unity; In things, doubtful, liberty; In all things, charity.’ I say this understanding fully well that people will quarrel over essentials….

    I also understand that those from a particular doctrinal perspective simply have to seek communities more conducive to their flavor.
    6. What role does liturgy play in church renewal? Is it important whether the church is formal or informal, “high church” or “low church,” or what style of music is used?
    Liturgy is crucial. It both expresses who the church is and is the key contact point each week. I think BLENDED is best and the ecumenical potential of it enormous. High, low or whatever, there are some keys: It can’t be rote or routine, preaching and music should be done well, the service should hang together in terms of readings, music and liturgical style. People need to prepare worship with the sense that the entire service preaches the Word.
    7. Can a pastor in a church that is part of a denomination lead that church in renewal? Do denominational politics prevent the kinds of creative actions that are necessary for church renewal?
    Yes to the first question. With respect to the second, I think it is easier wherever local autonomy is operative. However, I have found much impetus for renewal in the work of denominational leadership also.
    8. How can a pastor assigned to a new church discern the needs of that church and find the path to renewal for that specific congregation?
    In my denomination, we are not assigned. The needs and paths to renewal can be discovered through the search process. I talk about this in Part Time Pastor Full Time Church.
    9. What is the role of the pastor’s personal prayer and devotional life (or that of the lay leadership)?
    Simply put, it is CRUCIAL!
    10. What is the role of the pastor’s academic and professional development in church renewal?

    Renewal should be rooted in good theology.

    CRUCIAL as well. Renewal should be rooted in good theology. Strong theological knowledge and a working knowledge of the history of the church and renewal movements within it are crucial as well. I also believe openness to the WHOLE Christian tradition is necessary. I believe, as example, that Catholics and Protestants have for too long lived inside their own houses. This led me to want to write Crossing the Street (Energion, 2012) I strongly recommend a serious reading of Hans Kung’s On Being a Christian as well. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by Mark Noll is a good cautionary work with respect to the need for pastoral leaders who take study seriously!
    11. What spiritual practices can transform congregational life?
    – expanding the use of different styles of services and rites e.g. Healing, Taize, Blessing of Animals, sprinkling rites ways of doing Communion…. The list could go on and on…. Basically, utilizing resources from the broad, ecumenical tradition … not being bound to perceived denominational worship styles
    – Spiritual Retreat opportunities
    – Opportunities for sharing with respect to the sermon…. I even explore doing this within the service of worship in my new book So Much Older Then (Energion 2013). Minimally, providing opportunities for after worship sermon discussion
    – Opportunities for service to others with opportunities to REFLECT upon that service – the shared praxis approach.
     

  • Joel: Question 1 Reply 2

    I am humbled by my friend’s admission that I am right, or nearly right, about everything. If only he had stopped there, at that admission, he would have continued to be right.
    I believe he disagrees with my assessment of our individualistic society, that we tend to shy away from tackling communal problems lest we seem judgmental. He suggests, instead, that as a society we tend to accept “pretty much anything” going so far as to suggest the line between the murders and the acceptance of so-called alternative lifestyles is rather thin. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood my friend, here, or rather he misunderstands my point and social responsibilities. We have a stigma of mental illness, both from those who suffer from it and those who see it in others. We are less likely to call attention to it, or to seek help for it, because of the disability aspect of it. This is where we have to understand the role of the term and concept of disability. So-called alternative lifestyles are often hidden, or at least practiced in a community. Disabilities are seen and as such will make many uncomfortable.
    The visceral reaction we have to those with disabilities is the same we have to those who publicly suffer mental illness. It simply makes us uncomfortable. They are different, not the same, unlike us. They are less than human in some ways. These feelings are normative of the human. They are something we can see throughout the history of cultures via the science of anthropology (see some of Mary Douglas’s work in this field). This is not an issue of anything goes, but the natural reaction impounded by our individualistic society to those who are noticeably different than us. I could mention that like the so-called alternative lifestyles mentioned by my good friend, Luther thought mental illness a sin and even suggested drowning those who were, for fear of the devil inhabiting more souls. We are a superstitious lot, regardless of the temporal locale.
    In regards to reporting, I have to agree with Elgin. In regards to the violence portrayed in movies, I find that I tend to agree with Elgin again, although I would have to ask him to define what he thinks government control is. For me, movies are a cultural experience — experience from and experienced by and causing an experience. To somehow stop them is wrong and ultimately damaging to our culture. Yet, like we have done with the more pornographic movies, we should enable the Government to force an attachment of some sort of more secure warnings to the more violent movies.
    Elgin soon goes from a reasonable discussion to falling of the edge of reality. No one is legitimately talking about taking away guns. Even the Senator from the Great State of California did not propose such a plan. To use such language is at best unoriginal gossip and at worst, well, I’ll leave that unsaid. One of the reasons gun sales are at an all time high is because of the culture of fear promulgated by such incautious words Elgin as demonstrated. Added to this is the constant refrain of confiscation, something that is not likely to happen due to laws in this country. If confiscation ever does happen, it will mean an end to the Republic general, at which time, confiscation of weapons will happen anyway, with or without records of gun ownership. In regards to the anecdotal evidence suggested by my friend, I would like to see records kept private. There is no need to publicize what I have in my home to my neighbors. This is not a gun control issue, but a social responsibility issue, to which the newspaper should be questioned. My friend and his friends should choose their words more wisely, else we find that fear follows the life-cycle of rabbits.
    One point about Chicago. It does have a remarkably high murder rate. Further, since 2010, the so-called strict gun laws have no bearing in reality. While gun shops are illegal in the city, guns are not. This is not gun control; this is a business decision. To continue to strive for effective talking points, I would suggest a more robust use of the facts. Let us not forget the fact that something like 40% of gun sales are not made in a gun shop of any sort.
    He disagrees with my limitation of rounds in a clip route. Fine. I have no issue moving the number up slightly, but let us consider how the problem is approached. At no time did I say anything about removing the ownership of weapons or clips, only the limitation of rounds in the clip so as to make it more difficult to reload during public gun massacres. Such an imposition would not delay target practice, only make it a bit more tenuous. Surely, such a thing is not impossible. Unless, of course, you are expecting to find yourself engaged in a shoot out where you need quick access to clips holding large numbers of rounds?
    There is no singular answer; however, if we take one of the looming tools of destruction off the table, we are limiting the conversation. Yes, it is about people, but it is about guns as well. The tools of destruction matter.

  • Elgin: Question 1 Reply 2

    In his reply to my answer, Watts claimed that my “point is a black-and-white dichotomy, and it is a severely falsely dichotomy.” I must admit, however, that I am not completely clear exactly what point he was referring to, as his description does not match any of my views. I am certainly not against all gun control, nor of preventing those who are mentally unstable, or who have a history of violent crime from processing guns. If that were the extent of the gun control debate, I do not think there would be much of an issue. So I suspect that Watts is battling against a straw man here.
    He claims of my position that my “first solution, that of more guns, flies in the face of wisdom, logic, and reality.” This is particularly puzzling in that I did not call for more guns. Sure, I argued against gun control laws, and even argued that “less gun control” may be more effective, but that is not quite the same thing as arguing for more guns. Others such as John Lott have made this argument and have amassed a great deal of evidence to support their view. Still, given that this issue is highly politicized, I think the best one can really say is that such claims are hotly contested and this renders such blanket statements such as Watts’, without specific support, highly questionable.
    Watts’ analogy with AIDS was at best mystifying, as I do not see any correlation with guns. Give someone AIDS, and I think you can safely say that this is a bad thing. But unlike getting AIDS, giving a gun is, in and of itself are neither good nor bad. It is how the gun is used that determines whether or not it is good or bad. While the analogy fails, the equating of guns with AIDS does reveal the focus is on inanimate objects instead of the people that commit these crimes. Rather than deal with the criminals, the drive is to remove guns from law abiding citizens.
    Watts mentioned Romans 13, and while it raises some very difficult issues, I do not see a prohibition against self-defense as one of them. Frankly, I see the claim that Romans 13 prohibits owning a gun to be about as valid as a claim that Luke 22:36 requires it. To allow citizens the choice to defend themselves is not the same thing as forcing them to become the police.
    As to his arguments about separating guns and people, Watts argues against his own position with his examples. If we treated these example like we do guns, we would not go after the architect who designed the building we would ban others form doing architecture; we would not go after the doctor, we would ban others from being doctors. Thus with these mass murders, the focus is on keeping others from owning guns.
    As for Watts’ claim that without guns there would not be mass murder, this is just historically false. Sure, the incidents he listed were caused by people using guns. But the New Life Church shooting I cited was greatly limited by that fact that someone besides the shooter had a gun and was able to stop him. In the Osaka School massacre the murderer used a knife. The worst school murderer in the U.S. killed 38 children and 6 adults, not with a gun but with a bomb in 1927. Now with the internet, chemical and biological weapons also become considerations. The point is that even if you could remove all guns, guns are not the real problem. People who want to murder are the problem, and they will, as they have, find other ways.
    I was somewhat disappointed that Watts seem to skip completely over the three things I said should be done to begin to addressing this problem, and thus I do not know if he agrees or disagrees. Instead he skipped to my conclusion that mentioned sin. Frankly, I fail to see how, from the fact that I mentioned the reality of sin, Watts reached the conclusion that I was somehow saying sin is the total of human existence or nature.
    I simply said that while there was a lot more that we could do, we will probably never be able to eliminate such murders. This is just like our laws against theft and rape have not eliminated those crimes. Still, went on to say that, “we could go a long way towards reducing them.” Watts labeled this as a “cop-out.” Yet in his very next line he said we could, “reduce it to the point where… it is a shock rather than just another occurrence.” Frankly I fail to see a significant different between these two statements, and thus, once again, it is hard to not see this, like so many of his arguments, as little more than a straw man.
    Watts concludes by saying “we recognize a problem exists and it is our better human nature that will create a path to either fix the problem or to limit the issues giving rise to the problem” While I agree with this statement, we differ on the nature of the problem, and thus on how to address it.
    I see the problem being with people who want murder others, not with the methods they choose to carry out their crimes. I want to focus on what in our society and culture produces such people and why, for example, our society fails to care adequately for the mentally ill. To me, talk of gun control is not only a distraction, it diverts attention from the real problems and thus hinders real solutions that could actually make things better.

  • Transforming (Mainline) Congregations

    Today I present the first of three interviews with Energion authors about how mainline congregations can be transformed and can renew their ministries. As I read the responses, however, I sensed that these answers don’t just apply to mainline congregations—any congregation can benefit from some of these practices.
    While I presented the questions for this interview, I collected them from others. Each question represents either a question exactly as I heard or read it from someone who was concerned about ministry in aging and dying, or otherwise dysfunctional congregations, or my summary of a number of questions I have encountered on that topic.
    Our first respondent is Dr. Bruce Epperly, author of a large number of books, many of which you will find listed under suggested reading, including Energion titles Philippians: A Participatory Study Guide, Healing Marks, and Transforming Acts (forthcoming, June, 2013).
    Next week, we will publish responses by Bob LaRochelle, and the week following by Bob Cornwall. I hope that readers will engage with the content. If you are a pastor or church leader, consider answering these questions for yourself. Comment on what is said and engage in dialog. This is an important topic and there are some very helpful—even critical—ideas expressed. If you post on this topic on your blog, please let me know (pubs@energion.com) and I’ll be happy to provide a link. Alternatively, you can provide your own link in a comment.
    — Henry Neufeld
    EPPERLY RESPONSES
    1. How do you take a church with an old, historical landmark building and a congregation of maybe 50 on a really good Sunday, average age about 60, and transform it into a living, growing faith community?
    As one who has integrated pulpit and classroom for over thirty years, primarily in university and small congregation settings, I see congregational transformation and vitality as involving the interplay of intentionality and grace. There are a multitude of patterns or models for lively congregations.  Our emerging Saturday night church in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, seldom had more than thirty in attendance in the Quaker social hall where we met.  Yet, our services were always lively and spirit-filled: the nondescript social hall was adorned with banners, scarves, and candles; often the aroma of bread baking for communion coming from the adjoining kitchen wafted through the air; and young children camped out on blankets at the edge of our circle of chairs.  We were participatory: sermons almost always joined a pastoral word with community reflection and sometimes were inspired by moments of holy reading, or lectio divina, in which the congregation pored over a passage, listening for the divine word in the words of scripture.

    … from a mustard seed, a great plant grows; from five loaves and two fish, a multitude is fed.

    We had small numbers but a big theology and our welcoming theology was matched by our radical hospitality, everyone welcome at the communion table, children bringing the elements for weekly communion to the table with the offering, and willingness to follow the Spirit’s movements and change course at the drop of the hat.  We never felt small or irrelevant or compared ourselves to other churches; we had a vocation and mission and that was good enough for this moment in time.  In that regard, I encourage congregations to begin where they are, not judging themselves by other congregations’ size and apparent vitality – after all, some megachurches have mini-theologies – and remember that from a mustard seed, a great plant grows; from five loaves and two fish, a multitude is fed.
    Our music was global as well as traditional, sometimes simply the sung voice, other times accompanied by guitars, tambourines and maracas (the kids loved that!), keyboard, and clapped hands.
    We had a sense of mission and that guided our approach to worship and decision-making: to be a radically hospitable, “come as you are,” inclusive, open and affirming, and progressive congregation.  I think mission is everything in vital communities:  cast a vision, meditate upon it, placard it, and see it as the flexible polestar guiding everything you do.  Our mission at Disciples United Community Church (www.ducc.us) involved both the inner and outer journeys – spiritual formation and care for each other and openness to being a light to the larger community through refugee resettlement, advocacy for the GLBT community, and affirmation of diversity.
    Out of our experiences as pastor and church musician, Daryl Hollinger (the church musician) and I penned the book, From a Mustard Seed: Enlivening Worship and Music in the Small Church.   We reminded our readers that the average Protestant church in North America has 75 or less congregants gathered for worship each Sunday and out of what seems like scarcity, great worship can emerge.  Everyone is gifted, and simple and low cost instruments (rain sticks, maracas, finger cymbals, simply-constructed hand bells) can bring life to worship.

    When worship ended, we left the communion bread on the table and placed other snacks around it, creating a love feast with every worship service.

    One last note about our experience at Disciples United Community Church: whereas Christian formation of adults has been abandoned in most mainstream and progressive congregations, we placed a premium on adult theological education.  Perhaps, we had an advantage: a theologian as one of the pastors.  Whereas some large congregations barely get a dozen for adult education, our education-worship-fellowship were seamlessly tied together.  If we had thirty five in worship, we would likely have twenty to twenty five in adult education.  Folks would move from the education tables to worship by simply turning their chairs around and placing them in a circle.  When worship ended, we left the communion bread on the table and placed other snacks around it, creating a love feast with every worship service.  While geography can shape logistics, vital and lively worship requires flexibility in space and movement: the sanctuary of traditional churches should be respected, but in most sanctuaries there is room for gathering either in the chancel or narthex, thus making hospitality, community, education, and worship an integrated whole.
    Here are some ready to hand and easily taught resources for congregational adult theological education and worship:
    Diana Butler Bass, Christianity After Religion (HarperOne)
    John Cobb, Praying for Jennifer
    Monica Coleman, Not Alone: Reflections on Faith and Depression (Inner Prizes)
    Bob Cornwall, Ephesians: A Participatory Study Guide (Energion)
    Bob Cornwall, Ultimate Allegiance (Energion)
    Maxie Dunnam, Workbook of Living Prayer (Upper Room)
    Eric Elnes, The Phoenix Affirmations: A New Vision for the Future of Christianity (Jossey-Bass)
    Bruce Epperly, Healing Marks: Spirituality and Healing in Mark’s Gospel (Energion)
    Bruce Epperly, Philippians: A Participatory Study Guide (Energion)
    Bruce Epperly, Emerging Process: Adventurous Theology for a Missional Church (Parson’s Porch)
    Bruce Epperly, The Center is Everywhere: Celtic Spirituality for a Postmodern Age (Parson’s Porch)
    Bruce Epperly, Immersion Bible Studies: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (Abingdon)
    Bruce Epperly and Daryl Hollinger, From a Mustard Seed: Enlivening Worship and Music in the Small Church (Alban)
    Joyce Rupp, The Cup of Our Life (Ave Maria)
    Barbara Brown Taylor, An Altar in the World: A Geography of Faith
    Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence: How Christianity is Changing and Why (Baker)
    2. How can you engage someone brought up as a scientific rationalist in (say) the last 30 years in your church sufficiently long to enable them to have some kind of transformative experience, and how do you get them to stay?
    The greatest challenge for the church is to be “relevant” to the needs of seekers, spiritual but not religious, self-described “nones,” and the scientific community.  When you ask young adults, even within the church, about their perspective on the church, they use terms like: intolerant, anti-scientific, homophobic, small-minded, racist, and sexist.  And, quite often they are right.  But, worse yet, is when they describe the church as “irrelevant” to their lives.  A lot of Christians believe that the desire to be “relevant” waters down the faith, but I believe that the church is always called to minister concretely and not in terms of some Platonic ideal, beautiful in its abstraction, but unrelated to real life.  If the message isn’t relevant, it isn’t the gospel!

    If the message isn’t relevant, it isn’t the gospel!

    I think one of the most important things churches need to do is to cultivate spiritual practices and develop a vision of reality that is non-dogmatic, yet transformative.  Diana Butler Bass says that the words “doctrine” and “doctor” have the same roots and this should remind us that doctrines are intended to be “healthy teachings,” not exclusionary devices or walls intended to separate “us” from “them.”
    Ironically, except for the hard-core atheists who themselves resemble religious fundamentalists in the “how” of their faith, most rationalistic people are open to the transcendent.  A Pew Report notes that 50% of the population claim to have experienced something they describe as self-transcendent or mystical.  While people are not necessarily more spiritual or mystical today, this figure is nearly twice as high as forty years ago, indicating an openness to experiencing and sharing experiences of the holy and spiritual.  Some Christians malign “Oprah-spirituality,” but the popularity of her program points to a need the churches should be addressing in light of the gifts of our traditions.
    In my writing, I have focused on spirituality, healing, and global theology.  I believe that churches will be vital both among their members and to seekers and rationalists if they:

    • Sponsor meditation groups
    • Have healing services and dialogue with holistic and complementary medicine
    • Present a big vision of the universe.  Imaginative and poetic readings of the Genesis creation accounts, Psalm 8, Psalms 148-150, Paul’s speech at the Areopagus describe a grand, unfolding, creative universe in which God is still at work, bringing forth new possibilities in the human and non-human worlds.  Bring photos from the Hubble Telescope to church, show Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos Series,” gather people to watch “Nova.”
    • Provide possibilities for wonder.  Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel asserts that one of the primary religious virtues is “radical amazement.” Do amazing things at church.
    • Get involved in mission.  What are you doing to lower the carbon footprint?  Does your church address global climate change?
    • Seek justice.  Sadly, many people see Christianity as about God, guns, anti-immigration, and slashing government programs that help the poor.  To risk a bit of controversy, there is no inalienable Christian right to own a gun or lower taxes. These issues aren’t even on the biblical radar, either concretely or abstractly, and while I do not oppose gun ownership, given the words of the Sermon on the Mount, a fixation of gun rights may be quite incompatible with gospel Christianity!  But, the scriptures are clear – care for the immigrant, welcome the stranger, insure economic justice, provide for the vulnerable.  This needs to be done both politically (see Amos, Hosea, Micah) and congregationally (see Acts 2 and its vision of having all things in common ownership.”
    • Concretely get your hands dirty in mission projects: give money, but also time.  Seekers want something to give their heart and hands, as well as their heads, too.
    • Take science seriously as a companion, not a threat.  As early Christian theologians, proclaimed, “Wherever truth is present, God is its source.”

    For further reading, let me suggest:
    Philip Clayton, The Predicament of Belief: Science, Philosophy, and Faith
    Bruce Epperly, Emerging Process: Adventurous Theology for a Missional Church (Parson’s Post)
    John Haught, Cosmic Adventure: Science, Religion, and the Quest for Purpose
    John Haught, God and the New Atheism: A Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (Westminster John Knox)
    Alistair McGrath, Surprised by Meaning: Science, Faith, and How We Make Sense of Things
    John Polkinghorne, Science and Religion in Quest of Truth (Yale University)
    John Polkinghorne, Testing Scripture: A Scientist Explores the Bible (Brazos)
    Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (Harper)
    3. Can a charismatic, evangelical. mission-based church find a home for a post-modernist theologian/mystic?
    Yes, provided that its theology is open-spirited and adventurous.  Doctrines are often treated as idols rather than guideposts.  Moreover it needs to be spiritually and globally open, seeing diversity as a divine gift and source of growth and threat.  Jesus grew in wisdom and stature and so did we.
    Acts of the Apostles provides a good model for such an open-source spirituality.  Neither structures nor doctrines had been developed. The first followers of Jesus were making it up as they went along, inspired by the Holy Spirit to constantly revise their faith and sense of boundaries.  The mission and welcome of the Gentiles, as difficult as it was, opened the doors to new inspirations and challenged old and sacrosanct orthodoxies.

    To reach out, we need to risk changing our own understandings of God and our faith.

    Post-modernists don’t want to hear about God, they want to experience life in its wonder and beauty.
    They want to “taste and see” God’s goodness.  They have questions and visions and need to be heard.
    To reach out, we need to risk changing our own understandings of God and our faith: that’s what happened to Philip when he encountered the Ethiopian eunuch and Peter when he dreamed of unclean food and discovered nothing was unclean.  Remember that the old-time religion was once new-fangled.   The Protestant Reformers have a good word for us: the Reformation is always reforming and so should we.
    For further reflection:
    Rob Bell, Love Wins (Harper One)
    Bruce Epperly, Transforming Acts (Energion, [forthcoming June 2013])
    Patricia Adams Farmer, The Metaphor Maker (Create Space)
    Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy (Zondervan)
    Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming Faith (Harper One)
    Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christian (Jossey-Bass)
    Thomas Oord, The Nature of Love: A Theology (Chalice)
    Doug Pagitt, A Christianity Worth Believing (Jossey-Bass)
    Doug Pagitt, The Church in the Inventive Age (Sparkhouse)
    4. What are the possible roles for young people in a church in renewal? Would you give them opportunities to read, speak, lead a service, provide music, etc.? In other words, how fully can those in their teens (and even younger) participate in leading renewal?
    The future is now. Young adults, like the young boy with the five loaves and two fish, can be agents of transformation.  Young adults are not just future leaders, they can be leaders now.  Given good mentoring, they can grow in the faith, challenge old assumptions, suggest new ways, and pioneer in new technologies.  They can combine high tech (social media, web site construction, and fearlessness around technology) with high touch (hearts open to God) to advance God’s mission of love, healing, and Shalom.

    Young adults are not just future leaders, they can be leaders now.

    We need to listen, be willing to let go of control and power, and open to new ways of doing ministry to make room for a creative synthesis of tradition and innovation in church life.
    For suggested reading:
    Kenda Creasy Dean, Almost Christian: What Our Teenagers are Telling the Church (Oxford University Press)
    Kenda Creasy Dean and Andrew Root, The Theological Turn in Youth Ministry  (IVP)
    Kenda Creasy Dean, The God-Bearing Life: The Art of Soul Tending for Youth Ministry (Upper Room)
    Sharon Daloz Parks, Big Questions, Worthy Dreams: Mentoring Emerging Adults in Their Quest for Meaning, Purpose, and Faith (Jossey-Bass)
    5. What role would theological or doctrinal distinctives play in such a church? Is the particular theological flavor of the church important?

    As Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr recognized, all human activity is ambiguous, and so are denominational distinctives – and I will make the bold statement that even non-denominational churches have plenty, if not more, particular theological and liturgical baggage than many denominational churches; they just don’t think so!  Denominational distinctives can be spiritually suffocating and they can also be spiritually liberating.  They respond to different emotional, experiential, and spiritual styles.  They remind us that “we didn’t invent this,” and they serve as a challenge to those who want to jump over twenty-one hundred years of history to rediscover the illusory “New Testament church.”
    The church is always contextual and filtered through the lenses of our experience and as long as denominational distinctives can be allowed a degree of fluidity and transformation in relationship to global spirituality, the diversity of Christianity, and congregational spiritual and mission needs, they can be positive factors in Christian formation of persons and communities.
    For further reading:
    Edwin Aponte, Santo! Varieties of Latino/Latina Spirituality (Orbis)
    Bruce Epperly, Emerging Process: Adventurous Theology for a Missional Church (Parson’s Porch)
    Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy (Zondervan)
    Rowan Williams, Tokens of Trust: An Introduction to Christian Belief
    Rowan Williams,  Faith in the Public Square (A&C Black)
    6. What role does liturgy play in church renewal? Is it important whether the church is formal or informal, “high church” or “low church,” or what style of music is used?
    Liturgy and worship are central to congregational transformation.  The whole fabric of worship – hospitality, preaching, music, prelude, postlude, technology employed – can transform the life of faith. Today, worship needs to be global as well as local.  We need to embrace the experiences of Christians across the globe as well as across history.  This can as easily occur in a congregation of fifty as a congregation of five hundred.

    Liturgy and worship are central to congregational transformation.

    Everyone can be part of worship as readers, singers, greeters, musicians (with simple instruments such as maracas, finger cymbals, rain sticks).  Worship flourishes when it truly is the people’s work and when sermons inspire conversation and reflection.
    For further reading:
    Bruce Epperly and Daryl Hollinger, From a Mustard Seed: Enlivening Worship and Music in the Small Church (Alban)
    Michael Hawn, Gathering into One: Praying and Singing Globally  (Eerdman’s)
    Michael Hawn, One Bread, One Body: Exploring Cultural Diversity in Worship (Alban)
    Thomas Long, Beyond the Worship Wars (Abingdon)
    Marcia McFee, The Worship Workshop: Creative Ways to Design Worship Together (Abingdon)
    Robert Webber, Ancient-Future Worship (Baker)
    7. Can a pastor in a church that is part of a denomination lead that church in renewal? Do denominational politics prevent the kinds of creative actions that are necessary for church renewal?
    All congregations face limitations, but within the limitations emerge the possibilities.  While it is easier to transform a “new” church than a congregation with traditions, physical plant, and denominational distinctives, transformation can occur and transformation is always contextual.  The challenge of “non-denominational” churches is that they, in fact, have more baggage than they admit – the ego of the founding pastor, the lack of theological and liturgical structure, the temptation to assume the superiority of a certain style of worship (usually the illusion of the founders that they are doing something for the first time), the lack of connection with the communion of saints through history.

    … within the limitations emerge the possibilities.

    The times call for an appropriate boldness: the right blending of tradition and novelty in doing new things, experimenting with new paths of worship and evangelism, and exploring new types of worship spaces.  We need to launch out into the deep in ways that reflect the most imaginative possibilities for our communities.
    I suggest that all congregations that have a “history” explore using the “appreciative inquiry” process as a way of discerning their passions, gifts, and visions for the future.
    I suggest the following books:
    Mark Branson, Memories, Hopes, and Conversations: Appreciative Inquiry and Congregational Change (Alban)
    David Cooperrider and Diana Whitney, Appreciative Inqiury: A Positive Revolution in Change (Barrett-Koehler)
    Bruce Epperly, Emerging Process: Adventurous Theology for a Missional Church (Parson’s Porch)
    Darrell Gruder, Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America (Eerdman’s)
    Loren Mead, The Once and Future Church (Alban)
    Loren Mead, Transforming Churches for the Future (Alban)
    Margaret Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science (Barrett-Koehler)
    Alan Roxburgh,  Introducing the Missional Church (Baker)
    8. How can a pastor assigned to a new church discern the needs of that church and find the path to renewal for that specific congregation?
    Put briefly, he or she needs to pray with her or his eyes open!  He or she needs to recognize the gifts of the congregation, its specific challenges, and the context of its ministry.  Ministry and congregational life is always concrete and contextual and transformation occurs right where we are.
    The pastor needs to claim a flexible vision, grounded in prayer, but not a specific agenda that overlooks the spiritual gifts of this particular congregation.  We see in a mirror dimly and need to open to the unexpected movements of the spirit moving through this time and place.
    A life steeped in prayer and meditation, an openness to God speaking through the everyday moments of congregants, and a deeper realism, cognizant of the bottom line, but also aware that God can do great things within our limitations, are essential for renewal.   We need to apply the wisdom of Acts of the Apostles for our time and place – lively, making it up as we go along, open to the Spirit, building bridges not walls, welcoming otherness, and faithful to the best of tradition.
    I suggest the following texts:
    Robert Cornwall, Ultimate Allegiance: The Subversive Nature of the Lord’s Prayer (Energion)
    Robert Cornwall, Ephesians: A Participatory Study Guide (Energion)
    Bruce Epperly, Philippians: A Participatory Study Guide (Energion)
    Bruce Epperly, Tending to the Holy: The Practice of the Presence of God in Ministry (Alban)
    Bruce Epperly, Transforming Acts (Energion, [forthcoming June 2013])
    Kent Groff, Clergy Table Talk: Eavesdropping on Clergy Issues in the Twenty-first Century (Energion)
    Renita Weems, Listening for God: A Minister’s Journey Through Silence and Doubt (Touchstone)
    9. What is the role of the pastor’s personal prayer and devotional life (or that of the lay leadership)?
    The pastor’s prayer life is absolutely essential.  While the adage “pray as you can, not as you can’t” applies globally to spiritual formation, we have to begin by making the effort to place ourselves consciously in the flow God’s gentle providence.  I believe that all of life is a “call and response” in which God calls to us in every life situation.   God’s call is for us and for those around us.  Accordingly, pastors’ prayer life awakens them to God’s vision for their congregation and for pastoral encounters.
    In the spirit of Acts of the Apostles, pastors are challenged to be practical mystics and Pentecostals, constantly imbibing of the Spirit and then letting the Spirit flow from them to others.

    … pastors are challenged to be practical mystics and Pentecostals …

    I would begin simply, if I have found that the tasks of ministry have crowded out my prayer life, with a simple prayer to be open to God throughout the day.  This prayer is always answered, although the answers may transform your life.  I would invite pastors to simple breath prayers: taking a few minutes each day for stillness, breathing in God’s Spirit in “sighs too deep for words.”  One of my mentors used a breath prayer that followed this pattern:
    Inhale: I breathe the Spirit deeply in and
    Exhale:  blow it ___________ out again.
    (expressing how I feel, knowing that God is the ultimate recipient of
    our feelings – so blow it “happily,” “angrily,” “joyfully,” “peacefully,” etc)
    Our prayer life can and ought to be integrated with our preaching and pastoral care.  Praying without ceasing is a way of life, not one more thing to do in ministry.
    I suggest the following books on spirituality of ministry:
    Bruce Epperly, Starting with Spirit: Nurturing Pastoral Leadership (Alban)
    Bruce and Katherine Epperly, Tending to the Holy: The Practice of the Presence of God in Ministry (Alban)
    Bruce and Katherine Epperly, The Four Seasons of Ministry: Gathering a Harvest of Righteousness (Alban)
    Bruce and Katherine Epperly, Feed the Fire: Avoiding Clergy Burnout (Pilgrim)
    Kent Ira Groff, Clergy Table Talk: Eavesdropping on Ministry in the Twenty-first Century (Energion)
    Thich Nhat Hanh, Peace is Every Step (Bantam)
    Gerald May, The Awakened Heart (HarperOne)
    Flora Wuellner, Feed my Shepherds: Spiritual Healing and Renewal for Those in Christian Leadership
    (Upper Room)
    10. What is the role of the pastor’s academic and professional development in church renewal?
    Pastors are the rabbis and theologians of their congregations.  Study and continuing education are always contextual and related to your congregational dynamics.  Accordingly, there is no one ideal for the pastor-theologian.  Still, it is essential to the preaching of the gospel and pastoral care that we take continuing education seriously.  After all, would you want to go to a doctor who failed to keep up with medical research, a tax preparer who did not keep up with IRS regulations, or an attorney who hadn’t kept up with changes in the law?  We should expect the same from ourselves as pastors – and our congregants should expect gravitas and reflection from us!
    Study is often, like the good seed of Jesus’ parable, choked by the many demands of ministry.  But, despite busy schedules, preachers need to commit themselves to intellectual-theological and professional growth. This can be done in a variety of ways: workshops and retreats, on-line courses, D.Min. programs, weekly study time, and research of on-line blogs.  It may also include the arts, immersing yourself in great music (jazz, classical, etc.), going to museums, and attending plays.
    Our Jewish parents saw study as a form of worship, and we should do likewise as a way to “love God with our minds” and provide good theological and spiritual nourishment for our congregants and seekers.
    For further reflection, let me suggest:
    Marcus Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time  (Harper One)
    Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (Harper One)
    Philip Clayton, Transforming Theology (Fortress)
    Monica Coleman, Making a Way out of No Way: A Womanist Theology (Fortress)
    Bruce and Katherine Epperly, Tending to the Holy: The Practice of the Presence of God in Ministry (Alban)
    Bruce Epperly, The Four Seasons of Ministry: Gathering a Harvest of Righteousness (Alban)
    Bruce Epperly, Process Theology: A Guide for the Perplexed (Continuum)
    Bruce Epperly, Starting with Spirit: Nurturing Your Call to Pastoral Leadership (Alban)
    Bruce and Katherine Epperly, Feed the Fire: Avoiding Clergy Burnout (Pilgrim)
    Douglas John Hall, The End of Christendom and the Future of Christianity (Wipf and Stock)
    Catherine Keller, Toward the Mystery (Fortress)
    Patricia Adams Farmer, The Metaphor Maker (Create Space)
    Jay McDaniel, Living from the Center: Spirituality in an Age of Consumerism
    Brian McLaren, Why Did Jesus, Mohammed, and the Buddha Cross the Road (Jericho Books)
    Rebecca Parker and Rita Nakashima Brock, Proverbs of Ashes (Beacon)
    Marilynne Robinson, Gilead: A Novel
    Walter Wink, The Powers That Be (Theology for a New Millenium)
    Renita Weems, Listening for God: A Minister’s Journey through Silence and Doubt (Touchstone)
    N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (HarperOne)
    11.  What spiritual practices can transform congregational life?
    Congregations are called to be laboratories of spiritual formation, lively worship, and healing and wholeness.  The good news is always contextual, and grace abounds, but we need “practices,” ongoing disciplines that awaken us to God’s transformative love and power in our time.  Becoming a “practicing” church also invites seekers, many of whom, are in search of spiritual experiences and healing of body, mind, and spirit to try the church again “for the first time” or simply walk in the doors, letting go of previous preconceptions.

    Congregations are called to be laboratories of spiritual formation …

    I believe that pastor and congregants alike need to take seriously the long tradition of Christian spirituality, reflected in practices such as lectio divina (holy reading), imaginative prayer (Ignatian spirituality), centering prayer, sung prayers or chants, and healing worship and practices.  These invite the church to experience the liveliness and creativity characteristic of the community described in Acts of the Apostles.
    I suggest the following books on spiritual transformation:
    Diana Butler Bass, Christianity for the Rest of Us: How the Neighborhood Church is Transforming the Faith (Harper One)
    Diana Butler Bass, The Practicing Congregation (Alban)
    Dorothy Bass, Practicing the Faith (Jossey-Bass)
    Maxie Dunnam, The Workbook of Living Prayer
    Maxie Dunnam, The Workbook of Intercessor Prayer
    Bruce Epperly, The Center is Everywhere: Celtic Spirituality for a Postmodern Age (Parson’s Post)
    Bruce Epperly, God’s Touch: Faith, Wholeness, and the Healing Miracles of Jesus (Westminster John Knox)
    Bruce Epperly, Healing Marks: Healing and Spirituality in Mark’s Gospel (Energion)
    Bruce Epperly, Holy Adventure: 41 Days of Audacious Living
    Bruce Epperly, Philippians: A Participatory Study (Energion)
    Bruce Epperly, Healing Worship: Purpose and Practice (Pilgrim)
    Bruce Epperly, Tending to the Holy: The Practice of the Presence of God in Ministry (Alban)
    Bruce Epperly, Transforming Acts (Energion, [forthcoming June 2013])
    Kent Ira Groff, Active Spirituality (Alban)
    Kent Ira Groff, The Soul of Tomorrow’s Church (Upper Room)
    Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Sabbath (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux)
    Sara Miles, Take this Bread (Ballantine)
    Kathleen Norris, Cloister Walk (Riverhead)
    Joyce Rupp, The Cup of Our Life (Ave Maria)

  • Joel: Question 1 Reply 1

    Elgin is correct: the discussion usually revolves around the policing of either the item or the person. Yes, he is correct, partially, in pointing out the problems of enforcing any type of gun control. While his evidence is somewhat anecdotal, most evidences are in this regard. For instance, I know many, including myself, who use guns for nothing but hunting and would not think of stockpiling weapons in fear. Or, I know some people who have at one time or another suffered mental breakdowns and these people should never possess anything more deadly than a plastic straw. Unfortunately, Elgin’s point is a black-and-white dichotomy, and it is a severely falsely dichotomy.
    Thus, his first solution, that of more guns, flies in the face of wisdom, logic, and reality. The best analogy to Elgin’s solution is this: to end AIDs, we give everyone AIDs instead of government programs designed at education and supplying protection. Or, with a more theological slant — to combat sin, we make everything sin so that no one recognizes the possibility of no sin. Are we supposed to carry guns in order to prevent the desperately few mental cases? This goes against the role of Government, the principles of “community,” and in many cases, would challenge economic and theological principles. Added to this is the Milgram experience whereby people are shown to be intrinsically open to suggestion and rather evil if they are convinced they do not have to suffer consequences.
    Theologically, a vigilante populace, with the individual armed and ready to do battle, is against Scripture. In Romans 13, we are told that the governing authorities are the sword, the might. Elgin proposes that those carrying concealed weapons, against the sum total of human experience, would help to either defend or disarm shooters and wait for the police. This goes behind the duty of the individual to self-defense to co-oping the duties of the governmental sword. Further, this goes into self-offense. We need look no further than the excessive use of Florida’s “Stand your Ground Laws.” To force, under the banner of peace and safety, the citizenry to become the police is not something that we as a society are prepared for, or we as Christians should support.
    One of the larger errors in my friends view is the idea that we can separate guns and people. We give soldiers guns to kill people; we arm police officers in the unlikely event they must shoot someone in the line of duty; and we would arm individuals by mandate with the intent to defend with extreme prejudice. If an architect designs a building that is faulty, we will blame not the building but the architect. If a doctor uses a medical procedure designed to kill people and succeeds, we will prosecute the doctor. The analogies are endless here, but can be summed up in this. We cannot easily separate the tools of destruction from the people who use them. Without assault weapons such as the ones used in Arizona, Colorado, and Connecticut, the murders if they would still be as such would not be mass murders. To pretend that some sort of separation exists between the person who pulls the trigger and the trigger connected to the hammer is to ignore an ontological reality, I fear.
    My friend ends his statement by turning to the nature of sin in humans and, what is frankly, a cop-out. We can eliminate mass murder, or rather, reduce it to the point where we it is a shock rather than just another occurrence. Sin is a scar, but not the total of human nature. It is a sickness that can be contained by laws, but never cured. Our need to take, to kill, to enslave, to lust are things that can be limited through proper community responses, namely laws. We see this because we have ended slavery in this country, we have established property laws as well at anti-theft measures. We have put in place, in most places in this country, laws that will severely punish rape as well as have established educational programs on a national level that tackle the major issues of the day, such as rape, drunk driving, and a host of issues. Sin is not the totality of human nature — to strive for betterment is. Therefore, we recognize a problem exists and it is our better human nature that will create a path to either fix the problem or to limit the issues giving rise to the problem.

  • Elgin: Question 1 Reply 1

    As I read Joel Watts’ answer, I first found a lot that I agreed with, but soon the differences emerged.  I agree that there is a significant social component to this issue.  What we do as individuals often impacts others.  But while I agree in broad concept, we will probably disagree over the details and specifics on this and many other issues.
    I also found it interesting that both of us listed problems with our mental health system as the first of the three things that need to be done. While we would differ on some of the details, this is a very complex and complicated area, with a lot of room for improvement.
    But that was pretty much where the agreement ended. While I agreed people are reluctant to say “anything or much of anything” until after a shooting, I do not think this is because people “shy away from seeing all lives in a community dependent upon one another.”  I find it far more likely that they shy away lest they be considered “judgmental.”  The problem in a culture that accepts pretty much anything is that the line between just another of many alternative lifestyles, and these murders, can become very fine indeed and the stigma against being judgmental is very high.
    Of course then there is the problem of what happens if you do report someone. The answer is not much. A distressed mother who lives in fear of her child wrote just after the last shooting, that a social worker told her that the “only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime.”  So we have a culture that punishes people for incorrectly reporting, but does very little if you do report.  Is it any wonder people are reluctant to report?
    Not too surprisingly, the biggest difference occurred over the issue of gun control. Frankly I believe that movies that glorify violence such a “Django Unchained” and “Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D,” which for a time were the two most popular movies in the country, are a far more profitable area of focus. Still, I would oppose any government effort to “control” such movies.  But we should ask ourselves, why we as a culture celebrate them, “Django Unchained” being nominated for four Oscars, including best picture.
    The greater problem is that not only has gun control not worked, it will not work, and if anything is counterproductive, as the biggest effect of all this talk of control is to spur the sale of guns. Thus with all the recent renewed interest in gun control, gun sales are at record highs.
    One key question is, how is taking guns away from law abiding citizens supposed to make them safer?  Watts points out that Chicago has the highest gun murder rate in the country. It also has some of the strictest gun control laws, nor is this an aberration. Other contenders for this dubious honor also have very strict gun control laws.
    The recent focus and been on clip size and ammunition purchases. Watt proposes weapons be limited to combined 15 rounds.  This would make it illegal to own two weapons that had 8 rounds clips. This is hardly practical. It is not uncommon for gun enthusiasts to own 8 guns.  More importantly, someone who is serious about guns can easily fire 1000-2000 rounds a month in practice.  Do we really want a system that makes it more difficult to practice so that people can handle their guns safely?
    Finally, it is counterproductive in that it makes sensible gun control much more difficult.  For example, the biggest objection to registration is the fear that registration will make confiscation easier.  To this has been recently added the fear that your name and address will be published in an interactive map by a newspaper.
    Not only do such actions make the whole discussion about legitimate controls more difficult, it is downright dangerous. For a time I worked as a teacher in Juvenile Hall, and my wife worked at a mental hospital.  At such places it is the norm to keep personal information to a minimum, particularly your home address for reasons of safety.  But if I were to have a registered gun, does that mean I have to live in fear that a newspaper will publish a map to my house because some editor did not like guns and wanted to punish gun owners?
    Bottom line is that gun control is not the answer. More importantly, it focuses on things rather than people, and thus only distracts from what are the real problems.
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

  • Political Debate: Discussing Serious Questions

    Following our great Energion political debate last year, two participants were interested in a longer, slower, debate with more time for responses and serious discussion. Thus began our year-long political debate. In this debate, two Energion authors, Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. (Preserving Democracy, Evidence for the Bible, and Christianity and Secularism) and Joel Watts (From Fear to Faith [forthcoming]), will answer a series of monthly questions and then each will respond to the other’s answers.
    Watch this site and/or subscribe to our RSS feed to keep up with this discussion.
    First Question: Violence
    Elgin’s First Answer
    Joel’s First Answer
    Elgin’s Second Answer
    Joel’s Second Answer
    Elgin’s Third Answer
     
     
     

  • First Question: Violence

    Background

    Someone once told me that if you wanted to find a bad law, just look for one that was named for a particular crime victim. The more a law was tailored to a specific event, the less effective it would be in dealing with the problem at hand, and the worse side effects it would have. Currently the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut has opened a debate on the issue of gun violence in this country. I’ve noticed a tendency to argue particular policies based on whether they would have been successful in preventing that specific incident.
    For example, would eliminating loopholes in background checks on gun purchases at gun shows have kept the Sandy Hook shooter from acquiring the guns he used? Would an armed guard in the elementary school have prevented the tragedy or at least some of the loss of life? Irrespective of whether either of those policies would be effective and appropriate, focusing on whether they would have prevented a single incident seems to be too narrow a focus in formulating a policy.

    So here’s the first question:

    What are the three most important actions that should (or should not) be taken in this country to deal with violent crime in public places? (Not taking an action that others advocate may be an “action,” for example, not placing guards in schools or not changing laws on background checks might be one of your three actions.)
    Elgin’s First Answer
    Joel’s First Answer
    Joel’s First Reply
    Elgin’s First Reply
    Elgin’s Second Reply
    Joel’s Second Reply
     
     

  • Elgin Hushbeck: First Answer

    Link to the Question

    Following each mass killing, as the shock, outrage, and grief fade, and sometimes even before this, the question inevitably becomes what should we do?  Is there any way that we could stop these from occurring?  As with so much in our society, there are vast differences in how people begin to answer this question.
    The first and perhaps biggest divide is over how to understand the problem.  Is this a problem with people, or things? This difference manifests itself in the debate over gun control.  Those who call for more gun control see the problem in terms of things and believe that the solution is to be found in controlling the things that are causing the problems, i.e., guns.
    Even if they were correct, the approach of controlling guns is at best problematic. Even if we put the issue of the Second Amendment aside, there are still a lot of practical issues that question the efficacy of controlling guns as a solution to mass shooting.
    The simple fact is that hunting, and in some places even self-protection, mean that guns are an integral part of people’s lives.  And self-protection here does not mean just against crime. Some, for example, take a pistol loaded with snake shot when fishing.   So as a bottom line, a complete ban on guns is about as likely as a complete ban on automobiles. After all, cars kill far more people each year.
    Pushing for a partial ban is even more problematic.  While commonly done under the guise of banning “assault weapons,” the term “assault weapon” is a political term, more than a description of a type of weapon.   Trying to draw any effective line between what is an “assault weapon”  vs. other supposedly more legitimate types of firearms is very difficult if not completely arbitrary, and hardly effective.
    But there is a deeper problem with gun control that goes to the heart of different ways of viewing this issue.  Here in Wisconsin we recently passed a concealed carry law.  As a result, a number of businesses put up signs banning concealed weapons on their property.  These signs puzzle me. Frankly, I find it very difficult to conceive of someone intent on committing mass murder coming to one of these businesses, seeing the sign prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, and saying, “Oh darn,  I guess I will just have to go find somewhere else to inflict my reign of terror” as they walk off disheartened.
    In fact, the evidence would indicate that the opposite is true. These mass murderers go to places where there will be a lot of people, and where they can be reasonably assured that they will be the only ones with guns.
    The reason for this can be seen with the shooting in Colorado in 2007.  Having shot 4 people at Youth With A Mission in Arvada, the murderer went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs with multiple firearms.  He murdered 16 and 18 year old sisters in the parking lot before heading into the church.  He wounded 3 others, before his shooting spree was cut short by Jeanne Assam, who had been carrying a concealed weapon, and who shot him.
    So guns are not the problem. The concealed weapon carried by Assam saved lives.  The problem is people who seek to murder others.  Get rid of all guns, and you would still have a problem, and given how lethal other options can be, perhaps even a bigger one.
    While it runs against the grain of so much conventional wisdom, the lesson of the New Life Church shooting is that less gun control, not more, may be a more effective solution.  Pick any of the recent mass shootings and imagine there had been someone like Jeanne Assam carrying a concealed weapon.  If nothing else, just the knowledge that there might be a Jeanne Assam present would likely make a murderer more cautious, slowing them down and giving the police more time to arrive.
    But while this would reduce the death toll, it still would not go to the heart of the problem, which involves people, not things.   Part of the problem is that our care of the mentally ill has been significantly crippled by the concern over civil rights and privacy since the 1960s.  One result of this is seen in the homeless problem–people who are incapable of caring for themselves but who cannot be institutionalized.
    But the problem is even deeper.   One aspect of this has been the attack on the family structure, and the resulting breakdown of the family.  As George Guilder wrote in his landmark book, Wealth and Poverty, the family structure is the basic social unit and if it is allowed to collapse, we will need a welfare state to take care of the women, and a police state to deal with the men.   Thus one thing we could do is seek ways to strengthen the family.  The problem is that this cannot be done without quickly running into the most basic problem of all: the inability to make moral judgments.
    For decades now, we have raised our children with the false belief that we should not judge others; that it is wrong to say that some choices are good and some are bad.  Instead, we celebrate diversity.  It is clearly false because it is self-refuting, for to say you should not judge, is to judge those who do.
    While this is a much bigger problem than just violence, it does show up there as well.  Following the murder of nine people at a Mall in Omaha, a friend of the murderer reflected this non-judgmental view when he said, “I don’t think anything less of him, because I know that [he] would never have done anything like this just for the fun of it, it was he wanted to go out in style and that is what he did, he went out in style.”
    There are a lot of other things that could be added to this list, and ultimately, given the nature of sin, we will probably never be able to eliminate mass murder, but we could go a long way towards reducing them.
     
     
     
     
     

  • Joel Watts: First Answer

    Link to the Question

    What are the three most important actions that should be taken in this country to deal with violent crime in public places?
    The issue of violent crime is a social issue, so it must be handled in a communal fashion. One of the largest factors in promoting inaction in response to violent crime is the neurosis of individuality. I do not propose this as an action or step; however, we must recognize the role our focus on individuality against community have in our reactions to these events. How often do we hear, after the fact, a community react by saying they had suspected something was going on; yet, no one says anything, or much of anything, because they tend to shy away from seeing all lives in a community dependent upon one another.
    One action we can take is first is to look at the way we speak about and address mental health concerns in this country. There is still a stigma attached to various conditions we know are treatable with medication and non-dangerous. Worse yet are the stigmas attached to even seeking mental help. Nationally, we have seen ads run opposing domestic abuse, drunk driving, and a host of other issues that seek to inform public opinion or to destigmatize the reporting of various issues. It would be worthwhile to have a national campaign to destigmatize mental illness, ranging from depression to far deeper issues. Likewise, an increase in funding to mental health facilities is needed. Free screenings could be a part of a national health care plan as well as a mandatory part of employee health care plans. Granted, many plans already include some sort of mental health care, but likewise, these plans must assure the employees of their confidentiality.
    A second path forward is one that seeks to prevent the ability to carry out  mass violence. Magazines should have their capacities limited. The higher the capacity for damage the lower the capacity of bullets. For example, the AR-15 would be limited to, say three rounds. The .22 pistol will have whatever magazine can fit in the handle without exceeding the handle. Further, all weapons with magazines will need to have added features so that reloading is an involved process. In other words, the magazine cannot be reloaded with a single hand, but must involve both. Also, I would limit the number of weapons a person can own, either by weapon count or magazine capacity count. Perhaps one can own 15 round magazines. A bolt-action rifle with one round magazine will enable a person to own fifteen. Along these same lines, we must close the holes around gun shows and private sellers. Also, I would include a mandatory license for gun owners that one can get only with training. This license will have to provide an option young hunters, however.
    There must be a concerted effort to remove all illegal guns from the American populace.  Chicago, at the moment, has the highest gun murder rate in the country. I would support the Illinois National Guard (that well-regulated militia provided for by the Constitution) as deputized members of local law enforcement going door to door in the most crime ridden neighborhoods of Chicago and confiscating illegal weapons. It would be beneficial to have a designated day or two to allow all illegal weapons to find their way into the hands of local authorities without penalty or questions asked. This could be replicated on a State-by-State basis so that illegal weapons would be off the streets. These guns would be destroyed within one day of confiscation so as to prevent re-dissemination. Further, the owners of the guns, if they can be identified, will pay a fine unless they could prove that the guns were sold (privately) or stolen and reported to the police. If pawn shops or private gun dealers were found to have sold stolen weapons or allowed stolen weapons to go unreported, they would be fined and their business licenses forfeited.

Energion Direct
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.