On Atheism

My husband recently passed along the link to a blog post, and suggested it might be an interesting post for me to reply to on my blog. It’s written by a guy Chris knew in high school who is an atheist.

First off, I have to confess. I don’t think atheists are bad or even stupid people. And it ticks me off when Christians try to paint them as such. I believe strongly in the quote I first heard in the intro to the DC Talk song “What If I Stumble,” which is, “The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today are Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyles, that is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.” Put more simply, “Dear Christians who try to attack others who don’t believe as you do, or who point out the hypocrisy that is too present in our lives—it’s doing more harm than good.”

That being said, I believe strongly in my beliefs (though I don’t feel like someone questioning my beliefs is dangerous to me) and I’m always interested to learn how others see us and what questions, disagreements and affirmations there are. 

Long story short, if you want me to rip this guy or any atheist a new one, wrong blog. Wrong pastor. Wrong person.

PROVING A NEGATIVE

Yeah, none of us can be arrogant here. The same arguments used to “prove” Christianity or any faith can be used to disprove it. Actually, trying to prove faith is kind of silly. I can assert (and maybe even prove) a great deal. But there is a necessary step of faith (I don’t call it a leap because I think there’s a lot of foundation needed to make it). But to think one can simply lay out a set of beliefs and assume the hearer or reader will assent is just silly.

PERFECT IMPERFECTION

Indeed. It would be incorrect to say that God “needs” us, or that God was imperfect before humanity. Many Christian theologians prefer instead to talk about basically God had things so good God wanted to have being experience joy and relationship, etc., all the things God does. “A perfect god who creates anything is not perfect.” I disagree. Would you suggest, then, that a couple in perfect love (if such was attainable) would be necessarily denigrating their love for one another were they to have children? I don’t personally think so. In fact, love at its best seeks more. Love is by its nature that which goes beyond. Perfection that is stagnant is something other than perfect. True perfection, I believe, needs greater and greater growth. Now, you’ll say, that implies the first perfection was less than complete. I think we’re dealing with a slightly different idea of perfection. Perfection as a constant, continuing state, and perfection as a terminal state.

HIGHER WAYS

I suspect that Al would not want the case of Atheism to be seen by all based on the thoughts of the simplest cases, I wish he also would not criticize the simplest, least developed views of Christianity.  He quotes the line, “his ways are higher” as “imbecilic.” Well yeah, sometimes that’s a pretty stupid response to life. And it seems to refer to a rather callous God who is more of a puppetmaster (albeit following some divine script). Some Christians believe God works in this way, some do not. I don’t personally believe God sits around prescribing all events. I believe that somehow  (and no, I can’t explain how perfectly) we have meaningful choices that lead to meaningful outcomes (sometimes consequences, sometimes ones that others suffer because of our decisions).

I don’t know why we have meaningful choices—but I believe that we do. I don’t believe God HAD to give us meaningful choices, but that God chose to. Well, perhaps this gets back to the statement Al is so upset with, but I believe I am getting back to it at least in a somewhat different sense.

Let me explain my understanding of Sin (which, I believe, is in line with the early church fathers). Sin is a focus on self. Augustine talked about being curved in on one’s self. Therefore, the intention was for us to orient our lives to God. Adam and Eve chose to curve in on one’s self. And that has become so much a part of who we are that we can’t break the habit without some outside help. That, I believe, comes through Jesus Christ. Do I think it would all have been simpler if God had just controlled our choices from the beginning and made us focus on self? Maybe. But life would be a lot less interesting, and then I’d really wonder what the point of it all would have been.

ABRAHAM, I NEED A FAVOR

Yeah, the problem here is that Al is reflecting on just one strand of Christian theology, and a fairly modern one at that. I’m highly persuaded by people like C.S. Lewis (himself a long time atheist) and his book The Great Divorce. I would suggest his book not only presents a different view of heaven, hell, etc. is than Al is referring to, but also a view that more Christians than not actually hold. Scripture doesn’t prescribe damnation nearly as much as some Christians like to believe, and I believe that while we do have meangful choices to make and that salvation (i.e. reconciliation with God) is possible only through Jesus, I think God is able to make that happen in some interesting ways, and certainly outside the cliché timelines and prayers some think hold the exclusive key to the kingdom.

SO IT IS WRITTEN

Yeah, the first paragraph is also a refutation of an argument that is unnecessary if you don’t go along with the version of Christianity Al seems to take issue with. I agree it would be entirely ridiculous for God is penalize those who haven’t heard of God (and don’t get me started on predestination and that that means for people not having any choice even if they have). I’m not really sure what source other than written pieces would be better suited to share the story of God’s work in the lives of humanity. But is it necessarily limited? Sure. And the suggestion that simply reading the Bible anyway is how some comes to belief is too simple, and really very rarely the case. Sometimes. But those times are noteworthy because of their rarity.

Okay, I’ll be the first to attest to the horrible consequences of missionaries. Believe me, I usually am. It often annoys people. But they also did a ton of good, and that even without including the whole, “telling people about Jesus,” thing. It’s naïve to blame religion—any religion—for the base human reasons for arrogance, murder, greed and just generally being horrible people. That religious people are these things is unfortunately true. But their religions reject them. And just because all the people at one point in history thought religion justified a thing (take, for example, slavery) doesn’t mean that religion actually DOES—these are the cases where followers in the future have to admit their forbearers were wrong. It must be nice to proclaim no shared ideoglogy and have to bear responsibility for no one’s faults’ but your own. I don’t have that luxury. My only hope is to move forward and deal with the past (believe me, I do this, sometimes that stuff a Christian said to someone else a week ago) and to leave things better for those who will follow me. I don’t always do well. And sometimes I make things worse. But I try. Certainly there needs to be a balanced view of missionaries. But to broadly paint them as evil is as naïve and uninformed as to paint them uniformly as heroes.

I, and many if not most Christians, do not believe the Bible is inerrant. I believe it contains all things necessary unto salvation. I do not believe, for example, that the sun stood still—this is based on a very different view of how planets operate than we now believe to be true. But I think scripture was trying to make a point there about a day that seemed like it was never going to end. I don’t believe that detail is necessary for me to believe unto salvation. I am very cautious about people who think the Bible is inerrant. In most cases, they just don’t have a well developed theology or understanding of scripture and think it has to be inerrant or none of it is true. That’s immature, but it’s where most people are.

I get why we like simplicity. Black and white. It’s simple. Seems easy. Lots of people want life to be easier. I’d like that too. The problem is life isn’t simple, and no view of God (or the absence of God) is, actually, simple. It bears with it challenges, assumptions, rejections and complexities. I distrust ANYONE who presents their view arrogantly or as the obvious answer. I particularly take issue with Christian who do so, since I think if I have any basis upon which to criticize anyone, it’s them. But it seems to me that Al is arguing in the same way.

I SECOND THAT EMOTION

Emotion is a response to something previously unknown. Really? What is unknown to me each time I feel love for my husband. Did I forget I loved him? I don’t get Al’s argument here, so I’m not sure how to respond.

I believe that God is with us all the time, and cares about us, loves us in fact, but the simplistic humanized God that Al is attacking especially in this last section is not the God I worship. My God is not a middle school boy who giggles when someone talks about sex. God is not a wise old guy with a long beard sitting up on a throne somewhere. I’ll join Al if that’s the kind of God he rejects. But to arrogantly and immaturely discount my belief (doing just what he’s upset some Christians do about Atheists) then it’s hard to take him seriously.

Al writes, “Humans are more than capable of moral behavior, altruistic actions, inner peace and happiness on our own.” I disagree. But how am I to prove a negative? I see it all over, that’s the best I can do. I don’t think it’s a statement to be argued but experienced. I just don’t have such high regard for humans.

All in all, Al’s arguments are hardly new, and certainly not the best case for Atheism (though I agree it’s hardly something one can make a case FOR). It’s by definitely NOT all the other stuff. I do think, though, that I could make a better, more informed and nuanced refutation of Christianity myself. I just don’t happen to believe it would be true.

I can’t control the crazy, undeveloped theology of some other Christian groups. Heck, they might be right. Al might be right. I don’t believe they are, for many, many reasons, but it would be arrogant to say otherwise, and to need to justify myself without admitting possibility that I’m wrong would be, I believe, sinful. I’m not God, so I have to admit there’s a lot I don’t know, don’t understand, and can’t explain.

A little while ago, Chris and I watched a documentary called Religulous. It’s pretty awesome, you should check it out. It’s made by Bill Maher, who if I remember, was raised in a religious home but is now an atheist. At one point he says he just takes issue with anyone who’s so SURE. I concur. I mean, I think there’s a difference between arrogance (or naivite) and sure, but I get, I thin, what he’s saying and I agree. And I apply that same lens to everyone. Christian, Atheist, Muslim, etc.

Of Mormons

There has been a lot of talk in the past year about Mormons (of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)--including especially whether they are Christian or not.

This discussion (it can't rightly be called a debate--the LDS is convinced they're Christian, most other Christians are sure they aren't really, and the news media doesn't really get to vote) has been raised because of the presidential candidacies of two Mormons. The popular discussion actually raises three questions:

1. Who gets to decide who is Christian and who isn't?
2. Are Mormons Christians?
3. Should we eliminate someone as a candidate if they are not Christian?

Let's tackle these one at a time.

Who gets to decide who is Christian and who isn't?

We're still trying to figure this one out. Some groups have a pretty tight hold on deciding who is and isn't (Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics come to mind--though the modern ecumenical movement has even eased a bit of that). Conservative Protestant groups at times also claim a unique hold on Christian truth, and disagreements over baptism, communion and church beliefs and polity continue to fill the space and discussion between groups. And certainly there are some who hold weird views.

Generally, though, we fall back on the historic creeds. Creeds that were often formulated in the fire of theological debates that at times became deadly. This wasn't child's play. Through that, and through the ages, with our disagreements about sacraments and church structure, we've been able to at least hold onto the creeds--those words that give us clarity about what the core of Christianity affirms. Throughout history there have been groups who called themselves Christian who disagreed with key parts of the creeds (Apostles and Nice-an-Constantinopolitan being key) but everyone else at least agreed they were far afield--so far that they could not be seen to be in line with historic Christianity. Were they more correct? Perhaps. But only they thought so. It's one thing to argue they were right, and quite another to argue they were in line with everyone else.

We may be uncomfortable with having any rules about who is in and who is out, but how can it but be that way? A Muslim is not a Christian based on religious beliefs. Those two faith traditions say very different things about Jesus that cannot be reconciled--one (or both) must be wrong. Both cannot be simultaneously correct. There are some key Christian beliefs that cannot be changed even a little, or the whole of it is lost. And these differences really do matter to the core of Christianity.

Today, those same creeds guide our discussions and reflections on these questions. There are, of course, some fine lines. But in many cases the lines aren't fine at all. Such is the case with the LDS.

Are Mormons Christians?

Properly speaking, no. For the fullest explaination of this from a United Methodist perspective, check out the UMC's statement. Some key quotes from the statement:

According to Mormonism, "Not only was God the Father once a human being, but he was and still is clearly male gendered and married to a heavenly mother of clear female gender." (yeah, no, not cool by Christian standards, or according to the statement, "Such belief regarding a gendered, married, and procreating god is at the core of LDS doctrine of God and makes claims about the essential nature of God that are in sharp contrast to the doctrinal statements of United Methodism.")

"Basic Christological differences exist between the two traditions...the Jesus of the LDS tradition is not co-eternal with the Father and “of one substance with the Father.” On the contrary, he is thought to be begotten of the Father (and Heavenly Mother) s are all pre-mortal spirits...Begotten of two heavenly parents, as were all subsequent spirit children, this Jehovah of the LDS tradition constitutes an entirely separate and distinct being from the Father. He is neither eternal (in the sense of having no beginning and no end) nor “of one substance with the Father.” He was not even “true God” at this point in time, for he was as we all were in our pre-mortal existence. Jehovah, then, was first a spirit child and later became a mortal as he, like all spirit children, was born in bodily form. Here again, however, Jesus was unique. While all other spirits were born to two mortal parents, Jesus was born to Mary and the Heavenly Father, who quite literally fathered Jehovah again, this time in the flesh, enabling him to be born as Jesus Christ."

"These theological claims identify the end or goal of salvation as the achievement of godhood. The way of salvation is following the model set by those who have already attained that status. They leave ambiguous the precise salvific role, if any, of the already existing gods.23 They do, however, make it clear that according to LDS theology, there are already in existence the three gods of the Godhead and a god who presumably presided over the mortality of the Father. There will be more gods to come, as at least some of those at an earlier stage of the “divine continuum” will become gods, as did the Father. Thus by traditional Christian definition, the LDS faith is polytheistic, and the role of Jesus  Christ as Lord and Savior is decidedly compromised."

"Whereas in the United Methodist tradition and the broader Christian tradition,baptism as a sacrament is, first and foremost, about what God doesfor us, in the LDS tradition, baptism as an ordinance is, first and foremost,about human acceptance of God’s plan. God is understood to act in an LDSbaptism, but God acts to forgive sins in response to human worthiness."

The statement's explanation of baptism is best read in whole.

On top of that, the history and origins of the LDS are...interesting. But then, so are everyone else's. Really, though, you should read up about what they believe about Jesus' appearances to the Native Americans as well as Joseph Smith and

To say that some group's theology and practices are not in line with historic Christianity is not to speak to God's love for them, or even, as I suggested, whether they are right or wrong. It's just that if they are right, then the rest of us are wrong.

Ultimately, I personally affirm the historic creeds of the church. I believe they most fully explain God and God's activity in the world and our lives. But one must allow for the fact that they could be wrong. In order for the LDS' beliefs and practices to be correct, the historic creeds must be wrong.

As one of my college professors said, good, smart people disagree. we have much to learn from people of other faith traditions and a variety of belief systems--including those who believe in no divine power or being(s). But in terms of religious orthodoxy, we must admit we cannot all be simultaneously correct.

Should we eliminate someone as a candidate if they are not Christian?

That is up to you as a voter. And if you're going to have a religious litmus test, you're in for a bumpy ride. Because who passes? Someone who publicly affirms the same beliefs are yours? What if they say they do, but really do not. On any given Sunday, tons of people in church pews would flat out reject some if not all of the historic creeds.

Unfortunately, we've seen too many leaders who affirm Christian values only to later discover they don't live them. And what about how they do or do not intend to apply their beliefs to others? There are many politicians who disagree with abortion but vote in favor of a woman's right to choose. At issue here is what role a person's faith out to play in government. And that is a different thing than what that person's personal faith is. It absolutely is.

Let me give you an example of why this is true even on a contentious issue like abortion. Let's say you think a person's religious beliefs here OUGHT to impact their policies. The same is not true of all aspects of their faith tradition. Is Sunday a legal day of sabbath? I don't know of any place in the county where it is--not to mention the Bible clearly says Saturday (or rather sundown Friday) is the appointed sabbath. Or, does the law allow for children to be stoned for disrespecting their parents? NO. So there is, at some point, a line which separates our religious beliefs from what is appropriate both (1) to still abide by today and (2) to impose on others. We may have different opinions on where that line is but it exists. In our country at least, it does. And thank God for that.

Here's my confession--yes, I do consider religion when I look at candidates. But I cannot say I have a definitive rule. There are times I would absolutely choose a Muslim, or an atheist, or yes, even a Mormon, over someone whose professed religious beliefs are close to mine (aside from what they say, I can only judge otherawise based on behavior). All other things being equal, I suppose I might be inclined to choose a mainline Christian over one who is not. But "all other things" are rarely ever equal.

So, no answers. You have to work through this all yourself, and decide how much if at all it matters. Who'd have thought a presidential race would have us talking about baptismal theology?!

The Church in 2092

As promised yesterday, I want to share some of my thoughts about the church in 2092. (If you didn't watch the GBOD video I posted yesterday, it may be helpful to do that before reading further, since I think my thoughts today are still quite affected by it.)

Leaner and Meaner

Ok, I don't mean "mean-er." God knows the church could use a lot less mean-ness. But leaner and more effective, or more bang for the...buck...time...commitment--that just doesn't have the same ring to it. I agree with the video that in 2092, there will be fewer, but larger and stronger congregations. Now, let me say that this is really a regional issue--to say this as an East Coast-er is to speak to a different reality than, say, my husband's home state of Minnesota. There are fewer, but generally larger churches there. Calvary is, one of the largest churches in our conference (which covers DC, lots of MD, and parts of WV). In Minnesota, we'd be perhaps the high side of average.

We cannot sustain the network we currently have. The system worked really well in the early days of the denomination and country--the wide network of small meeting houses--but we are still reeling from the invention that has most challenged churches: the internal combustion engine. Yep, that's right, the car. It allows people to CHOOSE what church they attend, especially if they want to stick with one denomination (otherwise, you have the three churches in your town to choose from).

I believe the United Methodist Church has a powerful witness, and our theology, I believe, speaks to where people are and where God seeks to take them. That witness can remain strong even if there are fewer formal congregations. In fact, I think the only way to make sure that is so is to strategically evaluate where formal congregations need to exist and be very clear on their functions. These fewer, larger congregations need top-notch staff, communication and networking systems. they need to be nimble, not overly addicted to themselves (a healthy dose of self-awareness and a sinful focus on self are very different). These congregations should focus on empowering and equipping people (not pastors, but laity) to do ministry, and should provide the framework and guidance for them to be successful.

Fewer, more effective congregations will entail a shift in how we evaluate and assign pastors. These fewer, larger congregations will likely require more pastors to oversee specific areas (it actually takes great skill and time to empower people--it's easier to do it yourself, though obviously more limiting).

Small Groups as Key System Components

It ain't new, folks. Wesley's Methodists grew because they were nimble and able to expand (and contract) as population shifted and the culture of a place did. With fewer, larger congregations, people will be at a great distance from the main campus of those congregations. Those congregations should be actively connecting with, planting and growing gatherings of people throughout their regions. As these large congregations get clear about their unique identities, the small gatherings will be able to serve as outgrowths and new manifestations of those congregations. They will be lay-led, but well-resourced and supported by the congregation's pastors and staff.

Attention will need to be given to training and supervision of these small gatherings. We will need to balance the need for cohesiveness and unity with the flexibility for these groups to have their own place and identity. As a systems person, it kind of freaks me out to think of the chaos possible, but I believe there is a way to balance both the need for unity and independence.

These small groups must necessarily not become attached to one location or leader, though one suspects they will have great stability in each. There will need to be "new" (think back to Wesley's day) expectations fro lay leadership as well as a revised idea of the role of clergy. These small gatherings will have a clear connection with the larger congregation, but not merely as a satellite group. In fact, I would anticipate that many in that group may worship Sunday mornings with the congregation (which likely has a couple sites) but during the week meets for support with this group. The group may have ancillary activitiies, but specialized programming will primarily flow from the congregation, though may be implemented in different ways in different communities covered.

Clergy Leaders & Order

There are a lot of things people currently expect of their pastors. And lots of things pastors expect of themselves. In 80 years, pastors CANNOT be the ones DOING the ministry of the congregation. In fact, I would suggest (as the Call to Action findings do) that the more vibrant congregations today are ones where lay people, not pastors are DOING the vast majority of the ministry.

Pastors will need to be trainers, coaches, managers (yes, managers--this isn't a dirty word) and visionaries. Pastors will need to have top-notch people skills, and the ability to appropriately explain theology will not matter if that pastor cannot see how that matters for and should be applied to the work of the church.

Senior pastors of these fewer, larger congregations will need to be people who could function well as CEOs of major businesses, and they must also possess preaching and teaching skills. These skills are certainly those sought even today, but in 80 years, there will need to be clarity about what pastors are on that track and which are called to be associates, or specialized pastors. Indeed, just as in business, we will need specialists--HR, finance, operations, etc. I believe in 80 years, we will need to value all pastors by recognizing that most people are not called to be generalists.

In 80 years, I would see there being, perhaps in a town like Frederick, one to three churches that cover the Frederick area, which each congregation having at least 3-4 pastors. Other than the senior pastor, the others would be specialists. That congregation would also have a staff, averaging 2-3 staff multiplied by the number of pastors.


Not all pastors will need to be high-quality preachers, but only (or at least primarly) those who are should be preachers. I think some pastors are called to specialize in a ministry area but perhaps without much preaching responsibility. Though, really, we'll need to decide if these folks should be ordained or serve as staff. We would need to really celebrate the ministry of the lay people and have structured paths for lay leadership, and probably ordain fewer people, but on average very high quality leaders.

Lay Leaders as Primary Ministry Coordinators

Lay leaders will necessarily be vital in this new system. High-quality training will be necessary, and people who now serve as lay speakers, and even local pastors, will need to be in these roles, some with oversight of other lay leaders. Most of these people will be volunteers, and will have the full support and guidance of the clergy and staff--the congregation staff will necessarily include talented administrative support who will work with these lay leaders so that the lay leaders can spend their time doing ministry not paperwork.


Lay leaders will need to be empowered and have a voice, and not merely be actors in a dram directed by clergy. Clergy, then, will need to be able to play well with others and not be prone to power trips. People who do not delegate, work well with others, or just generally try to get along with others should not be pastors, because we will expect our lay leaders to take leading roles. Lay leaders need to be well-trained and committed to the congregation's vision while also helping their people and the pastors stay nimble and effective. In fact, while I would anticipate longer tenures for pastors (which is already the case at larger churches) lay leaders would provide the greatest continuity for these congregations and small gatherings. Lay leaders would need to be caregivers, teachers, managers (also) and scholars.

Message and Relevance

For the United Methodist Church to remain and thrive in 80 years, we will need to recapture our leading role on social issues and assert the value of our unique theological emphases. Trite celebrations of Methodist history or teachings are insignificant in a world where people have access to vast amounts of information. We will need to be clear ourselves and help others understand the powerful beliefs and focuses that characterize us as followers of Wesley, Otterbein and Albright.

All we do will need to be soundly rooted in our theology, and careless forays into the latest fads cannot characterize us. When the UMC speaks, it must be noteworthy, not just more chatter. There will need to be great room for dialogue and disagreement, but it would be hard to imagine that this dialogue would not be more open and accepting than it now is. In 80 years, I hope the UMC is characterized by a serious attention to scripture and theology that underlies our movements to open our doors. In 80 years, I hope that when the UMC takes a stand, it is clear to others that we really know what we're talking about, and that our leaders do as well.

It Ain't That Far Off

These are just a few of the things I think will mark the church in 2092. They are not new. If anything, they are largely a return to what made Methodists so effective at the beginning. We have become, though, the people Wesley feared we would. We've become settled, affluent and stuck. It will be painful to get unstuck. There will have to be difficult choices made about what form the UMC need to take in a neighborhood or community, and the transition that many small churches will need to make from stand alone congregation to gathering of part of a larger congregation will meet with entrenched resistance. Larger churches will struggle to meaningfully open their programs and leadership roles to people from other communities, and we'll need to have some very practical discussions about finances, church property and roles & expectations. These conversations and discussion will, however, be more difficult for smaller churches who will indeed become assumed by larger congregations.

BUT--there are people and churches who are doing this. And they are thriving. Many churches are beginning to do at least some of these. And bishops and cabinets are finally really starting to have conversations with local churches about what their future looks like. We'll need to make sure that those congregations who will be those churches standing in 80 years, those fewer and larger congregations, are not drained of their vitality by assuming dying structures. There will need to be very clear endings and transitions so that we  do not simply end up with a few pastors doing more work at more churches. The entire structure of clergy and lay leadership must change for these transitions to bring vitality.

I believe that in 80 years, the UMC can be the healthiest it's been in a long, long time--maybe even the healthiest it's ever been. Not by doing something new, but by learning from the successes (and failures) of our shared past, and being willing to move on to new things. All of our leaders will need to be held accountable for their leadership skills and fruits (laity, clergy and bishops) and NO ONE should be invested with power that cannot be lost if mishandled. It should not take gargantuan efforts to remove a bishop, pastor or lay leader if they are not effective.

So, I'm excited about what the coming century will bring. I think it will be difficult--for everyone. I think some of the latest fads that church leaders follow will need to be laid aside--so too the obstinate hold on traditions will need to be replaced by an earnest attention to reclaiming the marks of the movement that got us here. We can do it, though. together, we can, and we will.

God's Vision for the Future of the Church and Calvary

This Sunday, Ken concludes our Visions sermon series by looking at God's vision for Calvary. As we've been reflecting on this and he prepares to share a powerful vision, I came across the General Board of Discipleship's video series looking at the future of the church. I found the first one, on what the church will look like in 80 years, really powerful. Check it out here.

What do you think the church will look like in 80 years? Tomorrow, I'll share some of my thoughts.

Moneyball and Picking the Right People for Success

I've been thinking and talking a lot this week, it seems, about how we decide who is right for particular positions. Whether as Chris and I reflect upon staff and volunteers at camp (they're starting summer staff interviews this week) and church, or as I met with a church's SPRC on our district Monday to train them as they work through evaluating and voting upon whether to recommend two candidates to move forward in the United Methodist candidacy process, or as appointments are made in the conference (this week, top leadership posts were announced and subsequent weeks will see more placements), as the nation thinks about who we want to be president next term, and as Chris and I evaluate new opportunities for us to serve (not at different places--but additional roles). It's a lot!

Add to all that, last night we finally watched Moneyball--the film about baseball GM Billy Beane (Chris had been wanting to for a while). I have to admit I wasn't expecting much--I was actually doing some computer work but as fate would have it the website I needed wasn't cooperating so I actuall had to watch the movie.

It's s bit hard to describe Moneyball--perhaps because my mind is swimming from the lessons and questions it brought forth for me. But if I can summarize it a bit, it tells the story of Beane and others involved in trying to figure out how to make a REALLY low-budget team competitive against teams with a seemingly bottomless back account. Do the skills, stats and qualities that everyone else was using at the time to decide who to pick up actually translate into wins. The movie suggests that no, they do not necessarily. As a Duke grad, it's long been an understanding of mine that individual performance and team success are not always independently directly related--many of the best Duke players who were national championship winners in a program that is arguably very team oriented, never quite seemed to be able to translate their success in college to comparable success in the pros.

Leadership writers have started using learnings from sports scouting to help us think through hiring decisions--we all struggle with the basic question of how to identify the drivers for success from one role or setting to another? What transfers and what does not?

Another powerful challenge in all this is what is often called the "Peter Principle"--namely, people being promoted to their level of incompetence. Now, that's not really totally fair, but it highlights what I think is a very certain truth--success at one level of an organization does not at all predict definitively success at a higher level. Leadership and management is a skill and an art, and the ability of someone to do a task well does not mean he can lead others doing that task. That doesn't make him a bad employee, it just means we are all made to do well (I think) at something, and not at everything.

Another area that Moneyball brought to mind, and which is related, is the basic question, then, of what factors actually matter--which ones are the best predictors of future success. Sports has long asked this question--and rightly concluded that simply looking at college stats, for example, certainly does not translate to success in the pros. For the rest of us, this takes the form of assessing what can realistically be determined in an interview that actually helps indicate if a person is right for a job, and what does their background tell you.

Inevitably, it's difficult to watch this process happen from the outside--and that was certainly true of many who watched what Billy Beane was doing. And it begs the question--are surprising hirings or selections a stroke of genius, or just plain, well, bad? As much as Moneyball seems a story of creative minds, it's also a story about how choosing the right person is not as subjective of an endeavor as we might like to think. And that it can be accessed whether a selection is, objectively, good or bad.

Certainly, there is more to such selections than just statistics. Even the father of sabermetrics (the methods used by Billy Beane), BIll James, cautions against overestimating the value of statistics as a predictive tool. But when we make a selection that seems so surprising to others, it must beg the question whether we've let our biases blind us.

When I met with the SPRC Monday, I began the meeting with a brief study of Luke 4:14-30, the account of Jesus returning to his hometown to preach. I explained to them the vital importance that local churches play in helping candidates discern whether they are called to ordained ministry at this time in the UMC. I suggested that this passage should bring to mind some challenges in making such an assessment:

First, we can sometimes be so focused on a person's current or former role that we cannot rightly see how that translates (or doesn't) to future service. In Jesus' case, he seems to have gotten the reaction that I sometimes get when I run into people who knew me as a child--it can be hard for them to see me as a grown up and not that little girl "THIS" tall. When that happens in hiring or selection or assessment, it can keep us from seeing skills that a person has but which are perhaps not key for them currently--and so we can underestimate their skills or fit for future success in a different role. At the same time, we can also become so enraptured with success in one setting that we can forget to fully assess how a future role might be different, and how skills that are key for their success now might not help them, and weaknesses that are not significant now could be fatal later. Add to that our own personal biases and issues affecting our judgment, and we can just plan not see what is happening. Or that promotion ought to be based on skills AND success, not just success.

Second, the Luke passage points out that sometimes promotion or advancement comes at the expense of relationships or with the derision of others. That is true, and cannot be avoided. But there are times, especially in the church, when we too readily see opposition as a spiritual battle or people's resistance to God moving and not as a true reflection of a bad choice. And we become entrenched and unwilling to admit mistake because now we're dealing with people's lives--it's our mistake so we suck it up and subject everyone else to the mistake under the guise of grace...or just generally hoping things will magically change.

We see this illustrated in Moneyball for sure. On the one hand, Beane and his assistant do well to commit to their plan--at the expense of some good players. They do so despite a rather intense resistence on many sides, and a pretty bad losing streak starting the season. They hold fast, though, and go on a record setting win streak--though still unable to win the title. On the other hand, the entire approach meant turning away from how they'd been doing things before. I meant players have to be trader or let go. There was no moving on without leaving behind. Too often, we seek to move on without being willing to leave behind--especially when that means leaving behind some of our pride and arrogance about choices we've made.

All that said, making decisions and assessing people is one of the hardest things I've ever had to do. And I don't think anyone does it perfectly. I think it's a bit more objective than we'd like to admit (objective, of course, means one can objective say we've made a mistake) but is also an art. I believe that scripture gives us reason to believe that people are more than the sum of their past and that God can do great things through unexpected people. BUT...that does not relieve us at any level of the responsibility of being discerning, wise and humble about the decisions we have to make. It's hard, but it is upon these decisions that the future of our organizations and indeed our lives depend.