April 27th, 2011 §
Listen to the lecture
On Thursday, April 7, Rob Wall — SPU’s Paul T. Walls Professor of Scripture and Wesleyan Studies — addressed a crowd of students, faculty, staff, and community members at the annual Walls Lecture. Speaking from a Wesleyan perspective on 1 Timothy 2 — possibly the most controversial chapter of Paul’s letters — Walls focused especially on Paul’s command in verses 1–2 to pray “for everyone — even for kings.”
Here is Wall’s own translation of those verses:
First, I request that supplications, prayers, petitions, thanksgivings be therefore offered for everyone — even for kings and everyone in a position of authority — so that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in full godliness and rectitude.
Wall began the lecture by expressing his concern that inevitable political differences not fracture the Body of Christ. “My exhortation this morning,” he said, “is that we consider Scripture’s instruction as a way forward in understanding a common grammar for our political discourse and practices.”
He considered objections to the letter’s canonicity, and of the letter’s disputed authorship — all of those claims ultimately irrelevant, said Wall. For “We read 1 Timothy as Scripture, not because Paul wrote it but because God’s Spirit sanctified it for holy ends!” The letter, he told his audience, was written to Timothy in Paul’s absence, and so “is of indispensable value in guiding faithful readers of Paul’s standard letters, who also in absence of Paul must rightly apply his apostolic ‘word of truth’ to the church’s ever-changing social locations.”
Wall went on to give a fascinating literary analysis of the passage — the letter is an example of paraenetic literature (literature that exhorts) — referring to its employment of repeated catchwords and literary inclusio, and the importance of its use of basileo (king) rather than “more modest expressions of political authority (exousia, diakonos).”
Wall then considered the objection among many that the purpose clause verse 2b (“so that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in full godliness and rectitude”) signifies that prayers for our political leaders “are really a political strategy of accommodation, if not compromise, to keep the peace.”
After looking at sermons of Wesley’s that offer insight into the passage, Wall ended his lecture asking, “For what should a Wesleyan congregation pray when petitioning God for our kings? How do we pray for President Obama?”
The answer may surprise you, and there is much more to this insightful and intriguing lecture, but only hearing it in its entirety can do it justice. We invite you to do that.
April 25th, 2011 §
In the first week of September, I engaged in a weeklong intensive course titled “Church Planting in a Multi-Cultural Context” with Bishop Matthew Thomas from the Free Methodist Church. During this week, one theme that stuck with me was the importance of finding church-planting co-leaders with spotless character.
Pauline Qualifications for Bishops
It is a fact that out of the 14 qualifications for bishops in 1 Timothy 3, 13 of them have to do with character, while only one (be “an apt teacher”) deals with competence. Culturally, the west tends to favor competencies that are flashy and measurable by the number of bodies their talent puts in the pews (or fold-up chairs) on Sunday morning.
Photo by Tim Samoff
Yet, if Paul in 1 Timothy 3 heavily favors character over competence, then we must go about the task of reassessing what lenses we put on when choosing core leadership. I think we do this by assessing the strengths of the leaders in four categories, in order of importance, and character comes first.
The Case for Character
Character is the most important test of a leader’s overall ability to lead, not only because Paul leans that way, but because character shapes the quality and genuineness of one’s work in ministry.
Without true depth of character, without genuineness of one’s work with parishioners and those who are potential disciples of Christ a leader will likely turn to treating people as commodities; those inside being positioned to meet the personal goals of that leader and those outside simply becoming a number as they come into the ministry.
Genuineness can be faked, fooling many. Sooner or later, though, conflicting attitudes and interests will bring that person (and possibly the ministry) down in flames. As for the quality of work, people of shallow character will cut as many corners as they can to get a job done so as to look close to the desired results. But they are really just getting it out of the way in order to get to things they want to do. A person of shallow character will always miss the spirit in the work, which allows for opportunities of mercy and grace to the ends of releasing the power of God on and in others.
A person with great character will go heavy on acts of mercy and grace, and still have the wherewithal to complete the task they have been assigned. Competence can be taught; character cannot. When hiring co-leaders, therefore, be sure they are of great character, to ensure (as much as it is up to you) that your ministry prospers.
– Raoul Perez
 Class notes from Bishop Matthew Thomas’ class, “Church-Planting in a Multi-Cultural Context,” Sept. 7-9, 2010.
April 18th, 2011 §
Kathryn Tanner splits Economy of Grace into three sections. In the first, she questions whether Christianity provides specific influence on economic discussions. Answering in the affirmative, Tanner continues in the second section to outline a theological foundation for economics. Finally, she concludes with a section promoting potential applications of a theological economy in a practical manner.
At first glance, theological and economic discussions contain little similarity. On one side resides the language of justice, faith, and health; on the other resides the language of capital, profit, and competition. In the first chapter of her tome, Tanner explores the relationship between Christianity and economics. While most typically view theology in the realm of the individual and economy in the realm of community, Tanner suggests that the link between the two in the simplest form is grace and money.
Without further explanation, of course, such an assertion raises the eyebrows of many theologians as the threat of prosperity theology presents itself. Tanner battles these assumptions by suggesting the link between grace and money lies in the conception of distribution.
Just as theology is concerned with the distribution of grace in our society, so too is economics concerned with the distribution of money. Yet the two starkly contrast, since the distribution of grace operates under noncompetitive assumptions.
By setting Christian ideas of the production and circulation of goods into a comparative economy, by making that comparative framing an economic one, my intent is just to suggest that a Christian economy has everything to do with the material dimensions of life – with the economic more narrowly construed. It is clear that, set within a comparative economy, grace has everything to do with money (29).
Having presented the connection between theology and economics, Tanner utilizes the space in chapter two to discuss alternative forms of the economic system based on a theological lens. While efforts have been made to promote a theological economy through the concepts of inalienable property rights and gift exchange, both systems fall short of truly uniting with the notion of noncompetitive grace.
A theologically based economy must act similarly to the way God acts in relation to humanity.
The whole point of God’s dealings with us as creator, covenant partner, and redeemer in Christ is to bring the good of God’s very life into our own. Our lives participate in that divine mission and thereby realize the shape of God’s own economy by giving that follows the same principle: self-sharing for the good of others (85).
Scripture presents God as an unconditional giver. Everything we have is a result of God’s generosity, and humanity is incapable of repaying such a gift to God. Therefore, our best approximation is to unconditionally give to others as God gives to us.
Constructing an Economy of Grace
But does this theological view of economy contain practical application, or does it merely reflect a utopian state? In the third chapter, Tanner attempts to apply her framework on a practical level.
Tanner admits that her economy of grace carries utopian themes. Given the current state of the global economy, it is probably impossible for noncompetitive grace to achieve an economic stronghold.
Nevertheless, noncompetitive grace possesses applicable principles.
Photo by Annette Young
For example, capitalists typically seek the highest profits by pursuing the most efficient production. The cheaper the cost of manufacturing with a maintained quality, the higher the profits. Yet such practices usually result in capitalists paying employees less and less. Taking this thought process to the extreme, if a company pays employees so little that they are unable to purchase the products, profits will plummet as consumption dies.
An economy of grace, however, suggests that a principle of noncompetitiveness solves this inherent flaw in capitalism.
One should, whenever possible, promote growth strategies in which the economy grows and poverty is reduced at the same time (96).
While capitalists can earn significant profits in the short term through diminishing wages, such practices are detrimental in the long term. An economy of grace, on the other hand, suggests that gradually raising wages and lifting the poor out of poverty benefits all of society.
A Slight Critique
While Tanner presents an intriguing vision for a theologically based economy, I find her conclusions to be inconsistent. Although she readily admits that a pure economy of grace is utopian, considering the current state of global affairs, her application of theological tenets to the current form of capitalism changes underlying assumptions minutely.
More specifically, if an economy of grace is based on noncompetitive giving, a gift given in order to expect a return on investment violates the economy of grace. Tanner’s third chapter provides many examples where supposedly altruist behavior helps all stakeholders. But in my mind such assertions betray the root purpose of noncompetitive giving: the notion of self-sacrifice for the good of another.
In this way, Tanner’s attempt to reconcile a theologically based economy with the current capitalist system equates to an argument of good ethics equals good business. What if good ethics equal bad business? Surely at some point a manager must face a decision between ethical behavior and bottom-line profits. Does Tanner’s economy of grace answer this manager’s dilemma? I am doubtful that it can escape its utopian nature.
April 11th, 2011 §
This weekend I attended the Bottom Billions | Bottom Line Conference hosted by SPU’s Center for Integrity in Business. The event served as a convergence zone between business, nonprofit organizations, and the academy seeking to better understand ways that business can help alleviate world poverty.
Of the many interesting subjects discussed at the conference, the topic of microfinance seemed to continuously echo through my head. For those unfamiliar with the term, microfinance occurs when banks or nonprofit organizations loan small amounts to the poor, helping them to use these miniscule amounts of capital to begin income-generating endeavors.
Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank, observed that the only thing the poor lacked was opportunity. Without capital, the poor would take a loan from a moneylender at exorbitant rates in order to partake in the economy. At the end of the day, these people took home pennies to support a family. Yunus figured that if he could loan these slight sums at low interest rates, the poor could enjoy selling the products of their labor on the open market, thus creating economic capital and a trail out of poverty.
Photo by lecercle
Charity, on the other hand, gives freely without expectation of return. Many, though, have suggested that pure charity does not eradicate poverty, because the poor become dependent on receiving aid. Blogger Filip Spagnoli aggregates international development aid on his website. The evidence he has compiled suggests that the amount of aid contributed to these developing nations is staggering, and yet economic growth is not a result.
Would development function differently if aid came in the form of a loan instead of charity? Yunus believes that loans to the poor provide the best investment. Many stuck in the cycle of poverty are smart and hard working; they just need the money to start. While big banks typically consider micro-loans to be both risky and inconsequential, Yunus’ experience argues that the poor possess the highest incentive to repay their loans.
Of course, when unforeseen problems such as natural disasters and economic meltdowns place the poor in positions where they are unable to repay the loan, Yunus extends grace and loans more money to help the poor back on their feet. In this way, microlending encourages entrepreneurial spirit. Where charity gives the widow a fish, microfinance engages in teaching the widow to fish.
Although charitable giving in and of itself is never a bad thing, I do wonder if it is the best thing. Of course, a free gift without expectation of repayment carries the highest blessing for the receiver, yet long term, I wonder if microloans create a better society.
April 6th, 2011 §
Starring Jon Hamm, Elizabeth Ross, Vincent Karthieser, January Jones, Christina Hendricks, and John Slatterly.
“The strongest principle of growth lies in the human choice.” — George Eliot
Self Help. Shelves upon shelves are dedicated to this topic in libraries and bookstores across America. Daytime talk shows hosted by professionals with large personalities and larger degrees find popularity by focusing on this subject. It is the magical panacea capable of granting health, wealth, and relational success. You make the difference in the world and you are weak if you request help.
Is another offshoot of Chicken Soup for the Soul capable of curing the turpitude of humanity? The AMC original series, Mad Men seems to think that a positive self-outlook lacks the features needed to cure an ailing individual.
Winner of four Golden Globes, Mad Men receives high praise from most critics. Best known for its dark portrayal of a 1960s advertising agency based on Madison Avenue in New York, the show’s narcissistic characters smoke, drink, and sleep their way to financial success.
Such loose living over the previous three seasons, however, brings serious consequences. Broken families, lost client relationships, and poor health frame the beginning of Season 4, as does the recently created firm, Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce.
Grab a Martini and Take a Seat
The show’s protagonist, Founding Partner and Creative Director Donald Draper (Jon Hamm), conceals a spiraling personal life. Marital strife leaves him alone in a New York City apartment; the pressures of a stressful work environment drive him to the bottle; and he seeks whatever pleasure he can find in the comfort of a woman’s touch.
Inevitably, his home life influences his professional life, which creates unwanted stagnancy. Sensing the moribund direction of his life, Draper implements self rules such as a limit of three drinks a day and a steady romantic relationship. For a short period, his newly structured life decreases his depraved tendencies. Both his personal and professional lives begin to flourish.
But, as with most addictive propensities, combating them alone typically results in failure. A myriad of detrimental circumstances pushes Draper’s life toward the brink.
Sometimes You Just Need a Friend
Photo by Michael Yarish
Mad Men evocatively depicts human frailty. Draper’s narcissism launches him to the peaks of the advertising world, leaving colleagues strewn in a path of wreckage. But the same selfish nature humbles him as his walls tumble around him.
In light of this portrayal, our businesses and vocations can also present opportunities for gain at the expense of others, occasions for living in excess, and chances to act as lone wolves. A community of friends and colleagues who have the opportunity to speak directly and truthfully into our lives makes a big difference. Lives lived without meaningful connection — similar to Don Draper’s — suffer similar solitary and deleterious results.
Don Draper’s character illustrates the fact that Christians and non-Christians alike are prone to self-deceit, and in turn, self-destruction. Our weaknesses and moral failings only become amplified when we combat them alone. Community, then, is a vital aspect of a functioning individual; it catches people when they fall, and it encourages people to act selflessly.
In a culture marked by individualistic philosophies espoused in self-help books and pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps success stories, the power of community is a valuable asset. Mad Men reminds us of the perils existing in solitude.
Much Better Than a Self-Help Book
On the whole, Mad Men is a show of subtlety, unafraid to engage in the complex dilemmas of the unsettling 1960s era. Like a dense book, the show sometimes requires time for the themes to fully digest. Yet, when viewed as a whole, Mad Men is a masterfully produced show depicting the struggles of the business world. Although slow-paced (it’s worth it; I promise), I strongly recommend picking up and watching this season and previous seasons of Mad Men on DVD.
Originally published at http://www.spu.edu/depts/sbe/cib/.