Complacent or Content?

Confession: I hold something of a dismissive attitude toward the whole “leadership” publishing industry, particularly as that literature gets adopted by pastors. I’m uncomfortable with the equation of  strategies for profit-seeking businesses with strategies for growing churches.

That attitude, I realize, has been to my detriment. So when my PhD student friend recommended Leading Change during a recent visit, I took it as an opportunity for a fresh start with the whole “leadership” industrial complex and started reading it on the flight home.

Right away I’ve got questions.

The book lays out an eight step process for creating change in a business or organization, the first of which is to create a sense of urgency. Complacency, the book argues, will kill any push for transformation. As long as people are comfortable with the status quo, as long as people are riding on past success, as long as symbols of comfort abound, as long as the people are the top are telling a positive story, attempts to change things will be met with deadly resistance. Leaders must ramp up the urgency. They need to get rid of those symbols of comfort and stop those happy pep talks. They may even need to initiate a crisis. Anything to combat complacency.

The church application couldn’t be more clear to me here, whether you’re talking about a particular congregation, a presbytery (sorry non-Presbyterians), or a denomination. In the case of mainline protestant Christianity in North America, there’s no sense of urgency. Signs of past success are everywhere, mostly in the form of beautiful buildings. Membership is declining, but leaders are skilled at explaining that decline in terms of larger cultural forces affecting everyone, not only the church. We still have General Assemblies, and national media still cover them as matters of journalistic importance. And on the whole, we pastors are not trained to transform our churches but rather to manage them, to see them grow and endure by doing more of the same preaching and teaching and outreach, only doing it better.

That this represents a lack of the urgency required to fuel change is undeniable. Mainline protestantism has distinguished itself from evangelical Christianity over the last 60 years most notably in that lack of urgency. Like it or not, evangelical churches have thrived by making church participation a matter of urgent importance for one’s salvation: if you’re not saved you’re bound for Hell. Lutherans and Presbyterians have, on the whole, said the opposite, and that’s left us with little urgent business to coerce participation.

But here’s my question: what’s the difference between complacency and contentment? Where is the line between a church or a collective of churches contentedly trusting God with its future and complacently resisting transformation God may be calling for? I asked this question on Twitter, and here were some helpful thought prompts:

 What do you think? Where’s the line between Christian contentment and complacency?

Made As Makers Is Weird. And Important. And Cool. And . . . Huh?

The giggle-inducing poet and theologian Callid Keefe-Perry has made a 45 minute “documentary poem” exploring the connection between God, faith, and creativity. “Made As Makers” releases June 1 on Vimeo, and after screening it earlier this week I’m certain church leaders and thinkers should watch it and use it, but I’m not entirely sure how.

First the certainty: Callid is an interesting cat and one of the more nimble thinkers plying a trade in the church today. He does improv theater, he writes music, he crafts poetry, he gives talks. He blogs here and here. If you have a chance to interact with him you should. You may come away scratching your head, but you’ll be smiling.

Now the confusion. “Made As Makers” is 45 minutes of people talking, and I’m not sure what to do with that. Unlike a standard documentary, there’s no overarching narrative, say about the financial crisis or the emerging church. It’s snatches of trailer-side conversations with thoughtful people being thoughtful–about God, about their faith, their creative aspirations (one guy shows off a prayer wheel he made out of some driftwood, a large dagger, and an old fire insurance token), and their hopes for the church. These are conversations you’ve had before, so “Made As Makers” isn’t breaking new theoretical ground.

But it’s not trying to either. It’s trying to facilitate a conversation about creativity in the church. That such a wide array of people, from Wild Goose-goers to study-bound academics, were willing to engage Keefe-Perry on the topic says something. It will need curating, but pieces of “Made As Makers” will serve as valuable conversation starters for spurring creative work.

The most interesting person to listen to, of course, is Callid Keefe-Perry. So if “Made As Makers” serves to expand opportunities for him to do what he does for a larger audience, then God be praised.

Alec Baldwin, Nakedness, and Despair: A Plea for An Artful Theology

I was privileged recently to participate in a series of posts on Ecclesio called Theology as Art alongside Landon Whitsitt and Mihee Kim-Kort. Here’s my post in that series. First, though, here’s the link to Landon’s and Mihee’s posts. Actually, Landon’s post is an adaptation of a monograph he wrote, which you can purchase here.

“We know what art is! It’s paintings of horses!”

Jack Donaghy

The assertion, “Theology is art” is as good a fault line as you’ll find dividing the splintered halves of what remains of Christendom. Recent events in my own denomination–the PC(USA)–are only the latest jolts issuing from the bad-tempered subterranean feuds over truth and authority that have caused all of western protestantism to walk lightly for the past three centuries.

On one side of that apparently widening divide are the Jack Donaghys of the fold. They, like the fictional NBC executive from the sitcom “30 Rock,” see “art” as self-centered, indulgent, and hopelessly subjective and are far more eager to be guided by reason and ratings in their deliberations.

Donaghy’s antagonists, TV writer Liz Lemmon and her cast of maladjusted writers and actors, is of course waving stupidly from the other side.

I’m a partisan in that dispute, and my first name ain’t Jack, Jack.

I am increasingly convinced that the Landon Whitsitts and the Mihee Kim-Korts of the church world are driving the caravan I want to join, even though there are other caravans to join, and even though these make better promises: of a re-polished establishment gauntlet; of relevance; of success. But as one who is continually being converted to a gospel that embraces doubters and exclaims “My Lord and my God!” at the spectacle of human weakness, I’m hopelessly attached to this rag-tag caravan of three-wheeled Schooners with their tattooed sails and artsy, bespectacled drivers.

Hence my affinity for the proposition about theology being art, even though (or perhaps because) I don’t consider myself an artist.  I just really want an artful theology. That’s what I’m after, really: theology done artfully. I guess if “Theology is art” is an argument in the indicative, then I want to give the “Let’s do theology artfully” pep rally in the imperative. And that starts by dealing specifically and confidently with artists.

By “artists” I don’t simply mean those recognized as “artistic” for their superior technical skill or for their temperament or for their acute sensitivity. I do mean them, maybe even primarily them, but I also and completely mean everyone else. I mean each adherent of the Christian faith as a theologian and therefore an artist.

If anybody should indeed care about an art-theology, then they must be made to care about art-theologians. We need to more and more situate the believing subject squarely in the center of whatever theological discourse is emerging. Claiming theology as art in a meaningful way probably means celebrating individual theologians’ experiential, limited, contextual, grasp of theology’s object, God, and not perpetuating anymore the modern preference for objective, dispassionate, propositional, wrapped-in-printed-text, discourse as more theologically reliable.

Such an embrace of subjectivity as a reliable carrier of truth will alarm those for whom the rules and conventions of theology hold primacy of place. And with what I hope is seen as an artful posture, I want to embrace their alarm and allow it to set some of the terms of an artful theology.

Because “artful” also means attentive to rules. An artful theology must be a conventional theology, and there’s no more critical convention of theology than the insistence upon talking about God. Theology is God Talk. That’s it. The moment we start talking about something other than God, the God Christians see revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, then we’re not doing theology any more.

Being versed in conventions needn’t mean cramming our heads with Barth and Augustine, though (it certainly could). Primarily, it means becoming thoroughly versed in the many and various best practices worked out over two millenia of Christian talk about God. For example: paradox. It’s a pretty reliable practice of Christian theology to make two apparently contradictory assertions at the same time:

Jesus is fully human.

Jesus is fully God.

That’s as conventional as Christian theology gets, and an artful theologian will not only be committed to the content of that convention but also to its carrier, to the form, the structure, of the paradox. And he will only depart from the tried-and-true best practices of theology when he has a really good reason to do so. He will, in the words of one Godly Play trainer, “Know the rules well enough to break them effectively.”

And, yes, please God may he break them. May he break them without telling us he’s breaking them. May he surprise us, scandalize us, delight us, all by spurning those dictates of God-talk that he learned in the academy, not because he’s intimidated by them but because he owns them and can restrain himself from mimicking them to please the ghosts of his systematics professors.

Improvise. That’s what I’m getting at. Artful theology is improvisational, which means that the artful theologian is one who is well aware that the discourse may get away from her. She knows that she’s not delivering a scripted monologue but participating in an unpredictable sketch about a milkman, a librarian, and a professional wrestler all on a boat together in the middle of an amusement park. Naked.

Here a caution is in order. Improvisational does not mean unprepared. The best improvisational actors are the most practiced ones. They are thoroughly prepared. Even though everything they do and say during a performance is spontaneous, it all issues from a rigorous routine of preparation that involves lots of repetition and doing things uniformly and predictably.

Finally, an artful theology will be a depressed theology, even a despairing one. The ear-severing Van Gogh will be more our model than the toothy-grinned Tony Robbins. Because art and theology both have to do with longing, and the artist or theologian who isn’t despairing probably isn’t longing. Exacting artists destroy more of their work than they display. This isn’t false humility or shrinking self-esteem, but captivity to unattainable standards of clarity, of depth, of rhythm of which we see only brief and fleeting glimpses. Which is maddening. And holy.

In Which A World-Renowned Theologian Says Exactly What I Was Thinking

Review of last week:

Posted this on Monday, asking, “Where are the adults in our young peoples’ lives who care about them for their own sake and not for some alterior, career-advancing motive?”

Went to the Emergent Theological Conversation on Wednesday to hear the likes of Tripp Fuller, Philip Clayton, and John Cobb talk about process theology. Clayton I found particularly compelling.Bought Kindle version of Clayton’s latest book, “The Predicament of Belief,” in which I discovered this quote while reading on Thursday:

One cannot assume, after all, that the mere fact of an agent’s taking an interest in the existence of other beings is morally admirable, even if it entails a certain amount of self-limitation on that agent’s part. One thinks of numerous mundane analogs: the farmer who shows concern for the well-being of his livestock only for the sake of maximizing his own financial gain; the would-be father who works long hours so he can start a family but who mainly wants children out of loneliness or for any of a host of social or cultural reasons; the teacher who pours her life into the minds of her students because she sees them as a way of establishing her career and exerting influence over the future of her profession. The motives involved in each of these cases are not obviously evil and do not involve any sort of deception; but neither are they altruistic.

Thought, “Hmmmm.”

Wondered if I could get Philip Clayton to be a volunteer leader of my youth group.

The Agony of Loyalty

I recently wrote here that, at least as it pertains to sports fans, doubt of one’s team need not equal disloyalty to that team. In fact, the claiming of doubt may be a greater indicator of loyal fan-hood than ardent professions of confidence. As Exhibit A I cited my Denver Broncos and their Tim Tebow and his devoted supporters, who, at the time of writing, were professing belief that our guy could beat anyone on any day. As a loyal fan, I demurred, predicting a Broncos’ defeat in their next game.

That defeat indeed came to pass, and that leads me to a make a companion observation. If loyalty can be measured by doubt, then it can also be measured by pain. I watched most of yesterday’s game, and even though the scenario unfolding before my eyes was the very thing I predicted, I still hated it and I still hung on every snap in the hope that I would be wrong.

This, then, is what loyalty is made of, in sports (and who knows what else?): sincere doubt and sincere hope operating in tandem.

The Loyalty of Doubt: On Tim Tebow

I am a Denver Broncos fan, born and raised. The Drive and three Super Bowl losses shaped my youth. A Super Bowl victory punctuated my senior year of college, and another one fit nicely into my year abroad in Northern Ireland. My first ever sermon used John Elway’s hall of fame induction as its main illustration.

I got serious Bronco fan creds.

And I’m not buying Tim Tebow. I don’t think that makes me a bad fan, but a good one.

In sports, as in much of life–relationships, politics, even faith–doubt  and skepticism are better measures of loyalty than outright defense. Tebow and the Broncos have become the staging ground for a vigorous cultural conversation about doubt and faith, as evidenced by Les Carpenter’s column this morning that declares:

I believe we have evolved from apes. I believe in dinosaurs. I also believe the earth was created from debris surrounding the sun that clumped together into a spherical shape. And I believe it all happened in more than seven days. But I also believe in Tim Tebow because there is no scientific explanation for what is happening to the Denver Broncos

What is happening is really remarkable, and a fan’s dream. Who doesn’t want their team to be the subject of every national sports talk show? Tebow, the unproven superstar celebrity, took over a 1-4 team and has lead a 6-1 resurgence, including a never-before-seen string of comeback wins: road wins, wins wrested from the jaws of defeat in the final two minutes, overtime wins. All of a sudden, the Broncos are leading their division and stand a very, very good chance of making the playoffs. Impressive stuff, to say the least.

Yet the teams the Broncos have beat in this stretch have a combined record of 39-52 (including losses to Denver. The record absent games against the Broncos is 39-46). The NFL is a tough league, but it needs to be asked whether slogging through a below average field to emerge the best of the worst deserves all the accolades.

The pattern is well-known by now. Tebow and the Broncos offense spin their wheels for three and a half quarters while the defense keeps the game close, setting the stage for some improbable last minute heroics. The heroics are great, but how heroic is it to merely stay in the game against bad teams so that you can pull off a buzzer beater? It’s kind of like the outfielder who loafs after a routine  flyball only to make a spectacular diving catch. The fans love it, but it shouldn’t have had to be spectacular.

Anyway, this isn’t a sports blog, so to my point: I don’t think all of this is real, and I expect the reckoning to come next Sunday when the Broncos play an elite team, the New England Patriots. Yet I’m contesting that this disbelief is an exercise in loyalty to my team. There are a lot of factors beyond Tim Tebow’s leadership and (wince) “belief” that are contributing to what’s happening, and I think the faithful fans are the ones who can take an honest look at reality and celebrate their team’s wins while still expecting them to lose.

Which I do. Next Sunday. Against New England.

The church application here is that things go right and work well in our faith communities for lots of reasons, many of them practical and many of them mysterious. The same thing happens in the lives of our people, and it is a good pastoral care to help people take a clear-eyed account of a complex reality before urging them to “let go and let God.”

A good pastor can say, “There’s a lot going on here that we can’t see and don’t understand. Some of that may be God’s doing, and some of it may be sociology/psychology/economics/(insert your academic discipline here) playing out in was that other people do understand.”

A faithful thing to do, then, is to help people listen to those other people and try to learn from them, rather than viewing their account as lacking in faith.

Rushkoff to Google: Don’t Give Up on The Humans

Douglas Rushkoff gave a Program or Be Programmed talk at Google last fall, and the video of it is on his blog. It’s embedded below, but I’ve extracted the juiciest quotes, which churchy commentary interspersed.

“Computers are essentially anything machines.”

“After I had played with Basic for the first time, I looked at the New York city streets and said, ‘Oh my gosh, this is a grid pattern not because cities grow up into grids but because someone in history decided to make this a grid. And for a 12 or 13 year old that’s a profound moment, and it’s a moment that most people don’t have very often, if at all.”

Likewise, the congregation, the presbytery, the synod, and any nationally organized religious denomination is there because people in history decided to make it that way. The Christian congregation is modeled on the post-temple Jewish synagogue, which was a response to a particular historical situation. The model for it isn’t in the Bible. And the further up the associational pyramid you go, the more abstract and theoretical the decisions have been that the structure should be that way. North American Christians should all recognize this and be able to spot the biases of the structures that frame their religious participation.

“When I say, ‘program or be programmed,’ I don’t mean it just as a metaphor.”

“You wouldn’t know what an operating system was if there was only one operating system.”

The same is true of religion, isn’t it? Or of any theological construct within a religious tradition? My recent anxiety over the encounter of the youth from my quasi-liberal church with evangelical camp culture illustrates this. I want my kids to recognize that the altar call is an operating system programmed with a certain bias, just like the hymns they sing on Sunday.

“This media is biased towards binary logic, which then leads to polar conversation, which then polarizes the political landscape.”

“I so don’t care about what technology is doing to us. I care about what we’re doing to one another through technology. Technology is not doing anything to you. It’s people that are doing things to you.”

Every theory of technology has a hidden doctrine of humanity.

“Everything in the digital space is basically a snap-to grid in one way or another. You’re here or you’re here.”

“Just because you have more choices doesn’t mean you have more agency. It just means you have a wider number of choices.”

“The fact that you can keep going forever means that it doesn’t actually work.”

This pertains to the economic model of making money by getting closer and closer in what you do to the actual making of money. Abstraction is lucrative. Aggregation is the new content creation. So why not aggregate the aggregators? The problem is that with each step you get further from the creation of any real value until you have a culture of people who no longer know how to create it. How do churches help Christians actually create value in the world and not just combine and distribute value they got somewhere else?

“The more anonymity is an aberrant behavior, the better off we are.”

“The biases of our technologies matter. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, right? But guns are more biased towards killing than pillows.”

So what is the bias of the typical mainline protestant congregation? The top 15 megachurches in the United States have an 80% turnover rate. Scads of people come once or twice but don’t dig in for the long haul. That’s a bias toward occasional non-committal participation. What about your typical Methodist or Presbyterian church in anywhere, USA?

Jesus Was A Stat Head: A Post for Opening Day

“Fixate on the particular and you miss the big story.”

So says John Thorn, the official historian of Major League Baseball, in a Bleacher Report post about the damage that sabermetrics have done to baseball.

I’m not buying it, for baseball or religion

For the uninitiated, a brief summary: over the past 20 years, baseball has seen the rise of a kind of player valuation that is based less and less on the perceivable “tools” of players and more and more on a searching analysis of those players’ statistical records. This has applied equally to present-day players, future prospects, and past greats. It has been a move toward measurement and quantification, and its practitioners have spawned their own measurement tools in never-before-heard statistical categories like On Base Percentage (OBP) and Value Above Replacement Player (VORP).

The most accessible account of the embodiment of this trend is Michael Lewis’s excellent book Moneyball. Lewis dug into the story of Billy Beane, the General Manager of the Oakland Athletics, who used sabermetrics data to put together a string of low-budget winning teams in the early part of the last decade. Even for non-baseball fans, it’s a great read.

The debate that Moneyball popularized, the debate that Thorn is engaging, and the debate at the heart of sabermetrics is this: what has greater value? The things you can measure or the things you can’t? Is a player’s VORP a more useful evaluation tool a scout’s observation that he can flat-out hit?

Now to religion, particularly the mainline protestant Christian version. The scouts of the mainline church have been observing for decades that membership is declining, and they’ve offered their analysis: the church can’t hit the curve balls that postmodern culture is throwing. It has no theological arm strength. It’s leadership is out of touch with the players.

None of this is based on any actual data. Like the observation of a baseball scout, this way of evaluation the church depends entirely on what one can see, and its conclusions fit nicely with the scout’s well-established narrative of success and failure. And these have been the accepted answers to questions of the church’s decline.

But what if it’s been wrong all along? What if a new generation of church sabermetricians created new tools to measure what’s really going on?

Thankfully, that’s starting to happen. In my own denomination, a Research Services division has started publishing some great analytical work that casts serious doubt on the cigar stained conventional wisdom of the church’s scouts. It’s stated goal is to help the church make “fact based decisions,” which strikes me as almost poetically consistent with the aim of sabermetrics. Because it’s debatable whether a pitcher has control problems. But it’s a fact that over the last three seasons he’s walked 6.5 batters per nine innings. It’s debatable whether the church is dying and bad theology is the culprit. But it’s a fact that in 2009 the PC(USA) saw a rise in non-white candidates for ministry, increased Asian membership and leadership, and an increase in female pastors.

The scout calls it dead arm. The sabermetrician calls it a changing delivery.

What Thorn has wrong is the forced choice between the “big story” and the particular. When applied to faith, it’s decidedly anti-incarnational to poo-poo details in favor of a grand narrative. That instinct leads to a contempt for critical study of the Bible and to half-cocked evaluations of the church’s ailments.

The Big Story is made up of the particular, the stuff you can measure and track. Further, that story arises from those particulars; it can’t be forced upon them a priori.

Play Ball and go Royals!

“There’s Frightfully Little Real Going On”: Rushkoff on Social Media

“There’s frightfully little real going on,” I believe is the quote near the end, the one that makes this whole talk worth watching.

As always, Douglas is prescient and clear: “Social media exists to help people create and exchange value directly with one another.”

The questions he puts to these marketing professionals are questions churches need to be asking ourselves: what value are we creating, and how are we helping people create and exchange value? In other words, how are we helping people exercise their humanity?

The more I think about it, the more “value” becomes a clear theological imperative for ministry.

So, what value are you creating? And if ministry doesn’t have a quantifiable value, how do you describe the good that it does?

A Sermon in Light of Saturday

I don’t normally post sermon texts, because I don’t think they make for good reading. But some people have expressed interest after I publicly narrated my decision to scrap my Sunday sermon in light of Saturday’s shooting, and after the advice of Diana Butler Bass.

So, then, here it is. As always, feedback is appreciated.

Also, my colleague Andy James did likewise. Check it out here. It’s solid.

***

On a normal Tuesday night in April, 1999, I popped in to see some friends, Dave, Debbie, and Alistair. Dave and Debbie lived in a small flat on the protestant side of the Springfield Road in West Belfast, right next to the Methodist church where Dave was the pastor and where I was serving as a short-term mission volunteer in the church’s cross-community children’s and youth programs.

I’d been there since the previous September, and Dave and Debbie’s place had come to be something of a hideout for me; Dave was also an American, tall and good-humored, with a very useful Bruce Sprinsteen cd collection, and Debbie was a walking showcase of Northern Irish wit and charm and hospitality.

Alistair worked with Debbie at a community-based organization that helped teenage boys who had got mixed up in the protestant paramilitary organizations that ran the neighborhood. Alistair was good with these kids, because he’d been one of them. He was involved in paramilitary violence by the time he was 14, and he’d served 13 years in prison for murder. When he was 17 he carried out a hit job on a local catholic man. He shot the man through the front window of his home.

Alistair unfolded this story to me in pieces over the many weeks in which I had got to know him that year. Our conversations were clipped little things, because Alistair used an economy of words and studied your reaction to his words very carefully. Once he invited me to watch with him a video of a tv special in which he’d been featured describing his crime. But more than that, he also talked to the interviewer in the show about his time in prison, his conversion to Christianity and an ethic of nonviolence, his admiration for the Dalai Lama.

[Interesting sidenote: while trying to find the title of that television special, I made a startling discovery: in 2009, Alistair’s story was dramatized in a film called “Five Minutes of Heaven,” which won two Sundance Film Festival awards. Alistair was portrayed by none other than Liam Neeson.]

Alistair, Debbie, and Dave were some of my closest friends that year. I dropped in to see them that Tuesday night just like I had several Tuesday nights before. But that Tuesday was April 20th, the day that a shooting massacre was unfolding at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, mere miles from where I’d grown up. It was on the news when I walked in.

Alistair broke the news to me, and I will never forget my surprise at the toll the things he was describing were taking on him. He seemed baffled. He stared at the floor and shook his head. And when he looked at me his eyes didn’t have the look of a hardened criminal well-used to shootings, but of a devastated human absorbing the blows of human brutality.

***

On days like yesterday, the sheer brutality of humanity can take your breath away. Hearing news of a shooting rampage in a public parking lot, one that targeted an elected official and killed a nine year-old girl and a federal judge, your shoulders sag and your head drops. Maybe you cry.

But if you’re like me and you follow every piece of information and speculation the moment it’s published, those sagging shoulders presently become fortified with righteous indignation. Because one moment you learn that Representative Giffords was one of several Representatives targeted with gun crosshairs on a map of vulnerable congressional districts published by a conservative political action committee.

The next minute you watch the shooter’s YouTube channel. The videos there are weird, and they feature anti-government slogans.

Then it’s reported that the judge who has died recently allowed a multi-million dollar civil suit to proceed that was brought by illegal immigrants against Arizona ranchers.

You read the Pima county sherriff bemoaning Arizona’s morph into a “mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”

You grit your teeth and clench your fist at the obvious nastiness of it: politically-motivated gun violence fanned by prominent conservative politicians.

Well, the intervening hours muddy that picture substantially. There still a lot that we don’t know, but it seems pretty clear that Jared Lee Loughner isn’t a right wing crusader taking orders from Tea Party demagogues. He’s mentally ill. He’s a 22 year-old kid who’s been kicked out of classes at the local community college and rejected by the army.

We’re back, then, to the sagging shoulders and the bowed head, the posture of . . . of what? Grief? Anger? Confusion? Yes, all of those things. But also, let us pray, of repentance.

Jesus came to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him with his baptism of repentance. Repentance, as in “Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven has come near,” and “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit worthy of repentance.”

Repentance? This is Jesus. This is the one who, as John has been telling everyone, “Of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke,”  the one who is more powerful than John, who is coming after him, who will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire, who’s winnowing fork is in his hand, who will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the granary, but who will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

Repentance? That seems to be the Baptizer’s thought. “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

Jesus’ baptism, it seems to me, is as much about a posture as it is anything else. And it’s not the posture we necessarily want from a savior. Contrary to John’s press releases, it’s not a posture of power. It’s not a posture of threshing and gathering and judging and burning, at least not now.

Now it’s a posture of repentance. Which means it’s a shoulder-sagging posture of really being human and really absorbing the terrible things that humans can do. Really feeling the weight of human violence as something for which you share culpability and something against which you must struggle every day, even if costs you everything.

If we don’t know how to feel and how to comport ourselves in the light of yesterday’s events, we could do a lot worse than Jesus’ example at the Jordan.
***

Yet repentance is not resignation. A posture of repentance doesn’t lead to despair, but to action.

One of the things that we should hear in Matthew’s description of what goes on here at the Jordan is an echo of Isaiah 42, the text that Angel read a moment ago, which is the first of several “servant songs” found in the second part of Isaiah. Those songs address the people of God in exile in Babylon, having been crushed at Jerusalem by an invading army and forcibly moved across the desert to a foreign capital. To those exiles, Isaiah’s words are a reminder of who they are and to whom they belong, despite what their present circumstances assert: “I am the Lord,” God says in verse 6. “I have called you in righteousness, I have taken you by the hand and kept you.”

For Christians, Isaiah’s words of hope strike a resonant chord as well. When Jesus’ comes out of the water and the skies open and a voice says, “This is my son, The Beloved, with whom I am well pleased,” we hear an echo of “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights.” Christians have always seen Jesus (to varying degrees) in the person of God’s servant described by Isaiah.

So the description of the servant’s work is particularly relevant: he will bring forth justice to the nations; “he will faithfully bring forth justice. He will not grow faint or be crushed until he has established justice in the earth;”

“I,” God says to the servant, “have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness.”

This is the work given to God’s “servant.” This is the work that shapes Jesus’ life and ministry, inaugurated here at his baptism: open blind eyes and bring out prisoners from life’s dark dungeons. There’s nothing resigned or hopeless about that.

Alistair now works with victims and perpetrators of violence all over the world. He helps people tell their stories to one another and so discover a common humanity and brokenness and strength in one another. Northern Ireland, South Africa, Kosovo, the Middle East: he’s worked with groups in all of those places. He lives every day with an intimate awareness of his own capacity for violence, even as he works to bring healing and justice to those blinded and imprisoned by the violence that continues to stalk humanity.

***

This is the paradox of faith. If we are to be Jesus’ people today, then we have to do two seemingly contradictory things at once: struggle against violence and evil, even as we practice a posture of repentance.

We have to struggle–really struggle, like, scratch-and-claw struggle–against attitudes and laws that tend to bloodshed even as we resist simple assignments of blame. We have to write elected officials and march in favor of gun control even as we confess out loud to God and one another the violence lurking in our own hearts. We have to advocate for a more civil public discourse even as we give up uncharitable ways of talking about people who’s opinions infuriate us.

John would have prevented Jesus from submitting to anything like a baptism, which would affiliate Jesus with repentance and the human need for God’s help. John wanted half of Jesus. The scratch-and-claw half.

But John needs–we all need–all of Jesus. Which is why Jesus prevails upon him, “Let it be so now.” May that be our prayer, and may we, like John, relent to Jesus’ posture of repentance and take it up ourselves. For it is proper, Jesus says, in this way to fulfill all righteousness.

To fulfill all righteousness. Let it be so now. Amen.