The Problem with the Pattern

On the new sci-fi TV series Fringe, "The Pattern" is the secret government code name for a series of connected but unexplained creepy bio-terror events. People get turned into puddles of goo or are infected by parasites the size of house pets. Clearly, "The Pattern" is a very dangerous thing. In Romans 12, the apostle Paul mentions a different but equally dangerous kind of pattern—the pattern of this world. To the Church in Rome he writes: "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."

As a good, wholesome kid brought up in a good, wholesome youth group, it was suggested to me that the pattern Paul was telling us to avoid was comprised of secular music, alcohol, sex, drugs, and eternal damnation. But I'm beginning to think he had something bigger in mind. To me, Paul's words mandate a foundational distinctiveness in Christian thought that goes much deeper than the music on our iPods. I like what D.A. Carson said about the pattern of this world in a recent editorial:

"Thinking differently from the ‘world' has been part of the Christian's responsibility and agenda from the beginning ... The assumption seems to be that the world has its own patterns, its own structured arguments, its own value systems. Because we Christians live in the world, the ‘default' reality is that we are likely to be shaped by these patterns, structures, and values, unless we consciously discern how and where they stand over against the gospel and all its entailments, and adopt radically different thinking."

The challenge Carson presents—evaluating the patterns, structures, and values of our world on the way to developing a renewed way of thinking—is paramount. In a society that is (or will soon be) post-Christian, I believe it's important that we don't sacrifice our sacred identity as the collective followers of Christ in a desperate and/or zealous bid for influence. However, it often feels as though that's exactly what we're doing when we embrace, rather than spurn, our world's patterns.

The Temptations
In his magnificent book, In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership (1989, The Crossroad Publishing Company), priest and author Henri Nouwen draws a fascinating parallel between the temptations of Christ in the desert and the temptations of the Christian leader in the 21st century.

First, Satan told a hungry Jesus to turn stones into bread, but Jesus refused, saying that man doesn't live by bread alone. Nouwen characterizes this first temptation as the temptation of relevance. Satan wanted Jesus to abandon the Word of God and instead use his power practically: to meet a relevant need. Yes, we are clearly called to meet needs, but Nouwen says we are also called to follow Jesus in putting the proclamation of the gospel first. Relevance beckons us to use our abilities and accomplishments to gain an influential voice in our culture, but Nouwen objects. "I am deeply convinced," he writes, "that the Christian leader of the future is called to be completely irrelevant and to stand in this world with nothing to offer but his or her own vulnerable self. That is the way Jesus came to reveal God's love."

Conventional wisdom says that if the Church has any hope of reaching people, it's through relevance: We need better preaching, better programming, better parking, better coffee, and better service projects, and once we get all of that, people will finally be ready to hear about this Jesus we profess. This approach manifests itself in churches that promise to fix marriages, debt, and unruly kids one sermon series after another, as well as in the abundance of worship bands who cover Coldplay songs to kickoff church services. In both cases, relevance serves as bait for the un-churched, de-churched, and under-churched we want to reach.

I think I'm with Nouwen on this one. He described letting go of his "relevant self—the self that can do things, show things, prove things, build things," so that he could embrace his brokenness and the brokenness of others. Nouwen seems to equate relevance with the intention of showing broken people what we can do for them and why they should want to be like us. This desire to market ourselves as problem-solvers is a pattern of our world, and it's evident in the subtext of every TV commercial you've ever seen: "We are great; you are not; we can fix you." Conversely, Nouwen's irrelevance demands our unabashed vulnerability with the intention of showing broken people that God loves and redeems broken people. What if church leaders were honest about what they have to offer, were content to be irrelevant, and were expectant that God's power would be made perfect in our weakness?

With the second temptation, Satan dared Jesus to throw himself off the highest point of the temple. The assembled worshipers would see the angels catch Jesus, and everyone would be amazed. Nouwen calls this "the temptation to do something spectacular, something that would win him great applause." Wouldn't this feat have made for a perfect beginning to the public ministry of Jesus? After that display, it would've been easy for Jesus to garner all the financial support, volunteers, and word-of-mouth he'd ever need. Sadly, many church leaders seek a platform fueled by spectacles. As Nouwen writes, "Stardom and individual heroism, which are such obvious aspects of our competitive society, are not at all alien to the Church. There, too, the dominant image is that of the self-made man or woman who can do it all alone."

Even if some seek stardom with the good intention of doing something noble with it—raising awareness, providing a positive role model, or sharing the gospel—the stardom-lust pattern of this world contaminates the mission. The crowds waiting in line for their chance at fame before the American Idol judges is not much different than the throngs of church leaders who yearn for the spotlight that comes with book deals, record sales, and keynote addresses at packed conferences. Toward this end, churches and church leaders do things to get noticed that have more to do with applause than gospel. Perhaps by striving to be perceived as attractive and influential, we aim to attract and influence the attractive and influential. That's the pattern of every health club, custom home builder, university, and theme park. Jesus' assertion was that he, when lifted up (by way of the brutal, wondrous cross), would draw people unto himself.

Nouwen exhorts us to forsake popularity in favor of ministry and to bring the good news "in the name of the Lord Jesus who sent us," not in our own name. Let us not act on the impulse to earn the love of as many people as possible; let us love people as God loves them and act accordingly.

The third and final temptation of Jesus was the offer of all the kingdoms of the world in exchange for bowing before Satan in worship. The thirst for power, perhaps the most established pattern of this world, is as ubiquitous as the air we breathe. And it's easy to see why: People can often feel like powerless victims of circumstance or fate, and therefore desperately seek a modicum of control over their lives. Power promises comfort and security, as well as the absence of fear. It seems only natural that our world would long for power. As Christians, we ought to know that comfort, security, and deliverance from fear are found in the loving presence of God Almighty; still we find ourselves reaching out for power. The power we derive from bigger buildings, bigger budgets, bigger crowds, bigger platforms, and bigger control seems as though it would magnify the gospel, but the opposite may be true.

"One of the greatest ironies of the history of Christianity," Nouwen observes, "is that its leaders constantly gave in to the temptation of power—political power, military power, economic power, or moral and spiritual power—even though they continued to speak in the name of Jesus, who did not cling to his divine power but emptied himself and became as we are." Everywhere we look, we see individuals and organizations vying for power; Couples struggle for power in their households, and technology companies struggle for power in the personal computer market. But we are called to a different pattern, a different model, in which we are servants in the upside-down kingdom of God. As Nouwen says, "The way of the Christian leader is not the way of upward mobility in which our world has invested so much, but the way of downward mobility ending on the cross ... I am speaking of a leadership in which power is constantly abandoned in favor of love."

Acts, Not Reacts
In each of the three temptations of Christ, we find an opportunity to be conformed to the pattern of this world or be transformed by the renewing of our minds. If you're running a business, by all means follow the pattern. Learn everything you can from Walmart, Netflix, Apple, Southwest Airlines, Google, and Amazon. But for church leaders, it's time we accept that we're not running a business. The pattern isn't good enough for us.

We know from the Book of Acts that the early Church was distinct from the other cultural institutions of its day. Its faith, love, and practices were unique, strange, and somewhat mysterious to the first-century world, and yet it flourished. The early Church was the exact opposite of the Roman Empire, and yet it flourished. Christianity wasn't popular, it was persecuted, and yet it flourished. The early Church had no power (apart from the Holy Spirit), no tactics (unless you count prayer, the breaking of bread, and devotion to the apostles' teaching), no secular model for success (even the Empire was limited by its own borders), and no cool factor (suffering and outsider-status are decidedly uncool) ... and yet it flourished. In Acts 2, Luke notes that the Lord was adding to the numbers of early Christians daily. It seems fitting that in the absence of the pattern and its relevance, popularity, and power, God gets the credit for the growth of the early Church.

For the Church, the holy, radiant bride and body of Christ, the ends don't justify means. We can't allow ourselves to become worldly in hopes of saving the world, in the same way that Jesus didn't become Caesar in hopes of saving the Roman Empire. In fact, while Caesar marketed himself as the Son of God, the actual Son of God humbled himself, made himself nothing, put on human flesh, and was obedient to death—even death on a cross. If we are genuinely followers of Christ, let's forget the pattern and follow him.

 

12 Comments »

1. Scott, thanks for the challenging look at Henri Nouwen’s ideas.  We are not very good followers of Jesus, I’m afraid.  Yet I have worked with some Christian leaders who were willing to lay down their lives; they have my undying respect.

   I think there could be productive discussions on why church leadership retreats study secular business leadership books.  Or on how a business leader who is a Christian models his or her own life after Christ.  And how to distinguish between sound leadership practices that work everywhere and “worldly” patterns that are ultimately destructive.

   Comment by Beth Fussner - Mar 17, 2009 @ 03:28 PM

2. If all of this is just a matter of following principles set by Jesus you’ll likely find atheists in closer step than most Christians.  The reason is simple.  The idea that one ought not sacrifice their principles to short-term worldly needs did not originate with the Nazarene, nor does it require a belief in his divinity or existence.  Thankfully philosophy requires thought and not prayer, scrutiny and not belief and is therefore available to everyone rather than those who claim to communicate with supernatural beings.

   How exactly can adherents of a religious text written nearly 2000 years ago claim to be the group which upholds the ‘responsibility and agenda’ to ‘think differently’?  Christians’ perceptions of reality are supposed to be perceived through the lens of scripture.  How does that framework not inherently discourage critical thinking?  Does this not make believers, by the definition you’ve just endorsed, Devil’s Advocates, contrarians, and those without principles (other than the principle to reject)?  Your ability to so quickly contradict yourself seems to bring you little internal dischord, you certainly did not address this contradiction yourself.  Perhaps that’s just you ‘thinking differently’?

   I’ve never been a fan of your writing.  I find it narrow and neurotically Christian.  By some bizarre path only possible on the internet I have come to your blog because I think your writing perfectly exemplifies the mind of an ambitious believer trying desperately and at all costs to plug up the leak in a faith that is clearly circling the drain.  In fact I can see you typing a reply to this wherein I’ve obivously misinterpretted D.A. Carson’s use of the idea of ‘thinking differently’ and that you, him and I all agree that the principle of critical thinking should rightly find its home in the core of all good people.  You see, this never ends.

   Comment by larhule - Mar 18, 2009 @ 10:32 AM

3. Oh…..it ends.

   Comment by Sharlow - Mar 18, 2009 @ 03:05 PM

4. Sharlow can “think differently” too.

   Comment by larhule - Mar 18, 2009 @ 03:38 PM

5. “We know from the Book of Acts that the early Church was distinct from the other cultural institutions of its day. Its faith, love, and practices were unique, strange, and somewhat mysterious to the first-century world, and yet it flourished. The early Church was the exact opposite of the Roman Empire, and yet it flourished. Christianity wasn’t popular, it was persecuted, and yet it flourished. The early Church had no power (apart from the Holy Spirit), no tactics (unless you count prayer, the breaking of bread, and devotion to the apostles’ teaching), no secular model for success (even the Empire was limited by its own borders), and no cool factor (suffering and outsider-status are decidedly uncool) ... and yet it flourished. In Acts 2, Luke notes that the Lord was adding to the numbers of early Christians daily. It seems fitting that in the absence of the pattern and its relevance, popularity, and power, God gets the credit for the growth of the early Church.”

   This is not even an argument.  The truth of any matter is not determined by its persistence or its popularity, in either direction.  The same argument could be made for the theory of evolution, however anyone who understands evolution does not need to make such points.  The evidence speaks for itself.  Evidence is what you lack, so you turn to arguments based on persistence and popularity.  No honest person would give such drivel an ounce of credibility.

   “while Caesar marketed himself as the Son of God, the actual Son of God humbled himself, made himself nothing, put on human flesh, and was obedient to death—even death on a cross. If we are genuinely followers of Christ, let’s forget the pattern and follow him.”

   Obedience to death is a virtue?!?!?!  What are you talking about?  Are you saying that if you were present at the crucifixion you would have done nothing to stop it?  As far as you would have known you would have seen an innocent man about to be slaughtered and tortured.  And you instead talk about obedience to death?!  This is not moral!!!!  How dare you command people to pattern themselves after someone who is “obedient to death”?

   “Perhaps by striving to be perceived as attractive and influential, we aim to attract and influence the attractive and influential. That’s the pattern of every health club, custom home builder, university, and theme park. Jesus’ assertion was that he, when lifted up (by way of the brutal, wondrous cross), would draw people unto himself.”

   The pattern of every university is to “aim to attract and influence the attractive and influential”?  I beg to supremely differ!!!!  Have you ever been to a (secular) university?  The goal of education is to present theories, experiences, arguments, perspectives and ideas in an environment where they can be scrutinized fairly with reason and evidence.  Your analogizing this to the attraction and influence peddled by those who claim divine permission is terribly misleading and deeply disturbing.  And to then compare a university unfavorably to a man submitting to torture in order to gain attention and influence….there is something disgustingly wrong with you!

   Comment by larhule - Mar 19, 2009 @ 02:45 PM

6. Larhule,
     I am not really sure what you are trying to accomplish with your posts? If you are offended by one man’s ideas on religion than I would suggest you not to read them. Your ignorance of the message of Christ is the main problem with any of your arguments. Christ came to earth to show himself humility and love something I am seeing you lack in every one of your posts. When the overwhelming message of a man is love for all people and all kinds, of which you are included, I find it hard to believe you want to debate that message. There are no commands from Scott to believe or behave in a certain manner only his comments on how Christians can behave more like the Bible calls us to. If you do not believe in the Bible then that is your choice but why rip on a guy who is asking us to love everyone and to be different and not to conform to the world? Is that really a bad message? I myself have come back and forth across the faith lines and find messages such as Scott’s to be uplifting because they remind me that we are all failed people looking for our place in the world. We are not different from atheist’s except in the fact that we believe that Jesus is the answer to the end of this life and you believe there is no answer. Your grandstanding and attempts at provoking a pointless argument are a great example of what is Scott talking about. You have a blog, you have your readers why waste your time here? But no matter what your reason or your ideas I would hope that you know that any true Christian would help you on any given day despite your hatred towards our beliefs. You are not hated for yours.

   Comment by Steven - Mar 19, 2009 @ 06:21 PM

7. “I am not really sure what you are trying to accomplish with your posts?”

   Dissent.  Thought provocation.  Isn’t that fair?

   “If you are offended by one man’s ideas on religion than I would suggest you not to read them.”

   I am not foolish enough to simply ignore those with whom I disagree.

   “There are no commands from Scott to believe or behave in a certain manner only his comments on how Christians can behave more like the Bible calls us to.”

   Therein lies the problem.

   “I myself have come back and forth across the faith lines and find messages such as Scott’s to be uplifting because they remind me that we are all failed people”

   This is part and parcel of the simultaneous self-hating and self-righteousness that I find with most Christians.  It is revolting.  What side of the faith line are you on today?

   “We are not different from atheist’s except in the fact that we believe that Jesus is the answer to the end of this life and you believe there is no answer.”

   Weren’t you just trying to convince me that Scott’s message was to get Christians to think differently?  Now you’re telling me that we’re all just the same.  It’s not my fault that this is confusing and unreasonable.

   “Your grandstanding and attempts at provoking a pointless argument are a great example of what is Scott talking about.”

   Grandstanding?  Pointless argument?  Then why reply to me?  Take your own advice and ignore it!  You just told me to do the same.  Now who is grandstanding?

   ” You have a blog, you have your readers why waste your time here?”

   I do not see this time as a waste.  Ask yourself why this blog has a comment function.  I must have missed the disclaimer allowing only those who argee to comment.

   “But no matter what your reason or your ideas I would hope that you know that any true Christian would help you on any given day despite your hatred towards our beliefs.”

   Since when did I say that I held hatred towards you or your beliefs?  You should really think twice before putting such caustic words into other peoples’ mouths.

   Comment by larhule - Mar 19, 2009 @ 06:39 PM

8. Thank you for your reply. It was well thought out and written with purpose. I hope you find whatever it is you are seeking in this life and I hope someday you find the courage to not attack those who think differently than yourself. Following Christ is not something to be ashamed of nor is it something to attack. I am sorry you feel the way you do but I understand your anger and disagreement. Continue to do kind deeds for others wherever you go and I will strive to do the same. Good luck in the blogging.

   Comment by Steven - Mar 19, 2009 @ 09:24 PM

9. How dare you command people to pattern themselves after someone who is “obedient to death”?

   See you don’t really get it because if you did you would like it.

   Comment by John - Mar 19, 2009 @ 09:29 PM

10. Scott, thanks for the article. Great thoughts. You are awesome, man! I would love to have coffee with you again some time!

    Scott, I know Larhule is treating you really rough, sorry about that. I considered deleting the comments, but I would prefer to allow the dissension - however hateful it is. I love you bro!

    Larhule, your comments come across pretty angry and hateful. I would prefer that you moderate your tone. I like that you have a dissenting opinion and I like the discussion that can result from dissenting opinions, but I feel like you’re more interested in stabbing Scott and Christians with your words than in discussion.

    That’s cool for me, I can take a stabbing. I would love to rap with you about Christianity. However, as the person in charge of the blog, I would prefer that you moderate your tone please.

    Comment by Jesse Phillips - Mar 20, 2009 @ 08:08 AM

11. “I know Larhule is treating you really rough, sorry about that. I considered deleting the comments, but I would prefer to allow the dissension - however hateful it is.”

    Really rough?  The first comment I made was the only one directed to Scott, and it was far from rough.  Please quote what you think went over the line.  Evidence please, not just accusation, lest you be labelled the angry & hateful one.  I’ve replied to Scott before on his blog and he does the same thing that you’re attempting: refusing to engage my points and attempting to cast me as “hateful”.  It is a very deceiptful, evasive and hurtful approach, I must say.

    “Larhule, your comments come across pretty angry and hateful.”

    I request that you quote anything I’ve said that is hateful.  The only time I should have come across as angry is when I said that the simultaneous self-hatred and self-righteousness that forms the bedrock of Christianity is revolting.  I gave my reasoning.  But since you have no reply to my point you simply take issue with my delivery.  Again, deceiptful and evasive!

    “I like that you have a dissenting opinion and I like the discussion that can result from dissenting opinions, I feel like you’re more interested in stabbing Scott and Christians with your words than in discussion.”

    Your feeling is incorrect. The simple fact that I come here, explain my opinion and ask question of you shows that I am most certainly interested in discussion.  Why you would interpret this as anything else is beyond my comprehension.

    “I would love to rap with you about Christianity.”

    Then rap already.  Just because I’m combative does not mean that I’m angry or hateful.  Those are awfully heavy and combative words to be throwing around considering this is the internet and tone is about as easy to determine as skin color.  Get on with it!

    Comment by larhule - Mar 20, 2009 @ 11:33 AM

12. I thot these things were well over the line:

    “No honest person would give such drivel an ounce of credibility.”

    “there is something disgustingly wrong with you! “

    “Take your own advice and ignore it!  You just told me to do the same.  Now who is grandstanding?”

    Plus, in many of your sentences you speak over confidently and in such a way as to imply that the person you’re responding to is very stupid. It seems that that’s not conducive to discussion.

    Please speak to others on here the way you’d like to be spoken to.

    thnx

    Comment by Jesse Phillips - Mar 20, 2009 @ 01:10 PM

Sorry, but commenting is no longer available for this post.