An Interview with John Webster

One of the world's leading Reformed theologians, John Webster, has focused his study on the works of Eberhard Jüngel and Karl Barth (he edited the Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth) and on the theological interpretation of scripture (a commentary on Ephesians is forthcoming). He is working on his own multi-volume systematic theology. He cofounded (with Colin Gunton) the International Journal of Systematic Theology and is a coeditor of the Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology. He taught at the Toronto School of Theology and Oxford University before taking up his current post at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland.

There seems to be renewed interest in systematic theology over the past decade or two. How would you account for that?

The renewed confidence that constructive theology is possible and worthwhile is probably the biggest change in theological culture since I was a graduate student in the late 1970s. The confidence has many roots: the steady decline of models of theology in which "critical appraisal" is the dominant task; receptiveness toward and fresh engagement with classical thinkers, patristic, medieval and Reformation; a sense that the Enlightenment is only one episode in the history of one (Western) culture and not a turning point in the history of humankind; the work of a number of gifted and independent-minded theologians now at the height of their powers who have shown the potency of constructive doctrinal work.

That being said, the renewal of interest ought not to be overstated: much doctrinal theology in English remains preoccupied with keeping up a conversation with other fields of inquiry (often literary and cultural theory) and is so eager to do so that it often neglects the descriptive or dogmatic tasks of systematics.

In your work on the theology of scripture you have had negative things to say about historical criticism when it's regarded as the lone means of accessing truth about Jesus. How does the historical-critical approach hinder rather than help efforts to get at who Jesus "really was"?

Historical criticism is not a single entity but a family of approaches to texts and religious history. Constructive Christology has much to learn from what historians can tell us about the temporal realities into which the eternal Word descended. But for the past two centuries, historical study of Christian origins has been plagued by historical naturalism, which converts the history of Jesus into one more temporal state of affairs. And this naturalism means that something basic to the church's confession about Christ is missed--the fact that the history of Jesus is what it is only because it is rooted in God's being in a direct and immediate way.

To say that Jesus is God incarnate is to say that there is a history of Jesus only because in it God's very being reaches out to us; only because of that outreach of the divine being is there this historical figure, and only on that basis can his history be known for what it is. Put differently: incarnation goes all the way down; it's not something added onto a more basic historical reality. Without the movement of God's unrestricted love and self-giving, without the Son's eternal obedience to the Father, there is no history of Jesus.

And so historians who seek to find a Jesus of history behind the incarnate one of the apostolic Gospels are looking for a figure who doesn't exist. If that's so, then the church's conceptual formulation of its confession of Christ--its dogma--doesn't obscure Jesus so much as tell us who he is, what's going on in his history: God's very life is being borne to us.

Karl Barth looms large in your writings. What aspects of his theology, or what accounts of his theology, do you especially seek to engage?

Barth's work is still in the process of reception (as might be expected from a corpus of texts of such range and depth). Many readings of him (especially hostile ones) are often not thoroughly acquainted with his work, and so tend to promote caricatures. I've tried to look at him whole, and to let him explicate himself before moving on to appraisal.

From the beginning, it's been common for many readers of Barth to worry about the apparent one-sidedness of his descriptions of the sheer plenitude of God. Perhaps Barth thinks that God's glory has to be maintained at a cost to creatures. Nowadays this worry is often expressed by speaking of Barth's supposed "extrinsicism," that is, his presentation of the Christian faith in terms of an encounter (or collision) of divine and human wills in which creatures are kept separate from God's being.

I've tried to suggest that this isn't really the case. From the beginning Barth was deeply interested in the reality of creatures and their acts, and he conceived of Christianity as concerned with the active fellowship between God and creatures. He is, I think, a moral theologian. My interest in Barth as moral theologian suggests to me that his interpretation of the Reformed tradition (as equally concerned with God's glory and the free action of creatures) was deeply important in his theological growth.

Finally, we can learn much about Barth (and, of course, other great Christian thinkers) by watching how he interprets scripture; work at this task is still underdeveloped.

Why should ordinary Christians care about such seemingly recondite matters as how to articulate the immanent being of the Trinity?

There aren't any "ordinary" Christians; there are saints, a few of whom are appointed to the task of thinking hard about and trying to articulate the common faith of the church. We don't usually need to use formal theological language and concepts in the everyday life of the church in prayer, preaching and service.

But like any other important human activity, faith has to achieve a measure of conceptual clarity if it is to understand and express itself, and part of that process is the development of abstract concepts like Trinity, incarnation and substance. What's important is that we don't treat such concepts as if they were improvements on the ordinary ways in which the saints express the faith; they are simply shorthand terms, a tool kit which helps us keep certain crucial aspects of the gospel alive in the mind and worship of the church. Theology and theological abstractions matter because the gospel matters, because the gospel concerns truth, and because living in and from the truth involves the discipleship of reason.

Does theology have anything to fear--or learn--from the "new atheists" such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens?

The saints fear God, not their opponents, because God's good and gentle rule outbids all that opposes the gospel. The "new atheism" looks to me pretty much like old atheism, but it is more aggressive, less historically informed and woefully ignorant of what Christians (and other religious practitioners) actually say and think. Compared with serious critiques from the past, much new atheism reads more like a tantrum than an argument.

But we have to distinguish atheism from atheists; atheists are our fellow creatures, like us the children of Adam, and we do well to listen to them with care, to confess our shortcomings, and also to look them in the eye with cheerful confidence and friendliness and explain as simply as we can how the gospel witnesses to God's gift of life.

If you were just starting out in theology today, what topics and issues would you want to tackle?

What I didn't get round to doing when I set out: lots of exegesis, lots of historical theology, mastering the big texts of the traditions of the church. Then I'd be better able to figure out what to do with whatever showed up than I am as I stumble around now trying to work out what I should be about.

What current trends in theology give you hope?

Theological interpretation of scripture (when it is not burdened by large-scale hermeneutical theory or an inflated ecclesiology); historical theology (especially when animated by astonishment at the gifts which the Spirit has given to the saints through the great thinkers of the past); systematics (when it sets aside anxieties about relevance or plausibility and gives itself to the task of loving description of the gospel).

 

Worship at the U2charist

A church service called the U2charist would seem like liberal Protestantism at its worst: take music from a band that was cutting-edge over two decades ago, sprinkle some religiosity on top and try to reach hip younger people. I went expecting the worst.

My dread increased when I arrived for a staging of the event at Fourth Presbyterian Church in Chicago. The crowd was mostly folks in their mid-30s who had listened to U2 as kids. Many had brought their own youngsters with them. Not a few church youth groups had been dragged in for the event from the suburbs. Seeing them, I remembered my youth group's reaction when U2 was featured at the 2004 Super Bowl: "Who are these guys?"

The music by a U2 tribute band called Elevation was so loud that the tunes were unintelligible, let alone the lyrics. Elevation imitates U2 slavishly. Its lead singer is even named "Danno," after U2's Bono. Danno wore his hair, clothes and shades to resemble his idol, and even donned the leather jacket with the American-flag liner that Bono wore for U2's Super Bowl performance. Watching him bounce around in a fully lit gothic sanctuary in front of people sitting in pews was, at first, downright painful.

The widespread press coverage of U2charists has followed a familiar trope: "Stuffy old church updates for new day." Episcopal liturgist and well-known blogger Sarah Dylan Breuer devised the U2charist in 2004 to pair the Irish rock band's passion for God and social justice with the sacrament of Christian worship. The band allows its lyrics and name to be used as long as any proceeds go toward organizations working to further the UN's Millennium Development Goals.

The UN's Millennium Goals are certainly laudable: eradicate poverty, promote gender equality, reduce child mortality and so on. But with this kind of focus, God's good news in Christ can be easily reduced to do-gooderism. At best this kind of event offers social justice without obvious religious content; at worst, it touches on Pelagianism, reducing faith to the sum total of our impressive good deeds. Tack on what Bono calls U2'S tendency to be "painfully, insufferably earnest," and a liturgical disaster was ready to unfold.

But then Elevation lit into the guitar rift that precedes U2'S great song of religious longing, "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For." Something in me changed. I started to groove. So did the 30-somethings and their kids around me. It takes a lot to get Presbyterians up in their pews and dancing, but it happened. The parents didn't just mouth these "lyrics, they shouted them, as they doubtless had thousands of times before. Their children smiled at their parents and danced in the pews beside them. Suddenly it worked.

"Still Haven't Found" is the sort of song that led Breuer to write the U2charist liturgy in the first place: "You broke the bonds and you loosed the chains, carried the cross of my shame." They're lyrics that almost demand to be sung in church. Loudly. When the song finished and we stood, rather formally, for a typical high-church responsive reading, our shouting voices were ready, and we bellowed with the psalmist, "Sing to the Lord, all the earth!"

Later in the service Danno asked for help. He had the church bulletin in front of him--not a normal part of Elevation's performances, to be sure. "Uh, OK, I guess we're supposed to sing the Doxology now. You all are going to have to help me." And he began, a cappella, "Praise God from whom all blessings flow." These were church people, good Presbyterians, and their voices were warmed up.

We lingered as the last note, sung in harmony, wafted by the wood-carved angels in the top of the nave. Somehow, between Danno's charming hesitation and the congregation's confident response, the Doxology had never been more beautiful.

It all may have worked in the end because of U2's ability to capture the tensions of the city. Bono often speaks and sings of the religiously inspired violence in Northern Ireland. U2's great song "Where the Streets Have No Name" is an eschatological plea for a time when we can't tell who's Catholic and who's Protestant, who's friend or enemy, based on address or surname. It's a lament, full of longing, but finally hopeful.

Singing that song in the midst of Chicago, a city with great beauty but also huge social problems, somehow seemed right. As visitors wandered into the church from the street to see what was going on, it felt like the church was serving them well--it was making space both for U2's passionate love for humanity and for its fury at how we treat one another. The church was speaking about a merciful God not perched above the fray but down here in the mess with us.

Maybe this service actually represented the mainline church at its best. It was about worshiping a God who is too passionate to allow for cynicism, a God ready to bless our best and curse our worst, eager to bring the kingdom, but not before we turn to God in freedom.

Sure, the show would've been better if staged by Willow Creek. The music would have been better if performed by U2 itself. But earnestness ain't all bad: "One life, but we're not the same, we get to carry each other, carry each other, one, one."

Strategies for Urban Ministry

The city is changing. For decades white people with money fled the city for the suburbs, leaving behind a mostly brown and black population that was often bereft of resources. But recently, in many cities, patterns of gentrification have reversed this trend. People with money have moved back to the city and rehabbed old housing stock, seeking to live where they work and play. As housing prices and property taxes go up, lower-income people are often driven out.

How is the church responding to this most recent change and ministering to the new set of urban dwellers? Chicago offers the examples of several churches that have responded to the swell of new urban elites who began coming in the 1980s and have not stopped.

Chicago once had a number of downtown "First Churches." Almost all of them packed up and left in the wake of urban changes in the late 19th and early 20th century. But First United Methodist did not.

First United Methodist Church began at a meeting in a blacksmith’s log-cabin shop in 1832--six years before the city of Chicago was incorporated. It thrived amid the 19th-century urban scene through the clever idea of having a mixed-use building: the church built more space than it needed for worship and rented some of the space to businesses.

That concept was expanded audaciously in 1922 when the congregation decided to build a skyscraper, putting the sanctuary and church offices on the first two floors, commercial space on floors 3 to 24 (Clarence Darrow’s office was once on the sixth floor) and the parsonage in the loft. The church called itself the Chicago Temple-- an odd usage of the term by Methodists, perhaps a sign of the grandness of their vision. The skyscraper, diagonal from City Hall in the Loop, Chicago’s downtown, is almost indistinguishable from the buildings around it. Commuters can walk by it for years and never know it’s a church.

Pastor Philip Blackwell calls it "a cathedral church" that serves two very different populations. It has a Sunday crowd of about 1,000 worshipers who come from every zip code in the city and 80 suburbs. But the multiple staff would be busy if they had no regular congregation at all. The Chicago Temple offers midweek services for downtown workers (90 percent of whom are members of other churches), and it has a ministry to the many homeless people who spend days and nights in the Loop. Claude King, the pastor who leads the ministry to the homeless, looks like he could handle himself in a fight--and indeed while I visited the church he was called to the lobby to pacify a brewing confrontation.

One simple, powerful ministry of the Temple is its open-door policy: it leaves the air conditioning or the heat on in the sanctuary and keeps the sanctuary open for prayer. Homeless people are almost always in the pews, surrounded by wooden angels, stained glass and oceans of dark wood. Many of them eventually join the church, or at least come forward for communion. "They’re pretty hungry," observes Blackwell, who has a quick wit and a young, impish face under a white crown of hair. His ministry is of an intellectual bent. He is proud of the church’s new science and theology study group that will be part of a citywide program, sponsored by the Museum of Science and Industry, called "Science Chicago," meant to enhance appreciation for the discipline.

Churches like the Chicago Temple don’t thrive unless they improvise. The Temple’s most recent innovation is a theater. When the time came to renovate the church basement, the church spent a few hundred thousand dollars to create a venue for the Silk Road Theater Company, which uses the space for free.

Silk Road Theater was founded in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in an effort to engage the cultures of the East with sympathy rather than rancor. Its founders are a Muslim and a Syrian Orthodox Christian. Some 1.5 million people with origins in the Silk Road region live in Chicago. The theater has received glowing reviews for its staging of such plays as Merchant on Venice, which turns Shakespeare’s play about Christians and Jews into a story about Muslims and Hindus, and Golden Child, by David Hwang, about the cultural clash between Christian missionaries and the Chinese. "Christianity is a Silk Road story," Blackwell said, "and we need a Middle Eastern context to understand the Bible." The theater recently was honored by the Chicago Commission on Human Relations for its "achievements in promoting cross-cultural interaction."

Silk Road is not an evangelistic effort, though there is a notice in the playbills welcoming patrons to the "historic Chicago temple" and a few people have migrated from the theater to the pews on Sunday. The theater company has complete artistic freedom. The point of the church hosting a theater is simply to host a first-rate company.

Silk Road director Jamil Khoury says the church trusts his company to take on such sensitive subjects as homosexuality and the clash of civilizations. "Theater people often have baggage with the church," Khoury says, so they’re pleasantly surprised to find a church taking theater so seriously and making space for it so generously. Chicago Temple’s hospitality to the theater may suggest a way to reach a population that is new to the city and is hip to the cultural scene but not to the faith. And what do old downtown churches have, in many cases, but plenty of underused, aesthetically pleasing space?

A few blocks west of the Temple, across the Chicago River, is another old downtown church--the oldest pubic building in Chicago. When Father Jack Wall arrived at Old St. Patrick’s in 1983, the church had only four parishioners. Its heyday as a harbor for Irish immigrants was long gone. An expressway built in the 1950s had lopped off half its property, and not even the West Loop’s once famous flophouses were around anymore. His parish was filled with warehouses. "My parents were worried for me," he recalled. "But it was the safest police district in the city. There were simply no people."

When Father Wall retired from Old St. Pat’s last year, the church had 3,500 families on its rolls, and it counted 5,300 more people as affiliated with the church.

What happened? Some of it had to do with being in the right place when gentrification occurred. Another element is the building’s stunning beauty--Celtic art runs through the statue of St. Patrick in the front and across gorgeous green and gold walls, in mazelike patterns that flow even under the water of the baptismal font. It is a Celtic Christian "thin place," especially after extensive renovation in the late 1990s.

But part of the turnaround is clearly due to Wall’s own charisma. He’s dashingly handsome, with an intent gaze and laugh marks around his eyes. As a young priest at another parish in the city, he used to wonder about the nearly moribund Old St. Pat’s: "Could this church start all over?" When he saw the church’s unusual twin spires, one a steeple in the Western tradition, the other an onion-shaped dome recalling the styles of the Christian East, he was reminded of a crossroads. He imagined a church that would draw people back to the city, a church based not on ethnicity or neighborhood but on intentional outreach. (The church’s recent history is told in several places, including Lowell Livezey’s Public Religion and Urban Transformation, New York University Press.)

The church eyed busy professionals who would be attracted by programs that had definite start and end times and that would fit around commuters’ schedules. These programs had to be good. A glance at the church’s monthly calendar indicates the kind of programs the church developed: bike-to-church Sunday; wine tasting at a trendy restaurant; an Oktoberfest gathering; a stress-reduction program.

The church tapped into the Midwestern tradition of the block party and started what it billed as the "world’s largest block party," a several-day party and fund-raiser. Though it has now become more of a secular event, the block party still brings in major revenue with the help of terrific bands and loads of kegs. Stories circulate about how many couples in the parish first met at the block party.

Wall found that young professionals "wanted to know how what they did mattered." They were also thinking about marriage. Wall recalled that at the beginning of his tenure, when people would call the parish to ask about getting married there, "The first response would be, ‘Are you a member?’--not [a word of] congratulations or celebration." The church decided to make weddings the occasion to do evangelism and formation.

A wave of children soon followed. St. Pat’s responded by opening the first new Catholic grammar school in Chicago in 25 years. From its storefront beginning it has grown to a school of 700 children on two campuses.

Developing the programs and the sacramental and educational emphases was not a matter of meeting needs, according to Father Wall. "When you’re down to four parishioners, the last thing you do is ask them their needs so you can meet them." The church reoriented itself around mission. People do not want to be members of institutions that will meet their needs, Wall said, but they do want to be part of a mission, to have an experience of the church in action. Wall was surprised to find that it wasn’t just young urban professionals who were coming to Old St. Pat’s; the yuppies were bringing their parents, who were disaffected with their suburban parishes or with Catholic life altogether. "They were re-creating the sabbath," Wall says.

One of the parishioners who wanted to know how what he did mattered was Tom Owens. Inspired by the example of Mother Teresa, he started using his connections to get work for the unemployed and health care for those who needed it. Out of that effort was born the Cara program (the word cara in old Irish means "friend"), which moves some 200 people a year from the streets into jobs with benefits. Since its founding in 1991 some 1,900 people have benefited from the Cara ministry. This is Vatican II ecclesiology at its best--the ministry of the baptized, rather than of the clergy.

When I asked Wall to explain the church’s success, he said that Old St. Pat’s is rooted in "communion with God--discipleship-and so we’re moved to create communities." The church is not a club, it’s a mission, an event that takes place as it reaches out to others. "God only tells us who we are as we are a gift beyond ourselves and as we receive gifts from others," he said.

LaSalle Street Church in the Near North neighborhood looks like a venerable downtown First Church, but it actually began in the 1960s when evangelicals from institutions like Wheaton College and Moody Bible Institute sought to create a grittier, more streetwise form of church life. (The building was bought from another congregation.) The church certainly doesn’t feel like the average evangelical church--it has none of the suburban sleekness one would find at Willow Creek, and no narrowness in doctrine. The senior pastor is a woman, Laura Truax, and the congregation is scruffy around the edges, attracting members from the nearby housing projects as well as from the wealthy Gold Coast and many other parts of the city. It is notoriously difficult for white do-gooder churches of any stripe to be more multicultural (Old St. Pat’s has struggled with this problem mightily). LaSalle has done it. Though predominantly white, it includes African Americans and Latinos.

One sign of its character is its homeless ministry, called Breaking Bread. In 2003 someone in the church office saw a homeless man sleeping in the bushes beside the building. The staff member opened a window, offered the man coffee and a roll, and proceeded to learn about the man’s mental illness, lost job and drug problem. Pastor Truax used the incident to challenge the congregation: Could church members let homeless people sleep right underneath their noses and not do something about it?

Breaking Bread is meant to be more than a soup kitchen. It aims to "invite strangers as family to the table," creating community with the homeless, serving them with dignity. Pastor Oreon Trickey, director of Breaking Bread, describes the ministry with a line from Psalm 68:6: "God puts the solitary into families." Evangelical enthusiasm and a streetwise sensibility radiate through her 6’ 4" frame and spikey hairdo.

Breaking Bread offers a restaurant-style meal to 70-80 homeless people once a week. Salad is on the table when guests come in. Full plates are brought out by volunteer waiters. Real silverware and plates are used. Many of the volunteer workers are themselves homeless. When they come in each Wednesday they "visibly relax," Trickey says. Some will get up and sing, "and no one tells them ‘Sit down! Shut up!’ They can be themselves."

Keith Richardson, Breaking Bread’s cook, was himself homeless for 13 years. He is summoned if there’s a dispute in the dining area because he can "talk folks down," Trickey says. Richardson describes his work as "giving back to people I used to hang out with. I understand, I’ve been there, I have a bond with them." Richardson also knows how they like to eat: "I blackify everything," he says. "You can’t just make what’s in the Kraft box, you got to put eggs in the macaroni."

Breaking Bread is keen to not try too much more. The temptation, Trickey says, is to think, "This is great, let’s make it bigger!" She worries that professionalization would set in and the church’s role would focus more on grant-writing and paperwork. "You can compromise your intimacy and depth. Just because you can do more doesn’t mean you should. We prefer to do this one thing well."

Urban ministry has changed even in the four and a half years of Breaking Bread’s life. The nearby public housing project towers have come down, replaced by mixed-income housing. There are fewer visibly poor people in the neighborhood now. Those who remain are under pressure from the city not to sit on front porches lest the neighborhood seem less safe for the professionals who are moving in. But the poor are still there. "And as long as we offer services, they will come," Trickey says. "The poor we will always have with us."

And some will come to church. Trickey, who is also the church’s outreach coordinator, tries to integrate visitors on Sundays into church life. She spots several guests from Breaking Bread at each service. Trickey hopes a volunteer from Breaking Bread will also be there on Sunday to greet them. "Those in the homeless system have heard enough sermons," Trickey says. "What they need is relationship."

Nothing suggests suburban ministry like Willow Creek Community Church, the influential megachurch that attracts 20,000 people each weekend to its sprawling campus in South Barrington, Illinois. But after years of insisting that people who come to church should have their own needs met, founder Bill Hybels sings a bit of a different tune, learned from friends like U2’s Bono: Christians should serve the needs of people outside the church. Willow Creek Chicago is part of this new effort to advocate for social justice and extend "a sense of true community," as the Web site proclaims, to Chicagoans in the quickly gentrifying south Loop area.

Renting space in the magnificent Auditorium Theater, with its golden mosaics and turn-of-the-century opulence, Willow Creek Chicago has about 1,200 attenders after only a year of operation. A greeter told me, "We visited 150 sites and this one worked the best. It seats 4,500--so we have room to grow." A Hollywood-quality video montage celebrating the church’s one-year anniversary boasted of 51,000 church attenders, 9,000 worship hours, 312 songs, 40 baptisms, 440 people in small groups, community care for 50 people, 5 relief trucks sent to Louisiana, 850 prayer requests responded to and 320 converts made after services.

Willow Chicago certainly feels different from Willow Barrington. For one, it has been intentionally multiethnic from the start. The music when I visited had an African-American or even Caribbean vibe, not the laced-up guitar sound of most megachurches. I counted 20 choir members, six lead singers, a six-piece string section, four guitars, two synthesizers and two bongo drummers. The lead singers constituted such a multiethnic combination that I wondered if quotas were in place. An unusually rhythmic version of the evangelical mainstay, "Lord, I lift your name on high" was followed by a couple dancing the salsa.

The pastor, Steve Wu, was CEO of two companies before he quit to go into full-time ministry. He projects humility and a sense of confidence, and his comic timing is flawless. He is also an example of the church’s ability to weave multiple ethnicities into community. Drawing a stick figure on a marker board to make a point, he drew slanted, Asian eyes, and then feigned surprise when the congregation started laughing. "They’re just eyes!" he said. I’m surprised to learn from a church spokesperson, MaryBeth Morehouse, that Wu is divorced. "He can relate to those who’ve been through that," she tells me, "and help them to be equally yoked next time." The hundreds around me seem undisturbed when Wu’s sermon ticks past 45 minutes.

A common criticism of Willow is that it’s a show more than anything and that its studied nonuse of Christian symbols or liturgical gestures is a too-easy accommodation to modernity, the market and individualistic Christianity. But at Willow Chicago there is no effort to hide that this is, indeed, a church, if an unusual one.

Another common criticism is that visitors to Willow can’t possibly hope to get involved in the worship ministry--who expects to go from being an audience member to part of the cast of a Broadway play? But when I mentioned this problem to lead singer David Thompson, he dismissed it. He said he had tried several Presbyterian churches when he moved to Chicago, and only Willow asked him to use his talents in worship.

Willow Chicago makes a clear effort to reach the city. When I tell Morehouse I’m interested in gentrification, she replies, "We’re against it!" She goes on to talk about Willow’s intention to "transform the city a bit at a time." The chief problem the church sees is loneliness. Evangelicals can’t stand to live in buildings where they don’t know their neighbors--how could they ever evangelize someone they’ve not met? So Willow has launched "Neighborhood Life," a social outreach program that allows Creekers to meet their neighbors--"not to convert anybody," a greeter assured me, but just to get to know them.

Given Willow’s effort to be city-savvy, I almost swallowed my gum when I heard where the one-year anniversary party would be held: the Congress Hotel. Workers have been on strike for four years at the Congress, seeking better wages and health benefits. Hotel owners have steadfastly refused to negotiate. Religious groups have been among those supporting the strike. Every Sunday, Creekers were crossing the picket line to enter the hotel, using it as a fellowship hall. (Willow Chicago has since stopped using the hotel, though Morehouse described the strike to me as "a pretty pathetic situation" and said, "These people need to either find better counsel to argue their case or move on to employment elsewhere.") A church purporting to care about social justice and to be sensitive to the needs of the city might start with a willingness to stand up for workers.

Wicker Park is a working-class neighborhood a few miles northwest of the Loop. Its proximity to downtown has made it ripe for gentrification. New bars, coffeehouses and restaurants have popped up as young professionals have moved in and rehabbed the housing stock, which in turn has raised the cost of renting or buying housing.

Ministering in this neighborhood is Wicker Park Grace, which is part of the Emergent church movement. Grace is explicitly reacting against the slickness of the megachurch style and against the theological smugness that it detects in much of the evangelical world. Pastor Nanette Sawyer put off my initial request for an interview, saying, "It seems like you want a story about all the beautiful people. We’re more like the island of misfit toys."

Once I talked her into meeting with me, she urged me to come soon so I wouldn’t miss a neighborhood art show. The art council building that the church uses was hosting an exhibit of an Ecuadoran artist’s work. The exhibit was just beside the coffee shop that the council opens for special events and which the church uses for services. The whole vibe was crunchy and welcoming, like entering a familiar old garage with someone else’s cool stuff in it.

If Willow Chicago matches Steve Wu’s personality as a former CEO, Wicker Park Grace matches Sawyer’s mystical and artistic streak. It holds worship on Saturday evenings either with a Taize-style prayer service or with a jazz vespers. Sawyer teaches more than she preaches, and the service is mostly filled with directed prayer and silence.

The key mark of the church for her is hospitality (her book on the topic, just out from Skylight Paths, is Hospitality: The Sacred Art). Her ministry is shaped by her experience at a little Presbyterian church in South Boston that welcomed her while she was a student at Harvard Divinity School. The church "made me feel safe and valuable and flee to be honest and authentic--on the spiritual journey I was on," she recalls. So she now invites others.

About 30 people gather for vesper services, and about 140 are on the church’s e-mail list. When it comes to numbers, Sawyer is a bit less ambitious than Willow Creek: "We’d like to have 100 or so." She has no interest in buildings, only in art.

Her church is made up of the artists who moved into the neighborhood when it was still cheap to live there. Funky shops followed, and then came the trend-following gentry. Condos are going up right outside Sawyer’s office, and the arts council is being displaced from its building--the owner is looking to raise rents above what artists and churches can pay. The church will be moving to a space above a Target store. "Don’t worry, we’ll artify it!" Sawyer promises.

Sawyer sounds like she has Willow in mind as her negative example when she describes Wicker Park Grace’s philosophy: "Don’t create a show for worship to be purchased by consumers. We want to create a community for participants."

The way artists have contributed is most obvious in Wicker Park’s Stations of the Cross exhibit during Holy Week. These artistic renderings of Jesus’ steps on the way to his death have brought the neighborhood out and captured local media attention. Jesus’ trial is portrayed with the iconic image of early-20th-century lynchings in the American South. A rendering of Veronica’s veil has a papier-mâché hand reaching out to the viewer. Jesus’ burial scene includes what looks like an actual death shroud over a face. The resurrection is portrayed as a glorious montage of eyes and flowers and light, in an Eastern Orthodox iconic vein.

The use of art is not a method for church growth at Wicker Park--if anything it seems designed to keep things small. Poetry fills the services, with poems by Christian saints like St. John of the Cross ("‘What is grace,’ I asked God. And he said, ‘All that happens’") and the Indian philosopher Sri Chinmoy ("Yesterday I lived inside My mind’s disastrous uncertainty-sea. Today I am living inside My heart’s rapturous divinity-ocean"). Wicker Park Grace is a good, small, delicate thing, riding the tides of gentrification and gathering up refugees from other churches, promising a more peaceful, gentle way--even perched above Target.

Meeting these churches and their pastors leaves one impressed with the enormous, diverse intellectual energy needed to minister in the changing city. No one church can do everything in response to massive and various human needs. The successful ones concentrate on doing a few things--connecting to people through hospitality, art, companionship, theater, food or service. Theological distinctions seem to fade amid the challenges of the city. Mainline pastors, Catholic priests and evangelical ministers are all improvising, trying new things, risking failure, scattering seed and seeing what fruit might spring up.

What is the Church For?

What, precisely, is a good church? How would you know one when you see it? A popular answer these days is that a good church is a "purpose driven" church.

The phrase and the concept come from Rick Warren, founding pastor of Saddleback Community Church in Lake Forest, California, one of the largest and fastest growing churches in American history. It has almost 10,000 core members" and over 50,000 people on its rolls.

Warren is also the author of The Purpose-Driven Church and The Purpose-Driven Life. The former book has sold over 1 million copies in 20 languages, the latter has been No.1 on the New York Times best-seller list for churches that want to grow. Warren’s model seems the recipe du jour, imitated by churches across the denominational spectrum in this country and around the world.

Warren’s work is not merely another attempt to baptize secular versions of marketing, nor is it another salvo in the "worship wars." It is a biblically grounded and theologically intentional effort to rethink and reform church practice for the 21st century. Though I approached his work with some hesitation, wary of glossy book covers and tall tales of instant church growth, I found Warren’s work to be different. It seeks to be deeply and broadly biblical, and it is seasoned with lively vignettes from the life of what has been an extraordinarily vibrant congregation.

Warren is clearly a masterful communicator and organizer. The success of his church, of his publishing ventures, and of the now-myriad products with the "purpose-driven" tag are all evidence of his remarkable personal gifts.

Warren asks readers to consider what single purpose drives their churches. If they are unable to say what it is, he encourages them to define an ecclesial purpose based on scripture. Such work builds morale, reduces frustration, allows concentration, attracts cooperation and assists evaluation (catchy phrases and alliteration are common in his work).

He offers the example of Saddleback’s statement: "to bring people to Jesus and membership in his family, develop them to Christlike maturity, and equip them for their ministry in the church and life mission in the world, in order to magnify God’s name." Such clear definition of purpose helps a church evaluate its allocation of time, energy and money’ so as to reach out to non-Christians. Saddleback’s goal, clearly, is not just to fill pews (which Saddleback doesn’t have!) but to evangelize the unchurched and move them toward the core of the church’s life, then to leadership in the church and eventually to developing their own ministries.

This movement -- from noncommitment to deep ecclesial commitment -- is mirrored in The Purpose-Driven Life, which aims to do for readers what Saddleback seeks to do for churchgoers. It begins with basic apologetics to lure a casual reader into interest in ultimate things, becomes gradually more christological, and then ends with demands for mission in the world -- all in the course of a 40-day reading program. Saddleback’s vision of a "good" church reaches far beyond the bounds of its ever-growing walls.

Much can be learned from Saddleback. Warren rightly insists the church’s first vocation is not to drum up its own activities, but to be attentive to the prior activity of God. Saddleback demands far more of its multitudes than mere church attendance, and it actually drops from the rolls people who do not move toward membership and evidence this growth by making covenants, giving generously and developing from members into ministers. Warren has words of warning for denominations like mine inclined toward having top-heavy administration and tying up people’s energy with endless committee meanings. He wants this time and talent redirected into missions.

Much can also be gleaned on a pragmatic level about how best to open a church’s arms to outsiders -- not least Warren’s insistence that the church gets no credit for new members, only for members turned into ministers. Many who criticize Warren’s work and the movement it has begun may be protecting their preference for a mere maintenance ministry and their own laziness, which pre-. vents them from pounding the pavement, knocking on doors and getting involved in communities.

With that said, some hard questions need to be asked about the "purpose-driven" movement. The Spirit seems to be saying something to churches through this movement, but exactly what?

The first question has to do with numbers. "The New Testament is the greatest church-growth book ever written," Warren states. To support this claim he points to the crowds that followed Jesus, Paul’s willingness to "become" different things to different people (1 Cor. 9:20-23), and the enthusiasm shown in the Book of Acts at the number of converts.

According to Warren, the way to imitate this ministry of Jesus and Paul is to meet people’s "felt needs," and to bring them into the church byway of a nonthreatening evangelistic service that presents only good news, since people have had enough bad news all week. Those who would disagree with this reading of scripture are charged with being jealous of growing churches.

While I am grateful that Warren seeks to ground his presentation in scripture, I would dispute his reading of scripture. Jesus’ own ministry is marked by a complex back-and-forth movement between attracting crowds and repelling them, between caring people grace and pronouncing judgment. His first sermon in his home synagogue ends with his own community trying to kill him (Luke 4). He tells his disciples he speaks in parables so that people might not understand (Mark 4:12). His long discourse on the importance of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man ends with many of his followers walking away and those who stay do so out of resignation more than enthusiasm (John 6:52-68). His preaching is filled with demands that would not appear at a Sunday-morning service at Saddleback, including the call to hate one’s parents and self (Luke 14:26), to take up one’s cross (Mark 8:34) and to take a narrow and difficult road instead of the crowded highway (Matt. 7:13-14), as well as promises that the first would be last (Luke 13:30). And at his cross -- the climax of our salvation -- Jesus was utterly deserted, except for a crowd that jeered him.

Jesus has some "bad news" for us. He would seem to criticize what we feel to be our own needs and seek to give us new needs, the preaching of which may drive people away. What the "purpose-driven" approach needs to provide, it seems to me, is a more biblically grounded vision of the person of Jesus and the work of the church -- one that won’t necessarily draw the crowds.

A second question involves the importance of place in ministry. Warren describes God’s call to him in the late 1970s to start a church in a fast-growing, major metropolitan area. That call led him to Orange County, California. He suggests that the best church growth is possible with a new congregation which has no building to outgrow, and which can be intentional in its description of church membership before people start joining.

Two concerns arise. First, this approach doesn’t fit with many denominations’ vision of ministry. As a Methodist, I go where the bishop sends me, not where I see the best potential for growth. If I am sent to a church that is hundreds of years old and set in a dying post-manufacturing community in a South so saturated with churches almost every family has its own chapel, then my goals for ministry will necessarily be quite different from Warren’s in Orange County in 1979.

Further, it is not even clear that Warren’s model for ministry is the best one for a community like Warren’s. A friend of mine is a nondenominational pastor in a similar setting, and he says his church cannot open its doors without growing. It grows one upper-middle class, SUV-driving family of four at a time. He has become frustrated with this vision of ministry to the affluent and wants to start a church in a run-down inner-city neighborhood where relationships can be built among downwardly mobile people of a variety of ethnic backgrounds. It is at least worth considering whether this latter is a more appropriate -- scripturally and christologically -- vision of the church,

A third question concerns the church’s handling of interpersonal difficulties. Warren describes his unpleasant experience in a "family-reunion" style church in Texas. The church was located in a rural community that was not growing, which made for a church without growth. Warren celebrates Saddleback’s ability to travel light, to dismiss members who do not share the "purpose-driven" vision.

I am familiar with the "family-reunion" style rural church, and I am vulnerable to feeling envy for the "purpose driven" kind. Yet I wonder if it is not precisely the ornery, difficult, longtime members of old, small. rural churches that make such a place Christlike. When we read about Paul struggling mightily so that Christians in small churches will learn to live in Christian harmony, perhaps we see an alternative vision of church – one in which all the theological muscle of the author of Philippians is marshaled merely to get Euodia and Syntyche to get along (Phil. 4:2).

When working in such a setting, I have tried to emphasize that we must preach the gospel to outsiders not necessarily in order to grow, but because Christians are supposed to be people who witness. It shapes us to do so, and it is a failure in our own Christian formation not to. The Great Commission does not insist on manageable, measurable results, much less spectacular ones; it insists that we be telling and baptizing and teaching people.

I worry also about Warren’s insistence that people want to be in church with people who are like them. I worry about a definition of faithfulness that delivers on this "felt need." What of the inevitable difficulty that arises when a church insists on inviting ethically or economically different people into its fellowship? People may leave -- but will God not be glorified?

Peter Storey, the former Methodist bishop in South Africa, once an American church growth expert that his country had tried "homogenous living units" (the expert’s phrase, not Warren’s) and decided they were a bad idea. In South Africa, these had been known under the term "apartheid." I am not accusing Warren or the "purpose driven" movement of racism. I am only pointing out that our "felt needs" can turn out to be highly problematic.

My final questions concern liturgy. I know, Baptists don’t have liturgy. (Saddleback is a Southern Baptist church, though it wears this affiliation lightly.) But Methodists and other churches do. We do not share Warren’s exasperation at bringing a nonbeliever to church on one occasion and finding out that it was a communion Sunday. For some churches, communion -- with God and one another, instantiated sacramentally -- simply is church. Warren warns against churches that "overdo mystical religious symbols" in their buildings. But what of church traditions for which these are non-negotiable elements?

Furthermore, it is not obvious to me that nonbelievers are repulsed by what is foreign, odd or "mystical" -- not when Hollywood movies gross billions precisely by delivering symbols that defy easy assimilation and require work to understand. I argue this point perhaps less against Warren and more against fellow church members in bodies whose ecclesiologies should drive them to act differently, yet whose lust for numbers and dollars turns them toward mimicking Saddleback (something Warren himself consistently discourages).

The point is that many of the premises of the "purpose-driven" church are debatable. Warren may have no need to carry on such debate. Others of us do. It is less obvious from this vantage point precisely what a good or successful or faithful church is.

I have spent much time reassuring the kind of church Warren left behind in rural Texas that Jesus has words of comfort for those who are least, last, hurting, tired and suffering. These words are less clearly applicable to the "fastest growing Baptist church in the history of America," and one of the "most effective churches on the North American continent," to cite the description in the foreword to The Purpose-Driven Church (Warren himself adopts a much more modest tone). But they are applicable to most churches. God’s purposes for our common life are not so transparent as the "purpose-driven" movement pretends, and the criteria for successful ministry are not so obvious.

History or Legend

What did the biblical writers know and when did they know it? That question formed the title of a recent book by William G. Dever. At issue is the historical veracity of the so-called historical books of the Hebrew Bible, particularly the early parts of the narrative that begins in the Book of Genesis with creation and concludes in the Book of 2 Kings with the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem.

Quite apart from controversies connected with the Genesis account of creation, historians have puzzled over the story of 12 brothers who go into Egypt and father 12 tribes, and then under miraculous circumstances flee Egypt, wander for 40 years in the wilderness, invade Canaan, conquer the land and settle down. Given that Solomon is not mentioned in any other known sources from ancient times, a modern historian also has to wonder about what to make of the Bible’s description of his extensive empire, fabulous wealth and renowned wisdom. Are we dealing here with authentic historical memory, with legends and folk tales that circulated centuries after ancient Israel would have come and gone and may have little to do with actual historical events? What did the biblical writers know and when did they know it?

Claiming archaeological support, Dever argues that "they know a lot; and they knew it early, based on older and genuinely historical accounts, both oral and written." But many scholars disagree, and also appeal to archaeological evidence. Thomas L. Thomas, for example, in Early History of the Israelite People: From Written and Archaeological Sources, contends that the texts from Genesis to 2 Kings were compiled in the Persian Period or later -- more than a half millennium after Solomon would have lived, and after even the Babylon destruction of Jerusalem would have largely faded from memory The biblical writers had virtually no authentic historical information about early Israel at their disposal, according to Thompson, and they were not particularly interested in that anyhow. They present us instead with a theologically driven story of Israel’s distant past as they thought it should have happened.

Largely due to their aggressive rhetoric and tendency to sensationalize their arguments, Dever and Thomas are perhaps the best-known combatants of what has come to be known as the "maximalist-minimalist debate." A maximalist is one who is prepared to write a relatively full history of early Israelite history by beginning with the Genesis -- 2 Kings narrative and filling it out with information from other written sources and from archaeology. Minimalists, on the other hand, place little confidence in the veracity of the Bible and want to know what can be learned about ancient Israel from other written sources and archaeology alone, without any prompting from the Bible (what is learned, they would say, is not much). If a true minimalist were to try to write a history of early Israel, it would be a short one.

Unfortunately, much of the rhetoric surrounding the debate is misleading. A few clarifications: First, the debate is not new, but has roots going back to the 19th century and tentacles that go back even further. Second, while the debate may seem to be about the relevance of archaeology for understanding ancient Israel’s origins and early history the divisive issue is not the relevance of archaeology but the way archaeological evidence is interpreted. Third, few main-stream biblical scholars and Middle Eastern archaeologists could fairly be tagged as maximalists or minimalists and most are put off by the rhetoric surrounding the debate.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries scholars began to employ the historical-critical method; philologists made the first major breakthroughs toward deciphering the languages and reading the documents ancient Israel’s neighbors; and archaeologists began to probe the ruins of cities from biblical times and developed techniques for dating their findings. Close on the heels of Darwin’s Origin of Species (1839), German scholar Julius Wellhausen published Prolegomena to the History of Israel (1883; tr.1885), which had a corresponding impact on the study of the history of ancient Israel.

Wellhausen argued that the material from Genesis through 2 Kings was compiled from several different sources, the oldest of which postdated Solomon and the latest of which postdated the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. This raised the question whether the Genesis through 2 Kings material could be regarded as a reliable source of information for Solomon’s period or earlier. Few present-day scholars accept Wellhausen’s views as originally presented, but most of those teaching in major universities and seminaries would regard him as on the right track.

At first scholars had high hopes that inscriptions and other written documents from ancient times ("epigraphical" sources) would confirm the biblical account and add further information. These scholars were reassured when, in 1896, Egyptologists discovered a reference to Israel in an inscription from the reign of Pharaoh Merneptah (1212-1202 BC). Philological research continued through the 20th century, and there were other important epigraphical discoveries. In 1993-94, for example, archaeologists excavating at Tell Dan in modern Israel discovered two fragments of an inscription that refers to "the house of David."

Yet when all is taken into account, the epigraphical evidence pertaining to ancient Israel is meager and disappointing. After the mention of Israel in Merneptah’s inscription -- only a passing reference and difficult to interpret -- there is silence for the next two-and-a-half centuries. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon -- none of these biblical characters turns up in any ancient written sources outside the Bible. Nor are there any clear references to the Israelite exodus from Egypt, the conquest of Canaan or Solomon’s empire. Not until the mid-ninth century BC, the time of Ahab and Jezebel, does reference to Israel turn up again in non-biblical sources. From that point on there are, with one or two notable exceptions, only sporadic references to Israelite and Judean kings, mostly in Assyrian and Babylonian sources, and usually mentioned along with other petty rulers of the day.

In short, were we dependent upon the epigraphical sources alone for information about ancient Israel, we would know little more than that an entity known as Israel existed toward the end of the 13th century BC, and that two minor kingdoms, called Israel and Judah, existed alongside each other in the central Palestinian hill country after the mid-ninth century BC. We would know further that Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians toward the end of the eighth century BC and that Judah survived longer, but eventually was destroyed by the Babylonians early in the sixth century BC.

Nineteenth-century travelers made important strides toward mapping Palestine, identifying topographical features mentioned in the Bible, and locating the ruins of biblical cities and villages. By the end of that century, archaeologists had excavated a number of the ruins and were learning about everyday life during biblical times. As archaeological research continued into the 20th century, excavation and dating techniques became more sophisticated. Archaeologists worked out the basics of pottery dating by the 1920s, for example, and Carbon 14 dating entered the picture in 1933.

But archaeology is most useful for recognizing broad patterns and tracing gradual changes in the material culture of a region -- less so for clarifying specific historical events. When archaeology does have bearing on the specifics of biblical history, the evidence is often uncertain and sometimes disconcerting.

For example, prompted by new techniques for dating pottery, Carl Watzinger in the 1920s reexamined the pottery from Jericho which he and Ernst Sellin had excavated between 1907 and 1909. He concluded that Jericho apparently was not occupied during the Late Bronze Age when Joshua presumably would have lived. And he took this to mean that the biblical account of the Israelite conquest of Jericho was, as some suspected already a legend.

Fellow archaeologist John Garstang insisted that this could not possibly be true and set about (with further excavations at Jericho and soundings at Ai and Hazor) to restore archaeological support for the historicity of the conquest. Garstang was successful to his own satisfaction, but not to that of other leading archaeologists of the day. The debate was underway.

During the 1930s, two creative scholars, Albrecht Alt and W F. Albright, championed alternative approaches to the history of Israel, alternatives that tended to dominate the discussion through the 1960s. Alt found his strongest following in Europe, while Albright found his strongest support in the U.S.

Their approaches had much in common. Neither Alt nor Albright was prepared to take the biblical account of Israel’s origins and early history entirely at face value, yet both saw it as a rich source of historical information. Both were fully conversant with the epigraphical and archaeological evidence. The differences lay in how they extracted information from the Bible, in how they correlated it with the epigraphical and archaeological evidence, and in the different conclusions that they reached regarding the origins of ancient Israel.

Alt placed little confidence in the overall storyline of the Bible from Genesis through Joshua, including Abraham and family’s emigration from Mesopotamia to Canaan, the sojourn in Egypt, the exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Canaan. But he believed that there were many historical nuggets embedded in the story (songs, lists, genealogical fragments and such) that could be extracted by means of literary analysis and used to reconstruct a more scientific explanation of Israel’s origins. Sociological theory, especially the views of Max Weber, also figured significantly in Alt’s approach.

According to Alt, the people who became Israel entered the land of Canaan as scattered groups of nomads, gradually settled down and formed tribal alliances, and eventually gained control of the land. There was no exodus from Egypt and no military conquest of Canaan, at least not before King David. Alt’s approach and conclusions were developed further by his student, Martin Noth, whose history of Israel became a standard work on both sides of the Atlantic during the 1950s and 1960s.

Albright regarded the overall storyline of Genesis through Joshua as essentially historical, but had no qualms about adjusting its details. In making adjustments, he was more inclined to rely on archaeology than on anthropological theory, and he managed to correlate the Bible story with the archaeological periods in a fashion that seemed reasonably convincing. Albright contended that Abraham was a historical individual who entered Palestine in connection with Amorite migrations which, according to the thinking at the time, would have occurred during the transition from the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age (approximately 2000 BC). Widespread destruction of cities in Palestine at the close of the Late Bronze Age (approximately 1200 BC) was attributed to Israelite invaders recently escaped from Egypt.

Albright’s approach flourished under the rubric "biblical archaeology." His views were expounded by two of his students: G. Ernest Wright in Biblical Archaeology (1957) and John Bright in A History of Israel (1959). Both books were very influential, especially in the U.S., through the 1960s. Bright’s history is still in print and widely read.

By the early 1970s both approaches began to run aground. Alt’s work was undermined by shifting sociological theory, Albright’s by accumulating archaeological evidence that did not fit his correlations between archaeology and the Bible. Other factors were also at work. Whereas Wellhausen had challenged the historical reliability of the biblical account on the grounds that it was compiled from multiple sources that originated long after the events reported, his intellectual successors a century later were employing methodologies (such as rhetorical criticism and narrative criticism) that seemed to assume that the biblical writers were not particularly concerned with historical accuracy anyhow.

Archaeologists, for their part, were focusing more on anthropological questions and were less interested in biblical connections. Both biblical scholars and archaeologists reacted against the biblical archaeology framework. It seemed that too many of the archaeological arguments advanced in support of the Bible story were convincing only to those who wanted to be convinced, and the "archaeological solutions" to problematic historical questions tended to sidetrack the search for other possible solutions.

The winds of reaction and change were evident in publications of the 1970s and 1980s, which included two fill-length treatments of Israelite history: J. A. Soggin’s A History of Ancient Israel (1984) and J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes’s A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (1986). Both volumes were cautious in their use of archaeological evidence, and both were less confident than either Noth or Bright as to what could be known about early Israelite history. Neither history had an Israelite exodus from Egypt or a military conquest of Canaan. Miller and Hayes suggested that the biblical description of Solomon’s reign was more legend than history. The historical Solomon, in their opinion, would have had at most local renown.

Reactions to this consensus were mixed. For some, these works showed too much caution and too little use of archaeological evidence. For others. they still relied too much on the biblical account.

As the debate has unfolded over the past century and a half, the center of controversy has shifted from earlier to later segments of the narrative from Genesis to 2 Kings. In the aftermath of Darwin’s Origin of Species, the debate focused on Genesis 1. After Wellhausen, the historicity of the patriarchs and of the Mosaic era emerged as the chief matter of dispute. (Was Moses a historic lawgiver at the beginning of Israel’s history, or were both the Moses character and the law largely literary constructs on the part of the late Judean compilers of the Pentateuch?)

During the mid-20th century, Albright, Alt and their students argued over the historicity of the Israelite exodus from Egypt and military conquest of Canaan. Albright and his students viewed these as historical events, although not having occurred exactly when and how the Bible described. Alt and his students were unwilling to speak of the existence of a historical Israel before scattered groups of nomads had settled in Palestine and formed a tribal alliance -- or about the time of the Judges in the biblical narrative. Today much of the debate focuses on Solomon.

The current debate over Solomon shows how the argument between the maximalist and minimalist positions is not over whether archaeological evidence should be considered but over how it should be interpreted. Biblical chronology places Solomon in the tenth century BC, and he is depicted as an extremely wealthy king who ruled over an extensive empire and exerted far-reaching international influence. The Bible indicates that he imported luxury goods from afar and that he built many cities, including Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. Archaeologists excavating the ruins of all three of these named cities have uncovered fortifications with impressive city gates from approximately the tenth century BC. The ruins are silent; there are no inscriptions or any other clues as to who built the fortifications. If one assumes that the biblical account of Solomon’s reign is reasonably accurate, then it makes sense to attribute the fortifications and gates to Solomon.

Suppose, however, that one has strong reservations about the historical reliability of the texts, especially the larger-than-life description of Solomon, and one believes that any proper history of ancient Israel must be based on firsthand sources. Solomon does not turn up in any ancient written sources outside the Bible, and the archaeological ruins offer no clue. In short, no Solomon.

Even a more moderate historian -- one who suspects that the biblical account of Solomon’s reign is based on folk tales and legends that circulated more than a half millennium after the real Solomon lived, yet is open to the possibility that these folk tales and legends hark back to a historical figure -- may have reservations about crediting this legendary Solomon with the fortifications and gates at Hazor, Gezer and Megiddo. And even if our moderate historian does attribute them to Solomon, he or she may still have reservations about affirming the existence of a Solomonic empire. Why, if Solomon ruled an extensive empire for 40 years (or even close to that), are there no inscriptions from his reign, and no mention of him in the records of other peoples of the day? If he engaged in international trade and imported luxury goods, why are so few trade goods from his era to be found in the ruins at Hazor, Gezer, Megiddo and other sites throughout Palestine? And why are there only meager remains from Solomon’s supposed capital Jerusalem, the centerpiece of his building projects, that can be dated even approximately to the tenth century?

Archaeologists do not excavate "facts"; they excavate material remains -- city ruins, wall foundations and potsherds. These materials must be interpreted. When dealing with Palestinian artifacts from biblical times, it makes a great deal of difference whether one assumes from the outset that the biblical record is essentially accurate, or whether one assumes the opposite.

The true maximalist approach would be to begin with full confidence in the historicity, or at least essential historicity, of the Genesis through 2 Kings narrative, and use this narrative as a guide for interpreting the meager epigraphical and silent archaeological evidence potentially relevant to the history of ancient Israel. The result would be a rather full historical reconstruction of events beginning with historical patriarchs and tracking the Bible story through Solomon’s Golden Age and beyond. An example of this approach is A Biblical History of Israel (2003), by Ian Provan, Philips Long and Tremper Longman III.

The true minimalist would disregard the Genesis -- 2 Kings narrative altogether and attempt to determine what can be known from the meager epigraphical references and archaeological remains alone, interpreted without any prompting from the Bible. The result would be some very sketchy notes about two petty kingdoms that show up occasionally in inscriptions from the ninth century BC and afterwards. An example of this approach is Niels Peter Lemche’s The Israelites in History and Tradition (1998).

Most scholars search for reasonable ground between these extremes, but often lean in one direction or the other. In What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? (2002) William Dever leans in the maximalist direction. Yet in that book and in Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (2003), Dever’s account has no historical patriarchs, no exodus from Egypt and no military conquest of Canaan. He does, in contrast to minimalist-leaning Israel Finkelstein, hold firm to a Solomonic empire.

Finkelstein, in The Bible Unearthed (2001), co-authored with journalist Nell Silberman, sees no evidence of any such empire in tenth-century Palestine, and furthermore dates the Hazor, Gezer and Megiddo fortifications in the ninth century BC. For Finkelstein and Silberman, ancient Israel’s modest "golden age" occurred not under Solomon but under Omri and Ahab, who ruled from Samaria during the ninth century. The debate will continue.

No Turning Back (Ps 27; Phil 3:17-4:1; Lk 13:31-35)

I have decided to follow Jesus,

I have decided to follow Jesus,

I have decided to follow Jesus,

No turning back, no turning back.

When my friends and I sang this song at church camp, we sang sincerely, often teary- eyed, seated on the ground with the cross illumined by candlelight in front of us. In those emotional moments, I imagined myself to be standing firm in the Lord as the Philippians were urged to do by Paul, who reminds them, "Our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ." In those moments, I was determined to set my face toward him. But my single-mindedness never lasted. It was mostly the allure of gossip or boys that sidetracked my determination then. I stopped so often along the way of following that I lost my way. Occasional flashbacks to those times and to the words of that song turned my attention to Jesus, but I have moved in fits and starts through adolescence and adulthood -- sometimes toward, and often away from, singleness of purpose.

In chapter nine of Luke’s Gospel, Jesus sets his face toward Jerusalem, where he will be arrested and condemned, he intends to travel with single-minded purpose. No turning back, no turning back. But along the way, even he stops to teach, to heal or to sit with those who love him. Today’s text finds him confronted by Pharisees who warn him to move on quickly because the fox is at the gate -- Herod Antipas is after him. In their hearing he lays out his plans: "I am casting out demons and performing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I finish my work." I’m on my way to Jerusalem, he says. It’s the end of the road for me.

The lament for Jerusalem that follows these words has been much discussed: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" (Luke 13:34).

The problem is simple. Jesus has not yet been to Jerusalem, except as a boy of 12 when he stayed behind there and scared his parents half to death, and then once when he was escorted there by the devil during his wilderness temptation. Perhaps Jesus is speaking, as did the prophets before him, of God’s desire to gather Jerusalem’s children. Or, since all good Jews are children of Jerusalem, perhaps Jesus refers to his own attempts to gather them to himself all along the way. Maybe he is thinking of the lawyer who asked, "Who is my neighbor?" or of Martha, who exploded in a fit of jealousy -- or of the Pharisee who invited him to dinner and got a lecture about being clean on the inside. He might be thinking of the disciples, nervous at his talk of conflict and division, or of the bent-over woman he healed on the sabbath. Some received his presence with thanksgiving and love, others with resentment, and still others with a puzzlement that gave way to anger. He has, in a sense, been gathering them all along the way to Jerusalem.

No turning back for Jesus. He knows where he’s going and won’t be detoured. He also knows what’s coming for him -- betrayal, death and resurrection. In fact, he tries three times before he reaches Jerusalem to let his disciples in on the story. But they don’t get it. They stumble and meander along just like the rest of the brood he tries to gather. Still his patience holds. Still he loves the ones who will not be gathered under his wings. Knowing that his own death is certain, he continues to teach and heal and draw his children to him.

This image of the bird hiding its brood under its wings is a familiar one from the psalms (see Psalms 17, 30, 57, 61, 63), and it’s unfortunate that the lectionary texts do not include a psalm that evokes this picture. Instead we hear that the Lord "will hide me in his shelter in the day of trouble; he will conceal me under the cover of his tent; he will set me high on a rock." Close, but not quite the same.

Our comfort is the hope that our Lord will indeed gather us, whether beneath his tent or under his wings. Our hope is that the pattern of the Christ among the chicks on the way to Jerusalem will be his pattern among us as well. Though we often don’t "stand firm" as Paul admonishes the Philippian believers to do, we long for Jesus to reach out and draw us to him in spite of ourselves. Try as we might, most of us will not walk in the single-minded path the old camp song promises in its final verse:

The cross before me, the world behind me,

The cross before me, thc world behind me,

The cross before inc. the world behind me,

No turning back, no turning back.

Lent challenges us to try. I know that even in Lent I won’t be able to walk straight toward the cross. I’ve tried before. Only Christ could do that. As he gathered so many on his journey toward Jerusalem that first time, maybe he’ll catch me along the way, too: to heal, to teach or just to sit for a while. That hope strengthens my resolve to focus on the cross, lest I miss his reaching.

Story Time (Dt. 26:1-11; Ps. 91:1-2, 9-1-16; Rom. 10:8b-13)

It was Christmas afternoon. The living room was littered with spent wrapping paper, while gifts were scattered willy-nilly under the tree. Christmas dinner dishes crowded the counter, one daughter-in-law was assembling yet another batch of cookies, and teenagers were picking at Christmas goodies and sampling the dinner ham. Then my mother-in-law began a story.

"When I was little." she said, "my mother took my sister Lela and me to the school Christmas party. Around a sparkling tree were gifts for the children. But when Santa handed them out, there was nothing for us. On the way back home, Lola and I cried, and Mama said, ‘Santa needs money to buy gifts, and I didn’t have any money to give him. I won’t bring you back here next year.’" Her story -- of being the child of a widowed mother who did everything in her power and beyond to give her family a life worth remembering -- helped her come to terms with the scene of Christmas excess that was before her on an afternoon years later. Telling it brought her life back into balance.

She often recounts the stories of her childhood. We, her family, sometimes tire of them but understand that we need to listen as much as she needs to tell. We know that the stories steady her and help her remember who she is. In turn, they remind us who we are.

The Hebrews’ stories brought their lives into balance. Moses believed that remembering where they’d been, how they’d come into the land God promised, and what God had done for them would keep them faithful. So in offering the first fruits of harvest, he said, "You shall make this response before the LORD your God: ‘A wandering Aramean was my ancestor; he went down into Egypt and lived there as an alien, few in number, and there he became a great nation, mighty and populous.’" Their story was a confession of faith, a community story that cast their thanksgiving into a framework that provided boundary and purpose to their lives together. It was a creed. Tell it again and again, Moses urged.

It is not such a stretch to hear Paul’s words to the believers in Rome as the same plea. Contrasting the righteousness that comes from the law (practicing the law) with the righteousness that comes from faith (relying on Christ’s righteousness). Paul calls on the story, the word. The "word of faith" is near them, on their lips and in their hearts. It is the story of Jesus, confessed by believers as a way of grounding their lives in Christ. They remember and recite that word in community, as did the people of God when they first entered the land promised to them. Without that remembering in the company of like-minded others, they could easily forget who they are and to whom they belong.

Writer Eudora Welty often sets her characters outside of their communities, in situations that cloud their remembering and put their identities to the test. In "A Visit of Charity," 14-year-old Marian pays a visit to an "Old Ladies’ Home" to fulfill her Campfire Girl requirements. Alone in a room with two elderly women, she becomes disoriented and tongue-tied: she is completely out of her element. "Did you come to be our little girl for a while?" one old woman asks, and when the other woman asks her, "Who are you?," Marian cannot remember. Her story is lost, and so is she.

Out in the wilderness with the devil, Jesus risks losing himself too. All the devil’s questions have the same core challenge: Who are you? No matter that in the preceding chapter Luke has had Jesus baptized and identified by a voice from heaven as the Son, the Beloved. No matter that Luke’s "orderly account" (1:3) has just traced the genealogy of Jesus through David, Jacob, Noah, Adam and Adam’s creator, the one God. In these 40 days with the devil Jesus is alone, out of place, weakened by hunger. But once filled with the Holy Spirit, he finds his stockpile of stories richly intact and available. The proclaimed word is near him, on his lips and in his heart.

And tell the story he does. In a most seductive voice, the devil says, "If you are the Son of God," make yourself a feast from this stone. Or better yet, take a dive from the temple heights. After all, he croons, the angels will "bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone." Jesus quotes the stories and claims his identity within them, standing his ground. Luke cautions us, however, that the devil will be back.

Now we enter the wilderness of Lent once again -- wandering but expectant, knowing what is to come yet still on edge, anticipating the lonely walk. The journey can be disorienting. Its needful contrast to the bounty and briskness of our lives proves distasteful to many. We go with the Spirit in us, as Jesus did. But the devil continues to watch for an opportune time. When he reminds us of our power to put behind us the way of contemplation and to cast our eyes away from the starkness of the cross, the real question is "Who are you?" May the stories of the faith refresh us along the way, for they are the word that is near us, on our lips and in our hearts. May the Spirit make us certain of the resurrection and new life that await us, and may that certainty strip the tempter of his power.

Reconciled in Worship

When my wife, Darrah, and I met Andy in the Los Angeles airport, we thought we would never have a real conversation with him. This tall, muscular guy nonchalantly palmed a Bible as if he were pacing across the stage of a megachurch. But we soon realized that we would talk with him again, and soon. We were all missionaries, and we were all on our way to teach English at the same university in central China.

As we waited for our flight, Andy raved about the book Wild at Heart, a pop-Christian version of Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus.

"It says that every man desires three things," he said, his bright blue eyes burning into mine as he held up a huge hand and began counting them off: "A battle to fight, an adventure to live and a beauty to rescue."

Darrah and I squirmed under his gaze, mumbled something like, "Sure all men don’t want the same thing," and walked away rolling our eyes. I had grown up in the evangelical mainstream, but I turned away from that tradition at an evangelical college where McChristianity diluted the gospel into pop therapy. My wife grew up Southern Baptist, knowing she should have "a personal relationship" with Jesus Christ, but never quite discovering what that meant. In college we quickly became high critics of low-church America, and directed our newfound intellectual powers at all the easy evangelical targets.

We married, were confirmed in the Episcopal Church and accepted an assignment to China as missionaries of the Diocese of West Virginia. We were confident that our Anglican tradition was the ideal vessel for faith in Christ -- sacramental, communal and biblical in the fullest way.

But then we met our 45 fellow foreign teachers, most of them evangelicals from Bible churches in right-wing America. Having cut ties with a pop-evangelical expression of Christian faith, how would we ever commune with all these World magazine readers?

These questions became urgent when some of the teachers began forming a fellowship that met Sunday nights (separate from the official Chinese Three-Self church we attended Sunday mornings). The leaders were theologically averse to structured authority, so they invited all of us to "share a message as the Spirit led." Some shared wacky teachings about the End Times and "new teachings" of prophecy that the Holy Spirit had revealed to them. One time the service lasted over two hours as three unscheduled speakers got up to throw in the Holy Spirit’s two cents’ worth.

We had expected culture shock an China, and the stares and constant shouts of "Laowai!" (Foreigner!) from the Chinese followed us wherever we went. But we were more shocked by our fellow Westerners. We woke up one day to realize that we were living, working, eating and worshiping with a segment of Christian culture that we had no idea how to relate to. Discouraged and feeling alienated, we continued to attend the Sunday evening services, but winced through the facile praise songs and cringed at talk about the Eucharist as "a nice symbol."

We began praying for members of the community who rubbed us the wrong way, and we found that our prayers bounced back at us, saying, in effect, "They might change, but you must change." I gradually let go of a resistance to leading in worship -- a grudge that I had been holding against the egalitarian, free-form style of the fellowship -- and suggested having the Eucharist every week. Several members of the community embraced this idea, so Darrah and I began leading a vesper service every Thursday evening.

At first the only people who attended were Diane, who had recently become a member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod; Victor and Annie, Catholics of Eastern European origins and Mary Alice, a cradle Episcopalian who had been in and out of nondenominational churches for the past 20 years. All of them were old enough to be our grandparents.

When all of our "members" attended, we felt the support of a like-minded community whose members had faith that reading scripture and saying time-honored prayers was better than emotive, electric-guitar worship music. When time allowed, Darrah led us in a hymn on the flute she had played in high school. All in all, it was pleasant, peaceful and good.

We did not consider inviting the others to our service. When Andy asked me where I was going I said I was going to a meeting. If I had said I was going to vespers, he would have felt guilty for not going, for not "sharing with a brother," and I didn’t want him to attend out of guilt; I would have felt patronized. Besides, about a third of the teachers described themselves as Spirit-filled, which told us something about what they thought of us "spirits-filled" Episcopalians.

But one week Darrah and I let it slip -- I to Andy and she to Lynn; another cradle Episcopalian now connected to Northern California Vineyard-style activist churches. They showed up with nervous grins. We timidly gave them the handout we used and asked each to do a reading. We explained that we shared the lectionary reading for the coming Sunday, which put us on the same page with about 1 billion Christians around the world. We told them how some of the prayers have been prayed by saints through the centuries. We showed them how "the people" read the parts in bold type.

The small group, and our role as leaders, allowed Darrah and me to do what we’d always wanted to do with the prayers of the people -- extend the period for silence and personal intercession between each of the items of the prayers. Until this particular evening, our small group of traditionalists had observed these silences reverently, occasionally whispering the name of someone we specifically wished to include in the prayer. But on this evening, when we came to the first silence after a prayer for peace, Andy began fervently to pray for a peaceful solution to the conflict in Iraq. After a prayer for the sick, as the rest of us mumbled names, Lynn prayed -- and asked the rest of us to join her in prayer -- for her ex-husband who had just had a stroke. As Andy and Lynn prayed the way they knew how to pray, the rest of us began to join in, realizing that in our silence we had been isolating our prayers.

We happened to be praying a form of the prayers of the people that had a fill-in-the-blank prayer. I usually skipped this item, but Andy and Lynn reminded me of the very personal nature of our prayers, so I asked for personal prayer requests that we could all remember to include throughout the week. Everybody, it seemed, had something on his or her heart that would not have been revealed otherwise. At the end of the service, we all felt that the Spirit had moved us and transformed our staid little liturgy. Andy slapped me on the back and said, "‘That was awesome, man. Awesome!"

After that the vesper service drew teachers from a wide variety of non-denominational groups. Although at first the liturgy seemed weird and confining to them, they were also struck by the richness of the prayers, the grand, comprehensive structure that pulls people out of their habitual prayer ruts. Meanwhile, they made us realize that liturgy can be an excuse not to really pray, not to open oneself completely to the presence of God, not to knock loudly at the door.

While these insights are nothing new, the way our liturgical community developed can, I believe, be a good model for high-church types who would like to be in closer communion with nondenominational, low-church evangelicals who, according to a recent Gallup poll, constitute nearly 40 percent of the American population.

In the intimate fellowship of prayer, we can transcend stylistic and doctrinal differences and learn from each other. High-church types learn that the language of the personal relationship with Jesus Christ is more than smarmy emotionalism for many evangelicals. Many take up their crosses to follow Christ daily, are attuned to the leading of the Holy Spirit, seek Christ in word and are prepared to seek him in sacrament as well.

In return, mainline churches can offer the structure of the liturgy which provides a neutral ground in which intimate, interpersonal communication can take root and grow. The wonderful gift of liturgy and especially of the daily offices, is that it develops organically, adapting to the people it serves as it grows. For example, on Ash Wednesday we held our first major liturgical service, which about 20 people of all ages attended. After the lectionary readings, I began to speak about connections between the texts. Colleen -- who is known for praying aloud while she runs stairs, her laps getting faster the harder she prays -- jumped in and made an observation. I wasn’t expecting a discussion, but it shouldn’t have been a surprise. Others responded to Colleen, and after several minutes of this I realized I was experiencing something completely unknown to me -- a dialectical homily.

For the rest of our Lenten services we made room for this short, rewarding time between the readings and prayers. We set the tone by concentrating on the unity of the readings, and stressed that the lectionary texts were specially chosen to complement each other. The result was often the kind of dialectical exercise in synthesis that every professor of literature hopes to inspire in her class. Listening to the others’ comments, I came to understand them better as people, to pray for them more insightfully, and was encouraged by their very personal, deliberately lived faith in Christ. Darrah and I found reconciliation by transcending stylistic and theological differences through the sharing of prayer and the word. So did Lynn, an antiabortion, antitax pacifist and environmental activist who often butted heads with Loralea, a quiet payer warrior who believes in submitting to all authority. Their relationship improved when they began praying together at our Lenten services, where the liturgy provided neutral ground.

The highlight of our liturgical year was the Maundy Thursday service (the teachers’ fellowship having claimed Good Friday and Easter). Darrah and I love the Maundy Thursday liturgy; to us it has the raw dramatic power of an Aeschylus tragedy. So we approached the day with a sense of loss. Instead of a stone church we had a sterile meeting room; instead of an altar, Formica conference tables. Our cross was two knitting needles conjoined by a length of yarn. The candles had already been used during our frequent power outages. Moreover, we were sure our announcement of foot washing would scare most people away.

But they came. The youngest person four the oldest about 60. They came outfitted with basins, soap, fragrant oils, washcloths. None of this symbolic foot rinsing for them. They scrubbed and massaged. They anointed with oil. They laughed and prayed and splashed. Then, as Darrah cleaned up, I lit candles and began the solemn readings and prayers. Darrah’s tidying had the effect of stripping the altar. The brightly colored cloths and bars of soap disappeared. The splashed water, Christ’s antepenultimate symbol of service, was soaked up. We draped the crossed butting needles with a cheap pink dishcloth. The fluorescent lights went out. Finally, after the prayers, we blew out our candles and walked out together in silence.

Andy became one of my best friends. We met every week to pray together, sometimes forgetting the time, praying for a couple hours and missing appointments. Through him I began learning what it means to take up your cross every day and follow Christ. On Maundy Thursday we washed each other’s feet. While he was rubbing soap between my toes, he looked up and said, "Hey, you remember that first day in the airport? We’ve come a long way, bro."

"Yes," I said. And I told him just how far I had come.

Multiethnic Mix

Book Review

A Mosaic of Believers: Diversity and Innovation in a Multiethnic Church. By Gerardo Marti. Indiana University Press, 242 pp.

 

Ethnic particularism, in the official form of admissions procedures and ethnic studies programs and the unofficial form of students’ seating choices in the cafeteria and the library, is a powerful force in American universities. It’s also a powerful force in American Christianity. I’ve spent a lot of time recently studying the manifestations of that particularism as it takes shape in congregations that serve Mexican Americans, Korean Americans, Indian Americans or some other immigrant group.

That’s what makes the church Gerardo Marti writes about a precious anomaly: it has no racial majority but has roughly equal numbers of Hispanics, Asians and whites, along with a few African Americans.

Mosaic is the name of this 60-year-old Southern Baptist congregation in Los Angeles which at the time of writing (Marti says the church is constantly changing) consisted of over 2,000 mostly single young adults of every imaginable color who come together every week for one or more of several multisensory services in a variety of rented spaces, including a downtown nightclub. Allied congregations exist in Berkeley, Seattle and New York, and missionaries from the congregation are all over the world. The senior pastor is Erwin Rafael McManus, a native of El Salvador, who is the author of An Unstoppable Force: Daring to Become the Church God Had in Mind (Group Publishing) and Seizing Your Divine Moment (Nelson Books).

Marti is a sociologist and clergyman who was a member of Mosaic’s pastoral staff while he was researching his dissertation on the church. He obviously believes in what the church and its pastor are doing. His task is not to defend Mosaic but to explain how it can exist.

As Marti sees it, the key to building a congregation of people from diverse, often alienated ethnic backgrounds is to appeal to them in ways that trump their differences. The bulk of the book consists of chapter-long analyses of five such appeals, called "havens."

Mosaic first of all offers a "theological haven," by which Marti means that Mosaic affirms orthodox beliefs, albeit in unconventional and decidedly non-Calvinist ways. The church’s "artistic haven" attracts people on the creative edge -- painters, sculptors, musicians, dancers, actors, filmmakers -- of the kind who gravitate to Hollywood. The church is also an "innovator haven," Marti says -- "a refuge for people who in other churches have been called mavericks, rebels or freaks." Marti’s reference to the church as an "age haven" is a way of saying that the church attracts single, childless young adults.

Finally, the "ethnic haven" is the church’s appeal to second- and third-generation progeny of Los Angeles’s huge and diverse immigrant population. Insofar as American culture is more media-driven, more edgy and more youthful with every passing year, and Americans themselves less likely to derive from European stock, Marti sees Mosaic as a model, perhaps the model, for churches that are viable and faithful.

The concept of havens is the theoretical key to Mosaic’s astounding internal diversity. A church of its sort must offer things that appeal to people across the boundaries of their differences. Yet for Mosaic, no single haven is sufficient. Each haven shelters some of Mosaic’s people but deters others. While some are drawn to alternative forms of worship, others are put off by them, finding them "wild," "unbiblical," even cultlike.

The attention the church gives to the arts appeals to Hollywood people, but it makes others feel inadequate. The stress on innovation excites some but wearies others. The appeal to youth makes some older people feel unwanted. The diverse "ethnic haven" draws in those who have had enough of their parents’ and grandparents’ immigrant churches but repels those who are committed to their ethnic and racial identities. Each haven represents not only something appealing but also a refuge from something -- it’s a place to dispose of negative baggage.

This two-edged dynamic is particularly true regarding the theological and ethnic dimensions of the church -- a complication of the argument that Marti could have spent more time on. Those who are drawn to the church’s unconventional but theologically conservative worship are evangelicals turned off by the dry, boring, narrow, judgmental churches of their upbringing. The second- and third-generation immigrant youth who are drawn by Mosaic’s multiethnic profile are those who, unlike their parents, do not speak with an accent and are not competent in their ancestral culture, do not experience discomfort around Americans of other races and may be dating across racial lines, and do not confine themselves to old-country music but express themselves in terms of American popular culture. Marti makes it obvious that the proximity to Hollywood is a special ingredient in the Mosaic mix, but he does not sufficiently stress that the church’s demographic dependence on the Angeleno nexus of conservative Protestantism and immigrant cultures may limit its applicability as a general model.

A more important issue -- one to which Marti is attuned -- is whether multiethnicity is indeed a haven for all young Americans. For the past 20 years, scholars in race and ethnic studies have noted that ethnicity is optional in a way that race is not. For example, I can tell my students about my German identity -- about my grandfather landing in America in 1895 and the old-country language spoken by the women in my household -- but there is nothing written on my white face that requires me to confess these things, nor does being "German," to the slight extent that I am, limit my life chances.

Marti is marked by his name as Hispanic, but as he notes (and as the photo on the dust jacket attests), he can "pass" as Anglo. The son of Cuban immigrants, he was born in this country, and his English is better than his Spanish. "I have choices," he says.

To a remarkable extent, to judge from the interviews he cites, choices also exist for many of Mosaic’s people, not only whites but also Latinos and Asians. Senior pastor McManus has a German given name from his grandfather and an Irish surname from his stepfather, and he chooses to use his middle name to highlight his Latin American birthplace. Another leader describes herself variously as Hawaiian, Japanese and Asian. A member whose mother is Japanese and whose wife is Norwegian-American feels he has more in common with his wife’s culture than his mother’s. Mosaic is not only multiethnic; many of its people are polyethnic.

Dwelling little on "race," Marti stresses the malleability of identifies and the way that being a follower of Jesus Christ at Mosaic "transcends" ethnicity. In so doing he offers an appealing vision of a church that builds on the dynamism of demography and popular culture to overcome the scandal of religious segregation (as well as the specter of civic balkanization). He thus challenges those of my sociological colleagues who see the fate of America’s second- and third-generation Latinos and Asians inscribed on their bodies. His book will be on the syllabus the next time I teach a course on race, ethnicity and gender in American religion.

Several questions remain. Mosaic’s ethnic haven has little appeal for African Americans, whose life chances are indeed circumscribed by their race. To his credit, Marti acknowledges this issue throughout and cites experts, such as George Yancey, who see the African-American experience of race as qualitatively different from, and more profoundly alienating than, that of America’s other racial minorities. Yet he thinks things are getting better in the wake of the civil rights movement, and that younger blacks are more willing and able to make the "cultural leap" necessary to join churches like Mosaic.

Marti went out of his way to speak to some of Mosaic’s few African Americans, current and former, in order to comprehend that cultural leap. A deterrent for many was the positive draw of the black church and its traditions. Another barrier, forcefully articulated by a woman who sought out Marti to confide why she was leaving the church, is that Mosaic affirms "white evangelical" individualism instead of the black church’s systemic critique of inequality.

Most, however, were turned off by Mosaic’s music. Featuring guitars instead of a choir, the music was perceived as "not soulful" and "not gospel." One person, not intending to be complimentary, called it "Vineyard music." This was one of the instances in which I wished Marti had been more descriptive and less theoretical, for he gives few hints as to what, beyond not including hymns, characterizes Mosaic’s music. In one place he mentions pre-service music drawn from the scores of such films as Lord of the Rings, Gladiator and Braveheart. Elsewhere he says that the music is "electronic" and that new songs are introduced every week.

These hints are enough to make me wonder whether Mosaic’s multiethnicity is a Faustian bargain. Marti honestly acknowledges not only that he can pass as white but that he has "been rewarded" for doing so. The popular youth culture that serves to unify church members across

their separate ethnic identities is identified in the end as "white popular culture," casting doubt on the claim that it transcends ethnicity. American whiteness is a huge social space, one that over time has encompassed wider and wider segments of the population, including Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Mediterraneans, Slays, Semites and Turks. I think Marti is right that it is not necessarily off limits to Hispanics and Asians. But the understanding has always been that African Americans are excluded. It is easy to see why other Hispanics and Asians, not to mention African Americans, would be leery of embracing multiethnicity on such terms.

Clearly, Mosaic is spiritually compelling. Its members are on fire with their faith, eager to share it with everyone in Los Angeles. Its leaders take risks that most pastors would not dare. Marti, himself a church leader before leaving for a teaching position in North Carolina, is learned and self-aware. I wish that he had shared more with his readers about what is sacrificed -- not only hymns and soul music but a place for the old and the very young -- in a church systematically built around the culture of young, media-savvy, single Americans, no matter how ethnically diverse they are.

Why More Options Make us Less Happy

Book Review:

The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less,

By Barry Schwartz. HarperCollins, 288 pp.

Barry Schwartz’s book became a page-turner for me when he began discussing a survey of preferences in medical care. The majority of non-patients said they would want to be in charge of their treatment if they were to get cancer, he reported. But most of those who actually had cancer wanted their doctors to take over.

"What looks attractive in prospect doesn’t always look so good in practice. In making a choice that could mean the difference between life and death, figuring out which choice to make becomes a grave burden," Schwartz states. Simply put, the paradox is that while having some choice is necessary and healthy, too much choice -- too many options, too many decision points -- is debilitating.

Two years ago I was diagnosed with lung cancer. Absorbed in my work, active in church, a happy husband and grandfather, physically fit but for the inevitable insults of aging, I was completely unprepared when I was told that I had this dreadful disease. From the team of specialists to whom my primary-care physician referred me, I soon learned that the cancer had spread too far for a simple surgery. Having no reason to doubt the wisdom of the aggressive regimen the specialists recommended, my wife and I agreed that I would receive a combination of chemotherapy and radiation, to be followed, if all went well, by surgery and a second round of chemotherapy. Treatment began two weeks after the first hint of trouble.

By no means did we simply leave everything to the doctors. We reached out to family, fellow parishioners and friends near and far for practical and spiritual support. We prayed and were prayed over. We stocked up on multi-vitamins, and I kept up my exercise. We received advice from my sister, herself a cancer survivor and volunteer counselor, and prepared questions for the doctors, showing up for appointments with notepads and a tape recorder. We talked everything over between us and made the most of each day. I joined a support group at the hospital and began to record my thoughts in an ongoing chronicle. But we did not go on the Web to research treatment options. We wanted to get on with the treatment my doctors had recommended.

In the weeks and months that followed, we received an abundance of help for which we’ll always be grateful. I was especially encouraged to learn how many members of our church were, or knew of, cancer survivors. Having lost many family members to cancer, I did not need to hear about the toll this disease takes. Nor did I find it helpful to be asked if I had tried or if I knew about someone’s favorite anticancer nostrum, from beverages to alternative healers. Though these suggestions were sincere and expressed a desire to help, I soon found them downright irritating.

When it comes to making decisions about cancer treatment, I appear to be what Schwartz would call a "satisficer," one who is willing to live with the "good enough" rather than insisting on the "best." Schwartz borrowed this concept from Nobel laureate Herbert Simon, who developed it as a realistic alternative to the notion of the "utility maximizer" presupposed by classical economics: For example, if a supermarket chain attempted to calculate the very best alternative before deciding where to place a new store, the research costs would bankrupt it, while more intrepid competitors would move in. In business, "satisfying" may be good enough to yield profitable results. Research has shown that offering consumers too many flavors of jam (two dozen instead of a half dozen) depresses sales. Beyond a certain point, options are paralyzing.

A professor of psychology and social theory at Swarthmore College, Schwartz applies Simon’s ideas to the human psyche, with happiness replacing profitability as the desired outcome. (An excerpt from the book, focusing on the happiness/misery calculus, appeared in the April issue of Scientific American, under the title "The Tyranny of Choice.") Schwartz and his colleagues developed a "maximization scale," by means of which subjects rate their relative maximizer/satisficer proclivities. People are asked to rate themselves on a seven-point scale from "completely agree" to "completely disagree" with such statements as, "When shopping, I have a hard time finding clothing that I really love" or "Whenever I watch TV, I channel surf." Most people cluster near the middle in such scales, but 10 percent of Schwartz’s subjects were classified as extreme maximizers, those who think long and hard about every decision. They tend to make objectively better decisions than the rest of us, but they are less satisfied both with what they’ve chosen and with life in general.

Choice, something Americans expect to exercise in everything from TV programs to marital partners, is hardly a bad thing in itself. Schwartz cites studies of laboratory animals that are allowed to escape or prevented from escaping from unpleasant conditions. Those given no options not only languish, but develop an incapacity to respond to any improvement in their circumstances. To be deprived of all choice is to be brutalized. Yet beyond a certain point more choice means less happiness. The more choices we ponder or the more time we invest in making a certain choice, the worse we tend to feel.

Schwartz cites several reasons for this, drawing on research in psychology and in behavioral economics. Researchers in the latter field have known for some time that people don’t think like adding machines, tallying up potential positive and negative outcomes ("gains" and "losses"), but feel worse about a given unit of loss than about a corresponding unit of gain. And when we contemplate a choice (this or that, yes or no), we know that doing one thing means foregoing another. Foregone alternatives -- "opportunity costs," in economists’ terms -- are losses. Because maximizers think about more alternatives, or think more about alternatives, they also experience more opportunity costs, the sum of which may be greater than the gain from the chosen alternative. They’ve programmed themselves to be acutely aware of what they’re not getting.

To make matters worse, much in our emotional makeup robs us of satisfaction with the choices we make. Regret over a bad choice can take away satisfaction, but the determination to avoid bad choices leads to overinvestment in the decision process. Social comparison means that our satisfaction is predicated on what others have. Schwartz cites research showing that the majority of people would rather be big fish in small ponds, earning $50,000 when others earn $25,000, than small fish in big ponds, earning $100,000 when others earn $200,000. (Many ministers’ families can relate to this!)

Most insidious of all is hedonic adaptation. Whenever we find something that does make us happier, we eventually get used to it, and our sense of well-being returns to where it was before the new thing came into our lives. We can never make progress on the hedonic treadmill. (The good news in adaptation is that it also works for things that lessen the quality of life. We get used to them, too. People with chronic diseases and missing limbs move to a new threshold of well-being.)

If this is human nature, a late-capitalist, consumer-driven economy seems designed to torture us. Schwartz glimpsed this possibility when, as a middle-aged man, he went to a Gap store and naïvely asked for a new pair of blue jeans. The clerk asked if he wanted slim fit, easy fit or relaxed fit; regular or faded; stone-washed or acid-washed; button-fly or regular fly. Spending much longer in the store than he’d planned, investing "time, energy, and no small amount of self-doubt, anxiety and dread," he eventually settled on "easy fit." Piqued by this experience, he made a loose inventory of his local supermarket, where he found 85 varieties of crackers and 285 of cookies, 230 different soups, 120 pasta sauces and 175 kinds of salad dressing. A book on American consumerism told him that the typical supermarket carries more than 30,000 items. He began to suspect that at some point "choice no longer liberates. It might even be said to tyrannize."

Predictably, the answer to Schwartz’s dilemma offered by one reviewer was for consumers to maintain loyalty to specific brands. Since I do the grocery shopping in my family, I know that brands are part of the problem, not the solution. Covetous of shelf space, companies multiply options within familiar brands, so that it is not sufficient for my wife simply to put Tide or Cheerios on the shopping list. The problem is systemic.

Schwartz offers several ways of dealing with the paradox of choice, and unlike some would-be Jeremiahs he does not drag the reader through an endlessly bleak landscape before finishing on a note of half-hearted hope or apocalyptic despair. Early on, he introduces the contrast between maximizing and satisfying, and he salts the book with hints on to how to move from the one mind-set to the other. Beware of the "new and improved." Make it a rule to visit only two stores before buying clothing. Continue to read advertisements for the car you just bought, ignoring what the competition has to say. Decide on the kinds of choices you’re willing to think through -- areas in which it is fun to choose (for me, movies and wine), in contrast to those in which deciding is burdensome and a good-enough outcome will do. Allow other people to be the innovators, trying things out for you. "Remember that ‘he who dies with the most toys wins’ is a bumper sticker, not wisdom." Well-chosen New Yorker cartoons are used in the book to temper the argument with wry and gentle wit.

Schwartz mostly offers wisdom of a worldly sort, but he approaches things of the spirit when he suggests keeping an ongoing list of the good things that happen each day, big and small, in order to inculcate an "attitude of gratitude." "With practice, we can learn to reflect on how much better things are than they might be, which will in turn make the good things in life feel even better." Chicago philosopher-comic Aaron Freeman made the same point in a recent National Public Radio commentary: "Gratitude ameliorates the worst aspect of American life, which is that the consumer culture makes us constantly aware of what we do not have, without counterbalancing rituals of gratitude for the mind-boggling bounty that is the U.S.A. . . . As you are grateful, to that precise extent you are happy."

Schwartz comes closest to a classically religious attitude when he enjoins the love of constraint and the power of non-reversible decisions, especially with respect to life’s most important decisions. He relates the story of a minister who, in a sermon on marriage, shocked his congregation with the frank acknowledgment that, yes, the grass is greener on the other side. No matter whom you marry, inevitably there will be someone younger, funnier, smarter, wealthier or more empathetic than he or she is. But marriage is not a matter of comparison shopping. "The only way to find happiness and stability in the presence of seemingly attractive and tempting options is to say, ‘I’m simply not going there. I’ve made my decision. I’m not in the market -- period.’. . . Wondering whether you could have done better is a prescription for misery." Considering your decision irreversible allows you to pour your energy into making your marriage better.

Research shows that people with strong social bonds -- those who are married or enjoy close family and church ties -- tend to be happier and healthier than those lacking such bonds. But Schwartz thinks it’s important to realize that social ties also limit freedom, choice and autonomy. In Émile Durkheim’s study of suicide over a century ago, he argued that marriage, family and religion not only guard against the loneliness or "egoism" endemic to modern life, but also provide a salutary constraint of the imagination against the lack of rules, or "anomie," that accompanies capitalism. Observing that the rates of clinical depression in the U.S. have tripled in the past quarter century of increased choice, Schwartz echoes Durkheim’s proposition that suicide rates are directly proportional to rates of egoism and anomie.

The book ends with a series of practical suggestions to help us cope with the bewildering array of choices contemporary life offers. Schwartz has clearly put his finger on a national mood, for the book is getting a great deal of coverage in the mass media. But Schwartz doesn’t want to leave the problem solely in the hands of individuals. Two days after President Bush’s 2004 State of the Union address, Schwartz published an op-ed piece in the New York Times, summarizing his book’s message in order to cast doubt on the president’s celebration of personal choice as public policy. Drawing attention to proposals for privatizing Social Security accounts for America’s workers, health insurance for seniors and school choice for children, Schwartz questioned the wisdom of "throwing an ever-greater menu of options at the American people."

The psychology of social comparison and regret will affect workers as they decide how to invest their personal share of their Social Security taxes. It is not hard to imagine the privatized misery, the self-blame, of those whose choices turn out to be less than perfect. A lower, more porous social safety net means that some will be objectively better off, some will be objectively worse off, nearly everyone will feel subjectively worse off, and very few will have any reason to feel that their fate is shared. The safest prediction is that the biggest beneficiaries of Social Security privatization will be managers of the conservative mutual funds in which the vast majority of workers will invest in the hope that they will be no worse off than under the old system.

I had a chance to speak with Schwartz about the political and religious implications of his book. Did I have him right? Why hadn’t he been more explicit? He suggested that I would find some of the answers to my questions in his 1994 book, The Costs of Living: How Market Freedom Erodes the Best Things in Life (Norton, 1994; reissued 2001 by Xlibris). The earlier book is indeed more explicit. It is a full-scale, frontal attack on the application of market theory to social institutions. It argues that schooling, medicine and even baseball are debased when they are understood in terms of profit-making. It concludes with fighting words: "Economic imperialism must be stopped."

But another thing stood out about The Costs of Living. It was not nearly as widely read as The Paradox of Choice. When I asked him about this, Schwartz acknowledged that this time he had hit a nerve. Less than six months after publication, his newer work is being translated into seven languages. Its author has received countless "heartfelt, thoughtful communications from people identifying their version of the problem." He has been invited to consult with the office of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Reports, as well as with software designers who suspect that the abundant options they offer may constitute an abdication of their responsibility.

But he insisted that the basic message has not changed. "If I were to rewrite The Costs of Living, I’d put everything in italics." What is new is the more personal approach, beginning with the story about buying blue jeans that opens the book. The Paradox of Choice "is focused at a level where people normally think: ‘What can I do?’ ‘What’s going on in my life?’ And all the issues are more acutely true than they were a decade ago. . . . There are a lot of people walking around, really, really dissatisfied with their lives, unable to put their fingers on what it is that’s so troublesome. And because this notion of choice is sacrosanct in this society, that would be the last place they looked. . . . So I come out and I say, ‘Listen! This thing that we worship, maybe it’s not an unalloyed good."’

It is also the case that his thinking resonates with religion. A chapter in The Costs of Living tells how he helped found a liberal synagogue. But he insisted that he did this not for religious reasons but because of his convictions, grounded in psychology and philosophy, that we need more constraint and less choice in our lives. "My convictions led me to embrace religious institutions. . . . I’m an atheist who cofounded a Jewish congregation." Yet he also insists that salutary constraint cannot be arbitrarily imposed, and he cheerfully acknowledged that it was a nonarbitrary fact that any religious institution he might embrace would be Jewish.

Schwartz has convinced me that while we can’t be fully human without the capacity to exercise choice, we have better things to do than ponder alternatives. In the case of my illness, the prescribed first round of radiation and chemotherapy did its job of making the eventual surgery effective. Then there was the second round of chemotherapy required for insurance, and CT scans at three-month intervals ever since. We gladly agreed with the short interval despite the health risks posed by CT scans. What I may suffer in excess radiation is worth the lessened anxiety in the face of possible recurrence. Meanwhile, by the grace of God, life went on during the months of treatment and recovery, although at a slower pace. I read, wrote in my diary, taught some classes, served on committees, went to church, tried to sing and to swim, and spent time with my grandchildren. Sixteen months ago, the medical oncologist declared my cancer to be "in full remission," and the pace of life quickened. "Sometimes," says Schwartz, "satisficers get lucky."