By David Horn, ThD
Director, The Ockenga Institute

I just hosted Will Willimon at a pastor’s event. His bio includes the fact that he has written sixty books. Do the math. Will Willimon is sixty plus years old. He has written sixty books. Aside for this fact about him, I really liked him.

It has taken me over a year and a half to write my little book and I am still not finished. But, it is this monthly obligation—opportunity—to blog to you that has sent me scurrying to my anthology of modern poetry.

E.E. Cummings has a wonderful little poem called [a man who had fallen among thieves]. In it he speaks of “a man who had fallen among thieves lay by the roadside on his back dressed in fifteenthrate ideas.” “Fifteenthrate ideas.” That’s me on most days. Asked to periodically pull my way away from the minutia of my administrative position here at the seminary, asked to pull my way away from the settled, undisturbed pond of my own middle age lifestyle, you would think I could come up with a first rate idea at least once a month that could provoke or cajole, or at least mildly stimulate another person.

I find that most of the time I wake up in the morning with a head full of fifteenthrate ideas. They actually seem like first-rate ideas when I am between that lukewarm time period between twilight and dawn when it is difficult distinguishing between dream and awakenness. But, when the sun comes up and the light shines on these great ideas, they fade like a bad pair of jeans.

And then I think of a pastor who every Monday morning must look deep into the lens of Scripture—every week—and the expectation is to craft a new sermon full of first rate ideas for the next Sunday. He or she has to start all over again, every week., month after month, year after year. From the perspective of the pew, is there anything worse than sitting down to a sermon full of fifteenthrate ideas?

Don’t get me wrong; Scripture is filled to the brim with first-rate ideas. Christ’s atoning work on the cross, as it finds its way through the annuls of the Old Testament and as it bears fruit in the final pages of Revelation, is the ultimate great idea. But, why is it that most of us have to be convinced of this every Sunday? Most pastors find their sanctuaries filled with expectations of something more than the simple call of the Gospel. They want something with a little more pizzazz, a bit more luster.

Why is this? More to the point, why am I stuck with this fifteenthrate idea in writing this blog?

Primitive Doesn’t Come Cheap: A Few Thoughts on Avatar

By Sean McDonough, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament

In a fractious world, it is always nice to see a consensus emerge…even if it only concerns a blockbuster film. James Cameron’s much discussed Avatar has received pretty uniform reviews: great special effects (floating mountains!) and solid action sequences (a giant burning tree falls!) are balanced by a hopelessly derivative plot (Pocahontas in outer space) and a risible utopian ideology (primitive society=good/technological society=bad). The fact that most film critics (hardly a theologically orthodox bunch) seem to have been unimpressed with the movie’s shallow philosophizing was especially heartening: it was a small victory for common sense in the public square.

I would add only two points to the emerging consensus. Both of them are rich ironies lodged in the very heart of Cameron’s utopian vision. First, Cameron makes his case for the superiority of a natural, non-technological culture by using the highest of high-tech paraphernalia. The planet Pandora (Cameron is no Tolkien when it comes to name creation) is stunning to look at, but it is just an illusion; a digitized paradise that is lost the moment the projector turns off. A longing for Eden is natural enough, but we can’t simply wish ourselves back there, no matter what our CGI budget might be. There is a reason the Bible never provides a map back to the Garden. The way to God’s presence lies forward, not back.

The second point concerns Cameron’s relentless assault on capitalism, and especially on what used to be known in radical circles as “the military-industrial complex”. There is nothing particularly complex about Avatar’s portrayal of business – or at least the dirty business of obtaining Pandora’ s prize, the floating substance unobtanium (sic). Gargantuan tractors chew up most of Pandora’s flora, while military machines napalm the rest. As the remorseless capitalists firebomb the virgin forest, our hearts are meant to burn with vaguely Marxist rage.

The problem with this, though, is that Avatar cost anywhere from 250-500 million dollars to make, and I presume Cameron did not borrow the money from friends or hold an Avatar bakesale to fund the project. No, he is enmeshed in one of the most ruthlessly capitalist industries this side of Pandora, the Hollywood film machine. Consider among many angles on this Fox’ sly strategy to maximize Avatar’s profitability:

“Fox is also reportedly catching a break on the marketing side through deals with companies such as IMAX and Panasonic. And then there's also the chipmunk factor -- specifically Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel,, which opens a week after Avatar for the studio and is considered a ‘relatively safe sequel to a chipper family comedy that cost about $60 million and took in $217 million at the domestic box office when it was released two years ago.’ Thanks for the solid, Alvin!” (Scott Cellura, “How Much did Avatar Cost?” http://movies.ign.com/articles/104/1043543p1.html)

So if you want an interesting night out at the cinema, you can go ahead and see Avatar (Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel will by most accounts prove a bit disappointing). But if you want any substance, don’t turn to Cameron; you will only find yourself enmeshed in a thicket of self-contradiction.

What ticks God off . . .

By Maria Boccia, PhD
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus

February is “Black History Month” and GCTS-Charlotte has decided to celebrate this with a series of special chapels during our Saturday classes. This past Saturday, our own Dr. Rod Cooper, the Kenneth and Jean Hansen Professor of Discipleship and Leadership Development, was the speaker. I would like to share with you some of his thoughts from Saturday. He started with the story of a confrontation on the steps of a church in Jackson, Mississippi in 1965. “. . . at the top of the front steps stood a row of White ushers, arms linked barring the entrance to the church. There were 4 or 5 Black men dressed in suits standing at the bottom of those same steps, facing the doors. As one of the Black men approached the top step, an usher disengaged his arms from the others and smashed the would-be visitor in the face sending him sprawling down the steps to the ground. Inside, you could hear the congregation and the choir singing the hymn, >Love divine, all loves excellingY= Do you know what really ticks God off C its when people who say they belong to him don=t act like HimCespecially those who say they believe in HIS word.”

Dr. Cooper reminded us of the history of Israel. They were God=s chosen people, chosen to represent God to the rest of the world, different from all the cultures around them. Or they at least they were supposed to be. Instead, however, they tended to conform to the surrounding cultures - wanting a king, worshiping other gods, making unholy sacrifices. But AGod will not stand for his name to be trashed and his word to be broken. It is at those times that God sends a prophet. Prophets speak thus saith the LordCProphets get in the face of people who claim to know Him and admonish them to get their behavior in line with their belief system. . . . In the fullness of timeCGod sends prophets.@

AThere was another nation that rose up and proclaimed that it also believed in God and his word. The critical documents written for that nation were based upon the principles and beliefs of ONE bookCthe Bible. In factC180 of the first 200 colleges of this nation were Christian. God takes his word seriouslyCand those who say they believe it and when their behavior doesn=t match the wordChe sends a prophet. For you see if there is one thing that God cannot stand B it=s when people who say they know him don=t act like him and trash his reputation.@

We now have a national holiday celebrating the contribution of Dr. Martin Luther King. Dr King is a national hero, and his reputation has been sanitized - he was a great civil rights leader, a man pursuing social justice, etc. Dr. Cooper told us about how Dr. Martin Luther King saw is calling. After his first arrest and night in jail in 1963, at the age of 26, he questioned whether he was doing the right thing, especially putting his wife and child at risk for this cause. Dr. King prayed, and God spoke to him in Micah 6:8 A And what does the Lord require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?@ Dr. Martin Luther King was not a social activist. He was a Prophet of God called to a people who claimed his name but did not live as God had called them to live.

Micah 6:8 describes the work of Dr. King, and tells us what are the distinguishing characteristics of a people who belong to God. This is not a suggestionCthis is a direct command. In fact it is a requirement to be called Amy people.@

To do justice: ADoing justice means to be ethically responsible and to take action. God is not a God who passively sits by and does nothing but he invades history to change the system to right wrongs. He did this when he said to PharaohClet my people goChe came to set the captive free. When we are prophetic about injustice and invade the system to change the systemCwe are acting on God=s behalfCwe are doing what a Good God would doCwe are doing justice.@

To love kindness: ATo love kindness literally means to respond to others with a spirit of generosityCgraceCand loyalty. It is the belief that love overpowers evil and truth overcomes wrong. It is the belief that essentially in the other person=s heart. there is a desire to do the right thing.@

To walk humbly with your God: ADr. King knew that in order to change the system with an attitude of love it would take a strong abiding relationship with God. Dr. King knew that when you attempt change in God=s power and in God=s way you will get God=s results. The word Awalk@ means to accompany. To stay close enough to God to get your orders from Him. Humility says I know where I have come fromCand it is only by God=s grace. Humility says that the battle is the Lord=s Humility is standing stillCand watching the salvation of God.@

Dr. Cooper told the story of a inventor who developed a new car. He brought the blue-prints to potential investors. The investors questioned whether it would work. The inventor invited them outside, where a model of the car waited. They went for a ride and discovered it was exactly what the blueprints said it would be. Then Dr. Cooper challenged all of us: the Bible is God=s blueprint for how we should live. Can others look at our lives and see the same thing in there as they read in God=s Word?

Thinking About Curricular Change: the Categories

By John Jefferson Davis
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics

During the months ahead the faculty will be engaged in discussions of curricular change, both in relation to the process of curriculum review mandated by the trustees, and in relation to the Kern Grant and the development of hybrid and web-based degree programs based at the Charlotte campus. This brief paper examines four basic categories that figure in such discussions, and argues that some philosophical assumptions commonly made about these categories are simplistic, and need to be rethought.

The opinions expressed in this paper are only my own: they do not express the views of the faculty or administration, and are offered only for the purpose of discussion only.

The four categories in question are “diversification”, “division of labor”, “quality”, and “residency”. Some specific proposals and recommendations will be stated for faculty discussion and debate.

1. The first category is that of diversification. Consider analogies from the worlds of ecology, farming, and investment: in agriculture and ecosystems, a “monoculture” or a national economy based on a single crop (e.g., rice or wheat) can be wiped out by the unexpected rapid spread of a disease or infestation; similarly, and ecosystem with less biodiversity is much more vulnerable to sudden environmental changes than an ecosystem with greater diversity. In the world of personal and institutional investing, it is prudent to have a diversified portfolio, given uncertain knowledge of the future and the rapid changes in a technology-driven, globalized economy. The implication that could be drawn here in relation to theological education is that a school with greater diversity of courses, faculty, degree offerings, and delivery systems would be less vulnerable to unexpected economic, demographic, technological, and geopolitical shocks than an institution with less breadth of diversity.

Other factors being equal – and in practice, of course, this may be a complex judgment to make – it would be advantageous for Gordon-Conwell to increase the diversity of its degree programs and delivery systems. This could be related to a principle of “inventory”: other factors being equal, the provider with a broader and richer inventory of its goods and services will be at a competitive advantage relative to a provider with a more limited inventory.

2. The second category is that of the division of labor. A standard economics textbook illustration of this principle is that of the lawyer and the administrative assistant: even though the lawyer may be a faster typist than the administrative assistant, overall productivity will be greater if the lawyer concentrates on that area where she has the greatest comparative advantage, i.e., doing law, and delegates the word processing to the administrative assistant. In the seminary’s current situation, this suggests a new way of framing the “adjunct” discussion: greater use of properly vetted adjuncts will allow full-time, tenure track faculty to spend more time where they should have a comparative advantage: research and publication. These latter activities help to build and maintain the school’s international reputation and “brand”, while adjuncts contribute to quality classroom teaching and support the school’s economic base. Full-time faculty continue, of course, to contribute by way of excellent classroom teaching. (This scenario suggests that Gordon-Conwell should see itself more like “Harvard” than “Phoenix University” – though it is, of course, different from both in its fundamental mission.)

3. The third category is that of quality in theological education. All faculty are agreed that Gordon-Conwell education should be “excellent” and of high “quality”. A distinction between what philosophers of language call “binary” and “graded” categories should be noted at this point. A category such as “pregnant” is binary in that is “all-or-nothing” in character; a woman is either pregnant or not. A term such as “tall” or the category of “tall persons” is graded, in that there is no one-size-fits-all class of “tall” persons.

Our discussions of “quality” in education commonly fail to make this distinction and treat quality as a binary concept. Consider the following question: “Does the Michelin brand represent an excellent quality of tire?” The answer, most people would say, is “Yes, Michelin does represent excellent quality” – but more precisely, we need to ask, “What grade of quality are you talking about – and what are you willing to pay for it? We have tires that are ‘good’, some that are ‘better’, and some that are the ‘best’. How much do you want to pay?” If (many/most) faculty assume that full-time, residential education is the “best” [an assumption that needs substantiation by empirical research] then let those who can afford it pay for the “best”, while also having in inventory an educational product that is “good” (enough) or “better” for those who seek it at their given price point and personal cost-benefit calculus. The assumption in this latter scenario and Michelin tire analogy would be that theological orthodoxy and competent graduate-level instruction is a “binary” characteristic (the GCTS course either has it, or it is not offered at all), whereas quality – if viewed primarily in terms of residential “face time”, is a graded category.

4. The fourth category is that of residency or (personal) “presence”. The argument here is that “residency”, like that of “quality”, is in fact a graded and not a binary category, under the existing conditions of modern and postmodern digital cultures. “Residency” or “modes of one person being ‘present’ to another” is no longer a binary category – either you are (fully) physically/molecularly present, or you are (fully) “absent”. This simple binary distinction of present/absent has been obsolete at least since the invention of writing: there are many modes of mediated personal presence – writing, telegraph, telephone, radio, television, video and now, in something of a “quantum leap” in technology – the internet: email, Skype, Facebook, Twitter, videoconferencing, and so forth. The point to made here is that mediated presence is a form of “real” presence – real, but different in various ways from immediate physical or molecular presence. Digital realities are a new form of reality, and digitally mediated form of presence have both detriments and advantages compared to physical modes of presence. Virtual presence should be seen as a (graded) form of “real” presence, with the understanding that the category “real” is not exhausted by the “physical”. From the point of a biblical ontology, we can recognize at least three modes of real presence: molecular/physical; virtual; and spiritual (e.g. “I am with you always, to the very end of the age …”). Today’s learners expect to be “present” to one another in both physical and virtual modes, and our challenge as faculty is to settle on an appropriate mix of these modes, not insisting on one to the exclusion of the other.

Implications and Recommendations:

1. All campuses should seek to increase the diversity and “inventory” of delivery

systems, especially online/hybrid models;

2. Make increased use of properly vetted adjuncts to support the full-time, tenure-

track faculty for research and publication (“division of labor” principle);

3. Increase number of allowable Semlink/online courses for all degree programs to

67% [cf. Asbury programs; ATS current standards];

4. To increase scheduling and curricular flexibility, introduce (course) credits of 1, 2

and (4) credit hours in addition to existing 3 credit-hour courses;

5. Consider “Open-Sourcing” the curriculum, i.e., “giving away” online [iTunes Univ.;

YouTube] Semlink and campus-recorded lectures and courses (non-credit) following the MIT, and the “Google strategy” to draw potential students to the seminary’s website; give Semlink course materials online to alumna/ae to build stronger alumna/ea loyalty. (cf. Lk.6:38, “Give and it will be given to you”; Ecc.11:1, “Cast

Your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again.”)

A final observation: the changes proposed above would seem to be consistent with the founding visions of A.J. Gordon and Russell Conwell to provide affordable, biblically orthodox theological education to working adults and part-time students who might not otherwise have such access.

January 29, 2010

God Bless the People of Haiti

By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament

Our hearts have been broken as we have learned of the devastation suffered by the people of Haiti since the recent earthquake and its aftershocks. So much suffering for a country that had already experienced more than its share… Their tragic situation is not helped by the thoughtless suggestion that the massive destruction, leading to the deaths of more than 200,000 people, may have been “a blessing in disguise” (because it could lead to massive rebuilding) or the suggestion that Haiti’s troubles are to be attributed to an imagined pact its people made with the Devil (Pat Robertson: “They got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.’ True story! And so the Devil said, ‘OK, it’s a deal.’”). Such tragedies strain our faith and challenge us theologically, just as they challenged Job’s “friends.” The best thing they did was provide comfort by their silent presence for seven days (Job 2:13). But then they also made inappropriate applications flowing from their limited theological understanding. We would also do better to remain silent than to offer such imaginatively unhelpful analysis. Too many Christians have spent too much time coming up with theological grounds for blaming victims of tragic events, as though the world we live in is one where things go well for people unless they have given God or fate some excuse to bring destruction their way. Followers of Jesus Christ, of all people, should know better.

The people of Haiti suffer from tremendous poverty, but such a large number of them demonstrate an equally tremendous faith in and love for God. I remember my wife telling me about the joyous expressions of faith she encountered during her time in Haiti on a mission trip years ago. The news reports have been filled with Haitian people praising Jesus Christ upon every bit of good news in the midst of all the bad. In one extended interview a woman who had been pulled out of the rubble (and who was now in a hospital bed) focused on how her faith in God had sustained her through her time under the rubble and how she reads her Bible every day and was able to remain strong in hope through her reflection on psalms and other relevant texts from Scripture. The constant references to and expressions of Christian faith should not surprise us since the World Christian Database indicates that 95.21% of the country’s population holds to one form of Christianity or another. I am not so confident that I and my fellow countrymen would have such a bold, open and even joyous faith if were to live such materially impoverished lives.

Our own church is supporting the people of Haiti in a few different ways, through special offerings for Hope for the Children of Haiti, and organization that we regularly support and other funding going to World Relief. I hope you and your church will also find a way to make a difference in this and/or other areas where people have such a desperate need for both material and spiritual help. Paul reminds us that even those who are experiencing their own severe trials and extreme poverty may demonstrate rich generosity (cf. 2 Corinthians 8:1-2). May God bless the people of Haiti and help them overcome the many factors that promote economic poverty in that country (and the conditions that lead to living and fragile and even inherently dangerous housing). And may God help the rest of us to learn from the humble faith of those who know how to worship and honor God with all they have even what that “all” is very little in comparison to the resources found elsewhere.

Now, about 1 Corinthians…. Did you know …?

Having recently completed the one of the longest commentaries on 1 Corinthians in history, and being in the midst of a short adult class on the letter at church, I’m thinking about some things that many people don’t know about the letter or its interpretation. For example, did you know …

1 Corinthians has much to say to the modern world. No book in the New Testament, even Paul’s letter to the Romans, does more to explain the grace of God, the lordship of Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit. The contribution of the letter to the practical knowledge of God is immense. Not only is its ethics searching and rigorous, but its theology, especially of the cross, announces the end of the world as we know it. In addition to supplying concrete answers to many problems which have comparable manifestations today, on subjects as diverse as leadership, preaching, pluralism, sexuality, and worship, 1 Corinthians models how to approach the complexity of Christian living with the resources of the Old Testament and the example and teaching of Jesus. Above all, it shows the importance of asking, How does the gospel of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which envelop the letter in chapters 1 and 15, teach us to live? [Ciampa and Rosner, First Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1]

Did you know that Paul’s repeated phrase “do you not know” (1 Cor. 6:2-3, 9, 15-16, 19; 9:24) usually communicates an implied rebuke (indicating that they should have already known and not needed Paul’s reminder), unlike my following list of “did you know” questions (which raise issues that I expect many readers may not have already known)? Did you know that the vices listed in 5:11 share an OT background with the quote from Deuteronomy in 5:13? Did you know (re: 1 Cor. 6:19) that in the Roman world sexual immorality only counted as “adultery” if it entailed sex with a married woman (married men engaging in relations with unmarried women were not legally considered adulterers)? Did you know that Paul is not talking about “homosexuals” in 6:19 (that most of same-sex acts would have been done by married men who were having sex with their wives [and perhaps other women as well])? Did you know, regarding the euphemism of “touching” which shows up in 7:1 (translated “marry” by an older version of the NIV and “have sexual relations” by most recent English translations), that men and women didn’t “touch” each other, but that “touching” was a unilateral act – what a man did to the object of his sexual desire (contrast the mutuality repeatedly reinforced in Paul’s teaching in 7:2-5) and that the euphemism was not used of normal sex within marriage, but of various other kinds of sexual relations?

Did you know that the issue discussed in 1 Corinthians 8-10 is not the same as that in Acts 10:11-11:9 (in 1 Corinthians Paul is dealing with food that has been offered to idols [where association with idolatry is the key issue] while Acts 10 discusses the issue of “clean” and “unclean” foods [categories of animals expounded in Leviticus 11 and presupposed in Genesis 7])? Did you know that in 11:2-16, despite an introduction that seems to imply a gender heirarchy, no distinction is made in the passage between the ministries of men and of women (the conclusion is that both men and women will pray and prophesy as long as they are properly attired)? Did you know that Paul considers the gift of prophesy essential to the wellbeing of the church (and that the gift is present and operating even in churches that do not believe in it)? Did you know that the spiritual/natural dichotomy found in 15:44-46 is not the same as a material/immaterial or physical/non-physical dichotomy (the later is a modern conception foreign to Paul’s thought)?

Did you know that Rosner and I argue that 1 Corinthians is “Paul’s attempt to tell the church of God in Corinth that they are part of the fulfillment of the Old Testament expectation of worldwide worship of the God of Israel, and as God’s eschatological temple they must act in a manner appropriate to their pure and holy status by becoming unified, shunning pagan vices, and glorifying God in obedience to the lordship of Jesus Christ” (page 52)? Did you know you could learn more about all these and many other issues in the recently published Pillar New Testament Commentary?

May God lead us, through a growing understanding and assimilation of the message of 1 Corinthians, ever more deeply into the wisdom and power of God in Christ (1:24) that we might flee sexual immorality (6:18) and idolatry (10:14) and glorify God with our bodies (6:20) and in all that we do (10:31), until that day when all things are fully renewed and He is all in all (15:28)!

By David Horn, ThD
Director, The Ockenga Institute

It’s like wandering through the mall. That’s the landscape of the evangelical church today in America. In our part of the country we have Nordstroms and Macys and Marshals and Sears. These are the economic pillars of the mall, the anchor stores. Surrounding these commercial behemoths is a myriad of lesser lights: bookstores, jewelry stores, electronic stores, game arcades, build-your-own-teddy bear shops, the food court.

And we have our mega-churches, churches with multi-million dollar budgets that shore up huge bureaucracies of pastors and support staff, which, in turn, facilitate layers of programs designed to meet every conceivable need of the consuming public. The vision statements of these organisms are now large enough, apparently, to encompass the future of entire countries in Africa. For better or worse, these mega-organizations now anchor our movement.

As I work with churches and pastors, I am increasingly finding that the real impact of these organizations is not limited to their obvious assets. Not only have they become bigger-than-life in real terms; they have become bigger-than-life in our minds and hearts. Whether we want to admit it or not, the mega-church has become the standard by which we define success.

It’s annoying, isn’t it? We have all heard the statistics; it seems like 50% of church attendees in America attend about 5% of our churches. And yet, in the back of our minds as pastors, as we put our new fall programs together or drag our congregations through another envisioning process or consider a new evangelism campaign for our churches, there exist the notion that this just might be the year that God does in our church what He has done in what is described on the back cover of books written by one of a few meg-pastors.

But, the cold hard reality is that for most of us in ministry, we are called to manage a Lids Store or a Hallmark card shop on the far end of the corridor, not one of the anchor stores. How do we live with this reality while seeking God’s best for the place God has called us to serve? How do we long earnestly for growth and change and renewal in settings resistant to growth and change and renewal?

Several years ago, I had an extended yearlong conversation with fifteen pastors from mainline churches around New England on the nature of renewal within their theologically compromised contexts. We met monthly to discuss what it would take to change the climate and attitudes of congregations in need of spiritual renewal.

After our yearlong conversation, we summarized our time together into sixteen precepts that describe what it takes to turn a church around. I have wondered more recently whether many of these precepts relate equally to small, struggling evangelical churches as well. Here they are:

16 Precepts for Turning a Church Around

1. “Called to obedience, not success.”

2. “Longevity matters.”

3. “There will be a point of crisis. Get through it.”

4. “Look for the remnant.”

5. “Old guard, new guard: It’s a matter of critical mass.”

6. “What’s more important: bylaws or vision statement?”

7. “Leadership is generational.”

8. “De-code the battle: personality or theology.”

9. “Conserve your energy” or “Choose your battles carefully.”

10. “Finding the thread that leads to renewal in YOUR church.”

11. “Sometimes the point of absolute death is the point of opportunity.”

12. “Wheat and Tares: Evangelism within.”

13. “Patience, patience, (gasp), patience.”

14. “Renewal: A never-ending story.”

15. “Know when to leave.”

16. “It’s not ultimately you. It’s the Spirit!”

As I have overheard pastors talk about their churches in more recent years, I would add to the above sixteen the further observation that churches are oh-so-very-fragile creatures. In the current marketplace economy of congregational life in America, I am continuously amazed at how quickly churches can loose their momentum. Whether through conflict or through more subtle attrition, seemingly vital churches loose their vitality. It is only through God’s grace and power that our churches--flawed as they may be—become renewable resources for His greater glory.