Are we institutionalizing missional narcissism?
Idolatry is tricky: Something that is otherwise good can quickly rule us. For example, while loving oneself is actually a good thing, as Jesus teaches (Matthew 22:39), the inordinate or excessive love of self leads one into the quicksand of narcissism. Because narcissism affects individuals it can end up polluting the institutions we construct and lead in our own sin-tainted image. I’m afraid that some well-intentioned Christians, in the quest to have the most unique church ever, could be inadvertently contributing to the demise of Christianity in America.
In a 2008 article, “Organizational Narcissism,” from the journal Organizational Dynamics, Dennis Duchon and Michael Burns explain how institutions can become narcissistic in the quest for uniqueness. According to the authors, these organizations become “self-absorbed and focus on protecting an identity” and are preoccupied with themselves.
As self-absorption becomes habit, a narcissistic organization uses its inflated self-importance to justify all sorts of activities that inadvertently lose touch with those they intended to reach and end up hurting people along the way. Moreover, narcissistic organizational leaders will not admit that their organizations have limited knowledge and capabilities. They believe that they can figure out how to do whatever they set their minds to. They are blind to their organization’s weaknesses and never mention them in public. Duchon and Burns describe the self-loving organization as “attention-grabbing” with “hip, fashionable” leaders who project the “illusions of control” while highly valuing an entrepreneurial style of leadership that shoots down contrary opinions and gathers “yes people” who are “celebrated as team players.”
The institutional narcissism prevalent in some corners of missional evangelicalism is worth book-length treatment. Having said that, let me offer just one example of the inadvertent power of missional narcissism. The Rev. Tim Keller is quoted as saying:
“If you and your church were to disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow, would anyone in the unbelieving community around you notice you were gone? And if they did even notice would they say, ‘We are really glad they are gone,’ or ‘Gee, we’re going to miss them.’”
While Keller makes an excellent point about the gospel footprint that Christians should have in their communities, missional narcissists pervert such a statement to justify the self-aggrandizing quest to be the most unique and accomplished church in town, maybe ever—a church with programs, preaching, and music like no other church. Narcissists take Keller’s principle and apply it to their quest to be nostalgic. The result is that intended groups are not reached and many folks in the church become collateral damage.
Jesus prayed for Christian unity (John 17:6-26), but missional narcissists focus on division and separation from other Christians who may not be as “cool” or accomplished. In many inner cities, for example, some missional narcissists arrive proclaiming their unique and special presence while neither following the lead nor listening to the black and Latino church leaders already there. Missional narcissists encourage “fantasies of success,” explain Duchon and Burns, which tempt some into the self-deception that his congregation has the knowledge and competencies to transform the entire town or even the world. Moreover, missional narcissists cannot understand why everyone is not attending their church. They believe that they are so awesome that everyone should want to be there. Narcissist leaders struggle to accept the fact that they have severe limitations in their ability to lead people who are not like them.
The list of applications of the Duchon and Burns article to missional narcissism is quite long, but in the end, the authors argue for a self-confident realism. That is, instead of narcissism, organizations should move forward with humility and honesty about their strengths and limits. A self-confident, realistic Christianity, then, is successful because of its faithfulness to Scriptures, not because it is unique and special. What makes Christianity different is Jesus, not the uniqueness of any local church, so boasting about your group’s special awesomeness is simply inconsistent with the historic spread of Christianity around world and is unnecessary.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top33 Comments to “Are we institutionalizing missional narcissism?”
Too much (but not all, of couse) of what is going on under the moniker, “missional” is simply the effort to make over the bride of Christ (the church) so that the world does not have to change much at all to join her and love her.
Report comment to moderator
Except to say that I have witnessed this even in my own church, I really don’t have anything to add. You said it so well, Anthony. The Church is the body of Christ!
Report comment to moderator
“What makes Christianity different is Jesus, not the uniqueness of any local church, so boasting about your group’s special awesomeness is simply inconsistent with the historic spread of Christianity around world and is unnecessary.” Amen. Well said.
Report comment to moderator
Good words, Anthony. However, I don’t think that Jesus is teaching that loving one’s self is a “good thing” in Matthew 22. It’s simply a fact of human nature. It’s a given that if I’m hungry, I’m probably going to feed myself or if I’m cold, I’m going to try to get warm. In the same way that I already love myself, I should show that kind of concern for others. It’s common and expected that I’d “love” myself, but it’s uncommon to love someone else the same way. It’s only a “good thing” if I take the hint Jesus drops and love others that way. Otherwise, it’s just selfishness, isn’t it?
If churches, their leaders and member especially, would seek to be faithful to Christ’s Word to and about churches, then they would be accomplishing one very important thing – obedience. Christians and churches who are faithful witnesses are not guaranteed numerical growth, they are guaranteed trouble, problems and persecution. IF biblical churches do grow or are able to reach a particular group in the community or the world, it’s God’s blessing and a by-product of their faithfulness, not any formula. In many ways, the biblical church is going to be out of step with the culture.
Report comment to moderator
“Missional” is one those words so overused that when someone does use it, it leaves you wondering what they mean.
But collective narcissim–evangelical or high church–I get. It is one of the reasons I flinch when someone mentions house churches or a brand new church (though many in denominations are guilty of the same sins), because it is invariably followed by an explaination of how it is more scriptural, more obedient, more better than whatever you are doing. Whoever you are; they ususally don’t take a breath to find out.
I’m referring to house churches in the US, I’m visiting house churches in China soon and that I totally get. And they do not, because it is obvious, need to tell you why they do what they do.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Jekylldog, that you can’t properly read into Matthew 22:39 an inference that Jesus was saying that loving one’s self is a “good thing” … only that he was assuming that we love ourselves (in the way Jekylldog describes).
I also think Jekylldog’s other points are well taken.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Jekyll Dog, well said. I’m rather tired of that verse being misused to say, “You have to learn how to love yourself, and only after you can do that really, really well do you have any obligation to try to love other people.”
Report comment to moderator
I love the phrase “gospel footprint” as a counterpoint to “carbon footprint”. One is eternal and the other is well … just silly.
I also love that so many of you jumped on Anthony’s misinterpretation of Matthew 22:39. I am honored to be with such an astute crowd. Jekyll Dog explained it perfectly, so I’ll say no more about that.
As an engineer I am always looking for patterns and Anthony’s posts generally follow the same pattern, as do Andree’s. There is a lot of theological language, which when boiled down to the essence, is always about themselves. Narcissism? In Andree’s case she may have stubbed her toe or fed a cat or feels lonely and mixes it up with theology. The posts are good, but it is hard to get past the self-serving pattern.
Anthony’s posts are generally about race, but one must wade through the fancy lingo to find it. He frequently compares bad churches, i.e. white churches that just don’t understand black churches. A good church is measured by a high ratio of black faces to white faces. Once one understands the pattern, one can understand Anthony’s posts.
This time the “bad church” is the narcissistic kind where white folk come into the inner city and just don’t appreciate the Latinos and Blacks who are already there. You know those non-Latinos and non-Blacks with their “self-loving organizations” who are all “attention-grabbing” and “hip, fashionable” projecting “illusions of control”, highly valuing that entrepreneurial style.
I genuinely like Anthony and don’t like being critical, but this race garbage has got to stop. My prayer is that Anthony will someday find the grace to live outside his skin. It is such a waste of genuine talent.
By the way I totally agree with the last paragraph, but I am suspicious that it has very little to do with Anthony’s real point.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, you said what I have felt for some time now.
Concerning the substance of the post, I agree. But even better than self-confident realism would be self-effacing submission to the Holy Spirit and to the Word of God. I think that’s what Jekylldog is saying in #4.
Report comment to moderator
Amen, Kyle.
Report comment to moderator
Folks, the basic doctrines of Christianity have been parsed and sliced and diced and spliced by many many thousands of preachers in many thousands of “denominations” for 2,000 years or so.
I respectfully submit that there is nothing new under that Son, and that, by definition, anyone who claims to be creating a whole new paradigm or a unique denomination is at best a charlatan and at worst a simple narcissist.
The folks here are fond of polking fun at pointy-headed academic intellectuals who blather on and on about the previous fellow’s blather. Consider briefly the millions of pages of treatises and billions of sermons which have festooned that cross over the years…
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, you make a good point. That’s why it is best to stick to the historic creeds of the church. Most of the new-fangled versions of Christian are just the old errors and heresies resurfacing.
Report comment to moderator
What makes missional narcissism heinous is it’s pretension to be otherwise. David Finch has rightly identified many who adopt the moniker as being “attractional” rather than “missional.” The true missional church will have the unique mark of having more outward reaching programs than inward reaching programs. This becomes difficult because there are such strong incentives for building and solidifying coalitions. Churches that spend time on “Rah! Rah! Us!” are trying to create an identity beyond common identification in Christ’s sacrifice. To what end? Politics. Internal within the church as well as external within society. There is manipulation afoot.
Pay attention to the emphasis on eschatology and public policy within the church. If such discussions are not held with the aim of equipping saints for service then they fall outside of what can truly be called missional and perhaps ought better be identified as crusadal.
Nathanael Snow
Report comment to moderator
Juris,
Equipping saints for service is not the entire purpose of the church. It is in fact not even the primary purpose of the church. Worshiping God is primary, with missions flowing out of that. (Piper said it better than I.) So some preaching might be to exalt God and not in order to be “missional.” Eschatological preaching, if it follows the story line of Revelation, should raise up Jesus Christ as exalted over all. And when we see Christ as who He is, we will then be moved to love and serve Him. Otherwise, pressure to serve is just law and guilt, not gospel.
Report comment to moderator
Amen Cheryl,
And there comes a time when the equipped saints just need to serve. We can’t always and forever be stockiling the equipment. It is so amazing to see worshippers who serve from that pivot point. Many who respond from worship to service–a form of worship–find Christ has left the equipment waiting for us on the side of the path.
Report comment to moderator
“…the basic doctrines of Christianity..”
—
The glory of it all is simply incomparable.
“And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed:
and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.” (Lu 13:17)
Report comment to moderator
So someone opens their new church in an urban community and it is completely filled every Sunday. Perhaps a need is being met.
Report comment to moderator
Xion – I never considered Andree Seu’s posts as narcissistic. I think she uses stories & examples from her own life, often experiences that we can relate to, to illustrate her points about scripture. Sort of how Jesus used parables.
God speaks to many people in that way – illuminating scripture in the midst of a life experience. Or is this more a “woman thing”?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
While the chief end of man is certainly to glorify God and enjoy him forever, I’m not so sure that the chief end of the church is the same. It is quite easy to mistake to role of the individual as being the same as that of the collective, but collectives cannot be treated as organic units. The church as a collective has different aims than Christians as individuals, a point Dr. Bradley has helped me to understand. I wonder whether there is much evidence in scripture for corporate worship as commonly practiced today? It seems more likely the adoption of song as a central element in worship was adopted from temple worship and also facilitated the teaching of doctrine and history among illiterate groups or in times when books were scarce.
The purpose of the church certainly must be for the equipping of saints in individual action and behavior, including worship. However, the church is unique in its makeup. Regenerate believers have altered natures, making their capacity for corporate decision making less vulnerable to corruption. With ostracism as an effective disciplinary device, the church can be more effective than any other association, including the state, at effecting positive change. In other words, by listening to the Holy Spirit, our works can be other than “filthy rags,” while the worlds good works are worthless.
Nathanael Snow
Report comment to moderator
Juris,
The church is the bride of Christ; that is her identity. Our relationship with Christ (collectively as well as individually) is thus primary.
I’m tired after a good but long week and can’t think to say much more. I do believe that equipping for service is biblically part of the purpose of the church, but it is far from its only, or its primary, purpose.
To paraphrase John Piper (because I think he has said it as well as anyone), missions is man-centered and worship is God-centered. Our goal in missions is to call others to worship God; thus it is a means to an end, and worship itself is the end. “Missions exists because worship doesn’t.” (I think that last sentence is an actual quote, but it is from memory, and might not be.) In eternity worship will be clearer as our primary purpose, and it should be so now.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
I take issue with your critique of both Bradley and Seu.
It is very nearing to slander to call Mrs. Seu narcissistic. She mines the minutiae of ordinary life to point to our extraordinary God. Her stories forthtell eternal truths. She never concludes with the spotlight on herself, only on the Savior and his wondrous works in Creation and the lives of men.
Perhaps you do not see this, because you are an engineer and of the pragmatic bent, and do not understand as well the poetic and the metaphorical. And no, Karen O, it is not a “woman thing.” Chesterton said, “All happenings great and small are parables whereby God speaks. The art of life is to get the message.” Many men are able to see the value of her style of writing.
As for Anthony Bradley, I appreciate his unique point of view, and read him to understand better the black experience. I do not think that the realities of white privilege have been expunged from the culture, least of all the church. I think you would do well to listen with less impatience to what he has to say.
Worst of all, it was such a low blow, to say Mr. Bradley’s wonderfully edifying conclusion to this article was just a tack-on. It was the heart of the matter, and central to his argument.
I think you should apologize to both writers, and perhaps stop using the anonymity of the name “Xion” to shield you from the consequences of the foolish opinions you have expressed here. If you are going to express such devastating criticisms, why don’t you man up and come clean with your identity? Until you are ready to do that, you are better off just staying in those long debates about Nephilim and such-like, not cutting down these generous-hearted writers.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t care for the use of the term “narcissistic”, especially in Christian circles. We know better. Are we not ALL a bit self-serving at times? Are we not ALL self-centered at times? And if this is true, would not it follow that the Church seems this way at times, because it’s composed of, well, US.
Now, as far as Xion being able to express his opinion, well, it’s his opinion. Should a person be called out to apologize for an opinion that he honestly (and, I would assume, before the Lord) holds and called out of the anonymity that this site allows?
Report comment to moderator
I deeply doubt that the author of this article, and many of those who have commented actually know much about the missional movement. With that being said, I would agree with “ADIOS” who stated that the title missional has been borrowed by many. The title missional may be expressed in a church in a narcissistic and unfaithful way. However, that shouldn’t lead to a bashing of the missional movement.
The missional movement is not about being something new and hip. It’s about being faithful and obedient to God in America. Mission isn’t just something that happens far away, America is a mission field. Jesus has called Christians to go and make disciples everywhere, including in our own neighborhood.
The author has grossly mischaracterized missional churches. They are not about the institution. They are not about “a church with programs, preaching, and music like no other church.” That type of church is the mega-church style or attractional model of church. Missional churches are actually the opposite of that. The reference to David Fitch is a great one. Reading some of his work would help bring a lot of clarity to what missional is about to those who may not know.
The author also stated, “but missional narcissists focus on division and separation from other Christians who may not be as “cool” or accomplished.” This is totally wrong. Missional Christians are all about humility and entering into conversation with others. Take for example the large use of blogs by missionals. In the format of blogs, they seek communications with others, and receive feedback and differing opinions. The missional movement has also spread across many typical Christian boundary lines, such as denominations. So much so, that the word missional has come to be watered down and mean many things.
I also happen to know many missional churches that are very diverse, and in tune with the community around them. In fact, part of being missional means entering into your community. The author wrongly paints missionals as bigots and elitist.
The author argues that “organizations should move forward with humility and honesty about their strengths and limits.” Missional leaders would agree with this wholeheartedly.
Joel Mark said:
“Too much (but not all, of couse) of what is going on under the moniker, “missional” is simply the effort to make over the bride of Christ (the church) so that the world does not have to change much at all to join her and love her.”
-I agree and disagree. I agree, in that those who want to slap the label missional on their “outreach program” (which is the antithesis to what the missional movement is really about) are probably just looking for the newest fad or trend. But I disagree, because the missional church calls people to not just change their head or heart to believe in Jesus, but to repent and live in submission to God in every part of their life: work life, community life, church life, home life, etc. The missional church actually encourages living differently than the world, embodying what a life lived in submission to Jesus looks like, as we get to know our neighbors and share the gospel with them through how we live and what we say.
Hopefully these comments help, and can offer a little clarity about the missional movement.
Report comment to moderator
#21 Karen “I take issue with your critique of both Bradley and Seu.”
That is fine. Good Christians can disagree. I hardly think that my “foolish opinions” as you call them rise to the level of slander. If I am wrong, show me my error.
The essence of Anthony’s point here and in general is to differentiate between “bad churches” and “good churches”. The distinguishing factors always have something to do with skin color.
What is going on here? Well, what we have is an inner city which already has black and Latino churches. Other folks (i.e. non-black and non-Latino) get all missional about the inner city and sweep into town with their glitzy programs to take back the city for Jesus. Anthony resents it. It is as simple as that. All the theological mumbo jumbo is just window dressing.
There is a real point in there and it may be a good one. My critique was more about a writing style which forces the reader to wade through aggrandized theological terminology to find the main point which is usually buried under a rock.
Nearly all of Anthony’s posts have to do with white churches that fail to integrate. They don’t invite black preachers to speak. They don’t have a lot of black faces in the crowd. They don’t consult with inner city churches. They live their white lives on the other side of the tracks and only venture to the other side of town when they’re on a mission.
These things may be true to some extent and could be discussed openly, directly, head on. Anthony assumes that “Christian unity” means a mixing of the races, however the biblical position is that there are no races. Skin color has nothing to do with the measure of a man or a church. There are far greater issues for the church to deal with, but Anthony can’t ever get there because he’s stuck on skin color.
For example, why don’t these white churches consult with the black churches that are already there in the inner city? It has much more to do with doctrinal differences or preaching style than skin color. The discussion would be far more productive if we tackled the real issues, such as why Christians throughout history have segregated themselves over doctrinal minutia.
Why can’t Christians love one another rather than always separating into little self-righteous bubbles, venturing out only when they are on a mission to bring people “out there” into their little bubble “in here”. Why do churches historically refuse to mingle with other Christians who may have a few minor differences in doctrine or style? It isn’t narcissism or racism; it is self-righteousness. Where’s the love?
Report comment to moderator
Rather than all the name calling, such as accusing white churches of being all full of themselves or accusing me of this or that, how about we address the actual issues. Here are some suggestions:
1. Why do black churches cling to a black cultural style which serves as a bond of brotherhood to blacks, but repels others who are treated like outsiders.
2. Bill Cosby asks why black culture in general clings to black distinctives like bad grammar and poor life decisions. Why do they think lesser of themselves? Why do they think everyone else is racist?
3. What is this mass psychology of low self-esteem? I would say it has to do with an invalid anthropology in their own minds. They don’t understand that there is only one race and we are all brothers in humanity. They subconsciously cling to a false evolutionary mindset. The truth shall set them free.
4. How exactly should outside churches help inner city churches which resent being helped by “narcissistic white folk”.
5. Why do Christians generally distrust others who believe a few things differently?
6. More broadly speaking, why have churches split over the tiniest minutia throughout history and refused to mingle with other Christians, calling them names like heretic or apostate?
Even if there are large doctrinal differences between churches, why can’t we get along? If Christians are to be known by their love, then where’s the love?
Report comment to moderator
I admit that I am hard on Anthony. He is a good man and very intelligent. Perhaps that is why I am all the more frustrated and disappointed.
As a Christian he has the truth. Being a leader in the black community he has a special obligation and a responsibility to teach the truth, especially when the primary source of their oppression and depression is lies.
Christian leaders must be held accountable for perpetuating false unbiblical stereotypes which harm the very people they are trying to help. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright and many others have made careers feeding off of their communities. They perpetuate a false anthropology that teaches blacks actually are inferior and need the welfare state or some form of “social justice” before they can ever succeed. Their troubles are always blamed on white this and white that.
Even the President of the United States talks about those “typical white folks”. Nearly every bill he has signed into law contains racial preferences. These laws are racist. Affirmative action is racist. And it is all based on lies.
What business should a respectable black theologian have with all these lies? It is unscientific. It is unchristian. It is wrong. And the black community is suffering for it.
Now, … what can we do about it?
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
First of all, thank you for your gracious response. I have been wincing as I check this thread, because I know I was in high dudgeon when I wrote that comment,and slung some words around recklessly. I’m sorry about my tone, and appreciate that you have lowered the heat level in this discussion. But one thing I was not reckless with, was the word “slander.” I said you were nearing it. Not that you had done it.
I think you have been grossly unfair to Bradley, and instead of addressing the heart of my concerns, you have brought up new topics. I am especially concerned with your mischaracterization of Bradley’s summary, here:
“A self-confident, realistic Christianity, then, is successful because of its faithfulness to Scriptures, not because it is unique and special. What makes Christianity different is Jesus, not the uniqueness of any local church, so boasting about your group’s special awesomeness is simply inconsistent with the historic spread of Christianity around world and is unnecessary.”
You seem to think this statement is a tack-on, and is irrelevant to Bradley’s subliminal message of white=bad/ black=good, hidden in all his writing. That was very bad of you. I think Anthony would include this attitude in his denunciation of those guilty of touting “your group’s special awesomeness.” I disagree with your judgements of him. You are making a caricature of his positions, and painting him in your comments as being a blatant racist.
I also disagree with your conclusions here:
“the biblical position is that there are no races. Skin color has nothing to do with the measure of a man or a church. There are far greater issues for the church to deal with”
The reality of the Western church, apart from any biblical position, is that there is considerable discomfiture in it about race. The reality of the American church in particular, is that there still is no more segregated place than a Christian church on Sunday. This is not a minor issue at all, because it is of great interest to the wider culture–and how I wish they could look to the church and see how this can all be resolved! That they would see a model of diversity, and a picture of the beauty of every tribe and tongue worshiping in unity,(oh, as it is in heaven, let it be here on the earth O Lord!)
I am fortunate to be a part of an urban Southern Baptist church that is very diverse–on one Sunday we celebrated our Father’s creativity, and discovered among ourselves at least thirty different representatives of various people groups, most of them of color, and they each proclaimed the praises of God in their own language. It was very moving to me. I wish every church could be as we are.
And I see more than you do, of the reality of what Bradley is discussing here about the ‘missional church.’ Recently down the street there has been a church plant that meets in the upstairs lounge of a sometime nightclub. Preaching the gospel yes, but to a very urban hip, very young and mostly white crowd. It is the latest edition of the new cool church with the edgy pastor. There is little doctrinal difference between our hundred year old church and this Calvary Chapel-linked plant. And I suspect, little difference in preaching style. Our pastor is twenty-seven years old, and hip in his own way. I’m guessing this church fulfills its mission.
I am not going to be able to address right now the questions you ask in #25. My husband needs the computer. I hope you would fully answer the concerns I have restated. Also, your silence on Andree Seu is deafening.
You were unfair to her, too. Worse to her, maybe. Really, you should take those words back. She is not narcissistic. I cannot think of anything worse to call a professed Christian than that label.
Report comment to moderator
Hopesprings,
I appreciate as well your mild response to the ire I let loose. I think Xion is of course entitled to freely express his opinions, but I think there is greater accountability towards those who express such bold and uncharitable positions when there is a limit to anonymity. I do wonder at World’s allowance of it.
Would Xion say those (what I consider) hurtful things so freely if he knew his friends and church elders could link them to his non-virtual life? Here’s a great test–would he call Andre Seu narcissistic to her face?
Anonymity on the internet to me is just like road rage on the freeway. I write about it on my blog: http://thenface2face.wordpress.com/about/about-you/ ,where I say anonymity is dangerous because
“…it gives permission for strangers to vent; much like the anonymity of the highway gives license to a driver for acts he would never consider outside of his brief passing in the side mirror of another car. Road rage and internet flaming are very like.”
That is just my opinion of course. But I express it openly. And anyone who was greatly concerned about my behavior on the Internet could easily connect me to the church where I worship, and the elders there who would, I expect, make me give an account. That is as it should be, I think.
Report comment to moderator
#28 Karen, “Would Xion say those (what I consider) hurtful things so freely if he knew his friends and church elders could link them to his non-virtual life? Here’s a great test–would he call Andre Seu narcissistic to her face?”
I didn’t call Andre or Anthony narcissistic. It is Anthony who used the word. I wrote it with a question mark suggesting irony. I am sorry I brought Andre into this, since it is completely sidetracking the issue. I can’t read her posts because they are like a very time consuming crossword puzzle.
I’ll scratch my head for quite a while, rereading over and over until voila! she fed the cat or crossed the street. But I am sure that is more my fault than hers. It is my engineering mind trying to find the essence of the point. I am the same with art. People will swoon over some artist’s impression and I just don’t get it. I don’t fault Andre for that. But you can’t deny that her posts are about herself, can you? That’s all I meant. Too many words on this already.
As for my anonymity, I have been posting on this site since the beginning. I used my real name for years and felt as you do. However, my boss is fanatically anti-Christian and customers of ours typically search for who they work with and made a real stink about my Christianity, dragging my personal life into the workplace and causing quite a commotion. I don’t mind suffering as a Christian, but why should my entire corporation suffer?
My whole point here is to engage in real debate as Christians, iron sharpening iron. If I used my real name, then I would not be able to comment anything meaningful at all.
Also, I take issue with the accusation that the only reason I am anonymous is so that I can say mean hurtful things and get away with it. That is not true. I have said nothing mean or hurtful that I can see, unless telling the truth is mean. If I have hurt anyone then I apologize.
Report comment to moderator
Karen, “I think you have been grossly unfair to Bradley, and instead of addressing the heart of my concerns, you have brought up new topics. I am especially concerned with your mischaracterization of Bradley’s summary.”
I said “I totally agree with the last paragraph, but I am suspicious that it has very little to do with Anthony’s real point.” Maybe that was unfair, but not untrue. I am a little suspicious. Perhaps I am wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time.
One problem here is that I’ve read nearly every post Anthony has ever put here since he started. So I may be guilty of dragging in far more than he is saying here. Since you are new, you may not be aware of the years of history. My original point was about Anthony’s recurring theme. You may not know about this yet.
I wouldn’t mind if Anthony posted the same topic over and over, if he would ever just get to the point. I would love for him to just come out and say: Here is the problem and here is the solution. Maybe that’s my engineering mind working again. I would be curious to see if Anthony ever criticizes a black church just once or has the black community take responsibility for anything.
Instead of addressing the issues head on he meanders around the point and never offers any solutions. It always comes across as “those white people such and such”. I confess that I am reading a bit of his past posts into this. Maybe that isn’t fair. The race thing is much more subtle here and he ends well, so someone without the history might miss it.
“I also disagree with your conclusions here: “the biblical position is that there are no races. Skin color has nothing to do with the measure of a man or a church.”
You disagree that biblical anthropology teaches that there is only one race?
The proper classification of people on earth has to do with their ethnicity, which simply mean their kindred or family line, their national boundaries and language. Even modern anthropology has rejected the old evolutionary concept of race, which was more like a kind of species of human. They have tried to redefine the word race to mean ethnos or family, which is the same as the biblical definition.
A Christian theologian and leader in the black community who continually assails whites and perpetuates outmoded racist stereotypes is harming the people he is trying to help. He didn’t get into all of that here. But I felt it lurking between the lines as once again Bradley places all the blame for the woes of the black community on the white community.
Shouldn’t he rather be teaching blacks a correct way of thinking about their ethnicity and place in the world and how great their God given potential is? Shouldn’t he be encouraging them to reach out to the white community rather than blaming them for everything? This reminds me so much of Obama and Jackson and Sharpton and others who refuse to take responsibility for anything negative, but rather play the blame game and keep their constituents enslaved by negative stereotypes.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, I am not completely anonymous. My friends and family and pastor and many others know who I am and follow what I write. Certain people here also know who I am.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
You are mistaken in your assumptions about my history with World Magazine, and you are misreading my comments. Perhaps it is that fatal tendency of engineers to scan for topic sentences that is at the heart of your problems with these writers. And myself. I know I use too many unnecessary words sometimes.
We are long-time World subscribers, and I have been lurking online for sometime, too. I am very familiar with the persons of this community, and the writers of these columns. A summer break frees me up some to comment, but I am starting to wonder what I have got myself into.
You stopped too soon in your own quote you reposted, you forgot this line, “There are far greater issues for the church to deal with.” I agree with you, Scripture teaches there is “no more Greek nor Jew”, but even in the early Church there was such sharp disagreement among the Hellenist and Jewish believers about preferential treatment of the Hebrew widows, so much fighting that deacons were appointed to serve them.
(Maybe what you need here is bullet type points to help you get my points. My husband is an engineer. I know from these things.)
My point being: that these distinctions of race ought not to be, but they do in our ugly reality.
My point being: it thus not an unimportant issue in the church.
My point being: that Mr. Bradley is doing the same service to the church as did these deacons, asking questions, and spotlighting problems and seeking to resolve injustices. Every church made aware of these problem can come up with unique solutions, particular to their situation, as World Magazine continually and helpfully highlights.
And About Psuedonyms: be at peace. I wrote further in that page I linked to:
“… this is merely a friendly exhortation, a nudge for you to think, and prayerfully consider, becoming more real. Some of the people I greatly respect on the internet use pseudonyms. But I won’t trust entirely the words you say until you choose to stand up and use your own given name.”
I think pseudonyms loosen inhibitions. We are snarky enough without them. You were especially unfair to Seu, engineering preferences aside–and perhaps I am sensitive and got my dander especially up about this because if she is a narcissist, then so am I, because I love poetry and parables, and write very much as she does, taking the particulars of my little life and seeking above all to
POINT TO JESUS.
Which I think Andree Seu very successfully does, but then I am not an engineer.
Report comment to moderator
Karen “My point being: that these distinctions of race ought not to be, but they do in our ugly reality.”
Certainly. My point being that Anthony blames all the woes of the black community on whites. It is not only untrue, it is irresponsible.
My point being: it thus not an unimportant issue in the church.
I didn’t say it was unimportant. I was trying to say that Anthony’s myopic focus on skin color causes him to overlook the real issues which aren’t only skin deep.
“My point being: that Mr. Bradley is doing the same service to the church as did these deacons …”
How is perpetuating the lie that the source of problems in the black community is WHITES! You know the kind, those typical white folks who are so full of themselves.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!