The

Dehumanising
Metrics of Modernist Ministry

Incoherent Ramblings from a rather Mixed-Up Minister Mark Meynell

All Souls Langham Place, August 2012

The dehumanising metrics of modernist ministry

Mark Meynell

There is a clear counter-argument for every point I want to make here. In fact, I more or less agree with each counter-argument myself ! But I feel the need to make them nevertheless. For my hunch is that a factor in ministerial burnout is that we are far more inuenced by post-enlightenment modernism than by the values of the Kingdom. That shouldnt come as any surprise were always more insidiously affected by our culture than we appreciate. Its just so sad how little we face the problem.1
The wonder, and curse, of the enlightenment project was its astonishing success. It really did change the world. Lets face it - there is no doubt that many things were improved by it. Just consider dentistry. Id far rather visit an anaestheticsequipped tooth-extractor than a medieval, tooth-clamp wielding barber. Wouldnt you? But the costs of modernitys success have been incalculable and pervasive. This is not an exhaustive treatment by any means. But here are just a few less than positive effects on those of us in ministry. As I say, I take issue with more or less with all of them, not least because they same things have occasionally grown the kingdom too.

1.
(i)

Measuring the Present

The economics of effectiveness

We are all nite. Everything about us is. Nothing can change that. The challenge has always been to gure out how best to make the most of who and what we are and have, given the limited nature of all our resources. Ive always been helped by the maxim that the enemy of the best is invariably not the bad but the good. Indeed the apostle Paul was insistent that we give thought to maximizing our opportunities (Colossians 4:5-6). Furthermore, we should always want to be responsible stewards of whatever resources we do have. But I fear a sinister trend has crept in. For if were not careful, we will seek an effectiveness shaped more by Wall Street than the via Dolorosa. Big business constantly seeks a cutting-edge combination of efciency and growth, in order to thrive which is fair enough. Maximum prot for minimum effort. But this is effectiveness measured by the Damoclean sword of the bottom line. But in ministry? I hear a lot of talk about constantly seeking to have an effective ministry. And who doesnt want that? But how on earth do we measure it? The Wall Street resort is to use numbers and graphs (which of course have their place): whether bums on seats, cash given tax efciently, staff size, baptism register etc etc etc. But that is not necessarily, or even inherently, kingdom ministry after all, its pretty interesting to study Jesus reaction to crowds in the gospels he was usually getting away from them; or at least suspicious of theirintentions. Of course we always want as many as possible to benet from any opportunity or event; but we must recognise that the huge range of unknowns and unknowables render any attempt to nd an effectiveness metric impossible. We just cantknow. Not to mention the fact that very often, the more people involved in something, the less effective events can be from a discipleship point of view. So in response: make your plans, do your best and pray.

(ii)

Love isnt the drug. Speed is. We want everything yesterday. As the old credit card ad had it, Access takes the waiting out of wanting. And as life speeds up, our impatience thresholds deteriorate. So now, we can be incensed by a slow wi- speeds that hinder access to google images by a matter of seconds. But honestly! Life isnt all a Formula 1 race in which milliseconds really do count.
1

The impatience with slowness

Cover image: Seagate Factory, Wuxi, China, by Robert Scobie (Wikimedia commons) p2/7

The dehumanising metrics of modernist ministry

Mark Meynell

But this impatience affects ministry profoundly. Which is a problem, since a brief concordance search of the word wait in the New Testament will demonstrate that it features rather a lot. From my cursory glance, it looks as though the adverbs most commonly used in conjunction with waiting are eagerly and, yes you guessed it, patiently (Romans 8:25, Hebrews 6:15, James 5:7). This is especially hard in a world which seems to value speed over quality, and immediacy over longevity. And it is especially hard in pastoral ministry where some issues are by their very nature chronic. We impose timetables on repentance, recovery and growth. Which can be so cruel to others and so crushing for us. It also means well shy away from the intractable and insoluble. Even worse, if personal fullment is my motivation or my goal, then any commitment which doesnt deliver before a certain time is abandoned, replaced by the next promising offer. Could this be why so many of us are aficted with frustration and lack of stamina. Where are the lifelong ministries that keep doing the same thing? Of course, as I said, there are always going to be situations which demand review and perhaps for the sake of good stewardship of limited resources, some things must stop for others to thrive. Ministries do outlive their relevance. And often, institutional euthanasia is vital. Moreover, a long-standing leaders unwillingness to move on or retire can actually undermine all the great work that has been done. Learning when and how to quit is itself a crucial element in good leadership. So in response: work hard at the task your engaged in, do your best and pray. And if necessary stop it. But we must never allow our impatience to be the ultimate motivation.

(iii) The franchising of norms

The franchise is a peculiarly modernist invention. Ill never forget walking into a brand new shopping mall in Sarajevo, eating Tex-Mex with a Bosnian friend, opposite a Gap store and near a promotion for a new brand of car. Its aclich but I really could have been anywhere. There werent even the slightest attempts (that you sometimes witness in malls) to convey a sense of local colour and culture. But when planning for corporate growth, its much easier to replicate than innovate in a new place. Which is interesting, because this illustrates the modernist tendencies of both capitalism and communism. A few years back I was doing some talks to students in Vilnius, Lithuania and stayed with friends who were living in one of the university hostels. It was a concrete tower block in a big university estate, dating back to Soviet years. I was told that the oor plans for the building were identical to all student hostels across the USSR. So whether you were a student in Vladivostok, Tallinn or Sochi, the broom and utility cupboard on the 13th oor would be in exactly the same place. Its so much easier if youre planning on alarge scale (and the USSR was huge - it extended over 9 time zones). But this is not so good when applied to ministry. Many have picked up on the dangers of McDonalds-style ministry. But too few seem to be listening. Where is the commitment to contextualisation that Paul modelled and advocated (1 Corinthians 9:22)? Why do churches need to feel the same wherever you go? Now of course, theres a problem with this. For catholicity (small c) cant be bad per se we must constantly navigate the dynamic tension between unity and diversity, locality and globality, individuality and community. But we must beware the one-size-ts all mentality that assumes what works (which is a modernist concept, if ever there was one) in one place must work in another. That is a sure-re recipe for burnout. We must learn from one another, for we must never see ourselves and our work as so unique as having nothing to learn from what works elsewhere. Postmodernism would fragment us into entirely isolated silos, which is equally absurd and dangerous we do have things in common. But we must take care never to let the next revolutionary (yet another modernist concept) package, usually but not always from a highly successful and branded global ministry based in America, become the backbone of our work. There may well be things to learn, but if it is our primary foundation for ministry, well only abandon it as soon as the next better (i.e. well-marketed) package appears. So in response: work hard, do your best and pray. Learn and make the most of what you can from what is used elsewhere but allow yourself to be shaped the unique contours of your context.

2.

Facing The Future

Having speculated a little about how the prevailing winds of modernist culture affect our perceptions of the present, I now want to think about how we face the future. This can have an even more dehumanising impact. And yet again, I need to say at the outset that there is a valid counter-argument to each point. But why should simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with oneself get in anyones way?

(i)

Last week I noted the simple but inescapable fact of post-Enlightenment Modernisms astonishing success. One reason was its insidious ability to appropriate the key elements of a Christian theistic worldview, in the rather mistaken presumption that they will still work without theism. A theistic understanding of history and the cosmos in atheist clothing. Which doesnt really work as many postmoderns have gleefully exposed. Central is the notion that history is linear, with a beginning, a process and a conclusion. p3/7

The Presumption of Inevitable Progress

The dehumanising metrics of modernist ministry

Mark Meynell

In other words, were all heading somewhere. Even the most cursory reading of the New Testament will show that this is shared with the Christian worldview. But secularized, it is precisely the sort of thinking that lies behind the barracking cry that history is on our side. Marx, for one, saw full communism as the logical outcome of this relentless progress. As my crude little graphic shows, the assumption was that it was absolutely inevitable after history charted her stately course from feudalism to socialism (via various other stages en route). That looks absurd post-1989. But capitalism was hardly the unsullied victor either, and 89 was far from the end of history as Fukuyama hubristically suggested. Progress really? In some things, perhaps. But are we honestly saying that everything is better? Or is it just a question of the passage of time, with the brand new dawn just around the corner Try telling that to voters in Greece or Spain. But Im getting off the point. And that is that we have unconsciously breathed in the assumption that everything always improves and makes progress. Now, dont panic. Im not going to launch into the Luddites complaint that the opposite is the case. Things arent necessarily worse, either. They just are. Some things are different, some the same; some things are better; some things are worse. But little is inevitable. So what, you might well ask? Well perhaps because it shares the Christian worldviews linear nature, we can mistakenly assume that modernisms vision of progress is essentially the same. But that is by no means the case.

(ii)

One of the many inconsistencies of Modernism is that while progress to utopia is deemed inevitable, action, sometimes violent and even revolutionary, is a prerequisite to achieving utopia. Pragmatism becomes the order of the day. And the ends justify the means, especially if both the goal and the actors are assumed to be essentially good. Its then all a matter of calculating the correct strategy. Simple really. Like cranking the handle on a new-fangled contraption during the industrial revolution. Because life is just like clockwork, isnt it? Or just like a military campaign. And theyalways go well. Dont they? The hubris of strategy? Strategy hmmm. I think Ive developed a bit of an allergy to the word. Perhaps this is the resultiing of working in East Africa for 4 years. I never got malaria thankfully, but I suppose I did catch strategophobia. We make our plans and concoct our strategies. And within 12.37 minutes of putting them into action, were at on our faces. Were at place A. Weve decided we need to get to place B. And so we employ methods P, Q , and R and usually nd that the only thing weve (in)gloriously achieved is a at tyre at place W. The problems with applying a modernist mindset to kingdom ministry are many. Here are a handful: We are often not sufciently steeped in kingdom values to discern what our ministry goals should be in the rst place. So, if were not careful, we will be more concerned about the increase in our crowd, our prestige, our methodology than with seeing the kingdom of heaven grow. This is empire building not harvest growth. Think about it. How often do we come across a new ministry vision that does NOT involve the expansion of the particular ministry the visionary is involved in. But Im getting silly now. You cant exactly have a vision for someone elses ministry can you? Such awed goals inevitably lead to awed means. Because of our pragmatic age, well do whatever works. For ministry is just about cranking the right handles to achieve the right results. Isnt it? But the real problem is even more basic. How do we actually know any of this? How do we know if this or that particular strategy will achieve anything like what we hope it will achieve? We have the Scriptures of course and they change everything. Thats not the problem. The aws always derive from our own handling and appropriation of them. Now, as I said, so I repeat. Im well aware of the counter-arguments and mildly convinced by them. But the emphasis is on the mildly. After all, the apostle Paul was a driven pioneer who had extraordinary energy and strategic thinking. He had his plans (e.g. to preach in Bithynia (Acts 16:6-10) to reach Spain (Romans 15:24-28), to prioritise (initially at least) the Jewish community in each city he visited (Acts 13:4-5, 14, 50)). Not even he could do everything you have to play to your strengths, make the most of the time, do what you can, etc, etc, etc. But this is the point. Paul was exible. He wasnt wedded to his strategies. For you cant apply engineering or technological models indiscriminately to human life or society. There are always too many factors involved to know what will work. Humans are not androids. And Paul detected divine providence when his strategies didnt work. He never made it to Bithynia but came to Macedonia instead; he never reached Spain but ended up dying in Rome. But if our mindset is too modernist, well nd such a loose grip on strategies hard to emulate well start making judgments about the apparent strategic value this opportunity, that meeting, this person. Which is where we come unstuck. I have preached on The Good Samaritan a number of times and have often made this point. If the reason the Priest and Levite failed to help the dying man (NB he was not dead and therefore not ritually unclean) was their commitment to legalistic holiness, our contemporary excuse p4/7

The Problems of a Planned Future

The dehumanising metrics of modernist ministry

Mark Meynell

for not going to do likewise (Luke 10:36-38) is more likely to be our commitment to our strategy. And a dying man / homeless beggar / uneducated refugee / disabled child (delete as appropriate) will never bestrategic. If its come to this, then perhaps it really is time to reassess what Jesus would do For not only does this attitude crush those we minister to and for (they forever live with the fear of losing their strategic value, if they ever had it), it doesnt exactly do wonders for our own souls. The slavery to novelty Our culture is obsession with novelty. Products are manufactured with inbuilt obsolescence to insure that we buy the next model. The classication of software updates has seeped into every day life, so that were constantly looking for that key lifestyle upgrade from 2.3 to 3.0. And of course the numerical ladder is innitely tall The modernist is abhors the status quo, is hardly ever patient, and is usually dissatised. And to be fair, there is a sense in which this is a not all bad. We never want to be static. And in fact, there is a spiritual benet to this mindset, when it is constantly striving towards what God has called us to in life and lifestyle. Battling for holiness is one thing. Constantly looking for the new ministry buzz is quite another. But a modernist framework will dismiss ministries as failures unless they areperpetually pumping out new ideas, new formulae (there are those wretched means to an end again), new programmes, new brands, new initiatives. This is the sort of ministry that can never sit still. Taking initiatives, for instance, is clearly a good thing its a key ingredient in good leadership, as is envisioning, strategising, planning (you see? I said Id disagree with myself). But the lust for novelty is a rod that breaks all but the strongest backs and crushes the spirit. Its like walking in the mountains without ever stopping en route, both to admire the view and reect distance travelled. To create a new strategic initiative every few months is as soul-destroying as reaching a false-summit every 5 minutes. But slavery is always like this - and an obsession with novelty is a slavery. Which is a problem when the very nature of our kingdom product the gospel, that is is not so much its antiquity, but its eternity. We dont need to sing with the psalmist a new song every week (Psalm 96) unless we realise that Gods newest song is only 2000 years young, for it is the song of the Lamb. Of course, the song needs new translations and fresh harmonies for every new generation or culture. But it isnt essentially a new song anymore. Not really. So we mustnt feel pressured by novelty. We dont need to go to the latest conference, listen to the newest guru and employ the most sparkly programme. They might help; they might inspire and stimulate us; they might challenge a necessary reassessment. But never forget. Sometimes its actually the old, the repetitious and the mundane that God uses to align us more closely to his kingdom. Well, these are very rambly thoughts. And I do have my plans and strategies, and I love things to be as shiny and new as much as the next person. And thats not always a bad thing Im now going to address what is perhaps the most damaging aspect of modernity of all: our haughtiness about the past.

3.

Shrugging Off The Past

No man is an island entire of itself said the prophetic priest-poet of old. Modernism and its western offspring, individualism, have nevertheless done their utmost to prove him wrong. In vain. For whether we like it or not, we are all part of one another. And while John Donne was clearly speaking of human society, he could equally have been referring to human history. For one of modernitys most damaging trends has been to legitimise our innate haughtiness about the past. So having discussed how modernist culture shapes our present, and then sensed the crushing power of modernisms relentless pursuit of progress, we must close the circle by considering the past.

(i)

This is a topic that Ive found myself returning on various occasions, but I certainly cant claim credit for the phrase: CS Lewis coined it in his Surprised by Joy, speaking of what he learned from his friend Owen Bareld: [Bareld's] counterattacks destroyed for ever two elements in my own thought. In the rst place he made short work of what I have called my chronological snobbery, the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited. You must nd out why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about is truth or falsehood. From seeing this, one passes to the realisation that our own age is also a period, and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those wide-spread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them. (Surprised by Joy, 1990, p187) But lets face it: such snobbery is entirely understandable, and even necessary, in a modernist mindset. If the future is about the relentless pursuit of progress, then the new is nowde facto good and the oldde facto bad. Now, it must be said that there are a lot of things that have improved. I mentioned dentistry but just think of transport and communications. Until the railways arrived, the technology to get people around the planet hadnt changed for p5/7

The Curse of Chronological Snobbery

The dehumanising metrics of modernist ministry

Mark Meynell

centuries. The Tudors and Stuarts were still moving around in essentially the same way as the Incas, the Romans and Ming dynasty. Or to take another tack, its hard to argue that many of the social improvements resulting from battles against poverty and injustice are negative. But the modernist trick is to con us into thinking that everything is better than it was. Or even if it isnt, then it certainly will be. Onward and upward. Which means we are justied in thinking we can ignore history. The past is dark but we are growing ever more enlightened - this seemed to be the heart of the message of the Opening Ceremony for London 2012 Paralympic Games. Remember, the assertion that the mediaeval era should be named The Dark Ages was classic Enlightenment, and then Modernist, propaganda. This has tragic consequences generally but can be profoundly damaging for us in ministry.

(ii)

We fail to connect to our humanity This crushes the heart because it is a fundamental denial of what it means to be human. You perhaps think Im exaggerating. But if we return to Donne briey, and consider him speaking both socially and historically, we are reminded of the interconnectedness of things: MEDITATION XVII Devotions upon Emergent Occasions John Donne (1572-1631) No man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Manor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. So we can say that to deny our history is to be diminished somehow. Its an old saw that ignorance of history necessarily leads to repetition of history. That is a contentious notion. But I do like the line (reasonably) attributed to Mark Twain: History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Arrogantly assuming that our own age is necessarily an improvement on the past is not only absurdly blinkered and parochial, it also condemns us to echoing past tragedies, or to rhyming with the vice, folly and humbug of our forebears (the exposure of which Ian Hislop wonderfully summarised as satires purpose). But past ages have much to teach about who we are which is perhaps why there has been a revival of interest in genealogy. This is NOT the same thing as being wedded to our traditions, ecclesiastical or otherwise. Ironically enough, I suspect that understanding the history of those traditions can have the opposite effect grasping the reasons for something makes it easier to recognise when theyve passed their sell-by date. Traditions too often become asphyxiating when divorced from their true purpose. This is the case on the grand scale (e.g. in denominations) and on the local (e.g. why the owers need to be done by Mrs Miggins on the 3rd Sunday, and why the bell-ringers need to sit in the 3rd pew on the north aisle). And in ministry, there are few things more soul-destroying than going through the motions, having forgotten why youre doing it. Of course, this is not a uniquely modernist phenomenon (see Matthew 15:9-13). But the worldview doesnt help. We fail to connect to our elders If the pursuit of progress entails obsession with novelty, then it follows that a higher status will be accorded to the youthful over the senior. Shane Hipps makes a fascinating observation about what advances in social media and technology have done to the generation gap. This shift marks the rst time in the history of the world that parents have limited access to the world of teens and children. Go back ve hundred years to the dawn of the print age and the situation was reversed. Printing empowered adults. It led to a more pronounced elevation of adults over children It shrouded the adult world in mystery, leaving children on the outside straining to look in. A child wanting to access adult information was required to learn a complex code phonetic literacy which could take decades to master.(Shane Hipps, Flickering Pixels, p134) Contemporary western culture, and sometimes even a lot of church culture, barely gives a moments thought to the old one characteristic most scandalous to African and Asian friends. We simply expect them to get with the programme: the onus is on them to keep up rather than the rest of us to slow down (as if speed was the only true value). But this is, deep down, a particularly modernist disease, tinged with a bit of social darwinist, survival-of-the-ttest ideology to boot. p6/7

Some Consequences of Chronological Snobbery

The dehumanising metrics of modernist ministry

Mark Meynell

Just as novelty does not have intrinsic value, so youth is not inherently superior (or, for that matter,inferior) to age. Both have value as Proverbs rightly noted: The glory of young men is their strength,grey hair the splendour of the old. (Proverbs 20:29) For example, just because someone is a bit forgetful or frail, doesnt make their memories and experience less worth exploring and appreciating. I dont say this now simply because I am clearly middle-aged and can foresee the day when Im past having a seat at the table (well, according to my children that day has already come)! Its about being human. Human value and dignity have nothing to do with our productivity or contributions to society. They derive purely because we are created in the divine image. And thats an image that doesnt deteriorate with age, unlike other parts of us. In fact, one can say that in Christ, the renewal and repairs of that image grow daily. So the next time you hear someone described as old school, dont immediately dismiss them as irrelevant or burdensome. We fail to connect to our message One of the most counter-cultural aspects of Christianity is the fact that our message is old. Very old in fact. Obvious, I realise, but we must confront it. It doesnt bother us most of the time we ignore the point as an inconvenience, or perhaps circumvent it by constantly striving after relevance. In extremis, people do this by ditching what modernists regard as unpalatable or unbelievable as Rudolf Bultmann famously declared back in 1941: It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles (Bultmann, New Testament and Mythology, 5) That is always the liberal impulse perhaps driven by the best of motives, but always doomed to loosen moorings from the givenness of the gospel. There is far more to credal Christianity that is NOT up for grabs than is recognised in such circles. [Note, I don't think our more conservative circles have history quite right either. Our impulse is to imagine that we can bypass 2000 years of history and soak up the vibes of the 1st Century church directly. So we can both ignore the past, ironically enough, although I would still want to argue that there is primacy to the scriptural canon.] The gospel forces us to be profoundly connected to the past. Scriptural genealogies are a key way of doing that. Of course, the bible doesnt contain any after Matthew 1 and Luke 3 for a simple reason. Race is no longer a pre-requisite for belonging but adoption into the divine family is. This makes us links in the chain of history. And central to the gospel is the condence that the chains were begun by God himself when he stepped inside history. Now, these three posts have clearly been rather a jumbly ramble through a few random thoughts. But I throw them out as meandering provocations. I certainly dont want to suggest that everything modernist is bad or harmful, I merely want to expose the features that are. And I also realise that ours is not an undiluted modernist culture. Whatever we might call it, the postmodern has an equally difcult relationship with history (albeit for very different reasons) the past is reduced to artifacts on a country fair pick-and-mix stall, offered to furnish lifestyle choices or bolster partisan arguments. There are loads of other sh to fry here! So perhaps, one of these days, Ill look at some of the difculties a post-modern narrative presents for ministry. But dont hold your breath (I can hear the sighs of relief already).Theres quite enough to be getting on with here Let me close with the words of one of the greatest poetic prophets of them all: Jeremiah. This is what the Lord says: Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good wayis, and walk in it,and you will nd restfor your souls.But you said, We will not walk in it. I appointed watchmen over you and said, Listen to the sound of the trumpet! But you said, We will not listen. (Jeremiah 6:16-17) Read on and you nd the results are disastrous.

p7/7