John H Armstrong

Charles Dickens: A Genius or a Salesman?

On February 7 literary critics and writers alike will remember the 200th birthday of English writer Charles Dickens, born on this date in 1812. The Dickens' Bicentenary is being celebrated worldwide by activities that range from festivals to exhibits. Looking back at the work of this now famous author is revealing with regard to a number of developments that most of us have never thought about.

First, in 1812 there were only 66 novels in Britain. Writers had only been authoring novels for one hundred years. (Many date the genre to Robinson Crusoe, written in 1719. This might well have been the first "Christian fiction" ever.) No serious writer aspired to a professional career as a novelist. Most people thought novels were silly, immoral and toxic. The driving force behind this reaction reached back into the earlier Puritan and Reformed influence upon Britain. (Many modern neo-Calvinists still despise fiction, especially "Christian" fiction!)

Second, the literacy rate in England was under 50% in 1812. (We forget how late in time literacy became common!) But even the increasingly popular Jane Austen, in her book Northanger Abbey, satirized one of her characters as an impressionable young woman who read too many gothic novels! So much for using fiction to promote fiction reading!

Third, when Dickens died in 1870 the world mourned him as "its first literary celebrity." It is this fact that interested me the most in reading about Dickens. Dickens not only wrote novels but he promoted a style and made people aware of its value. From 1837 to 1901, in the Victorian era, some 60,000 novels were published. Few of us know any of these books today. But Dickens remains, clearly a stylistic genius as well as a brilliant marketer. He came along at the right time, a time when social, political and scientific progress was cresting in a whole new wave of immense change. Says Radhika Jones, "He rewrote the culture of literature and put himself at the center. No one will ever know what mix of talent, ambition, energy and luck made Dickens such a singular writer" (TIME, January 30, 2012). 

How did Dickens do it? Many believe that he cultivated a mass following by "creating a sense of personal intimacy," adds Jones (TIME). He caused readers to believe he was speaking directly to them. He also created a sense of personal intimacy. Truly he was both a writer and a great salesman at the same time. If he was not a great writer he would not be read today. But if he had not been a salesman he likely never would have created a desire for the kind of writing he popularized. One literary scholar says Dickens "invented merchandising." 

The next time you read a novel or think of popular fiction remember Charles Dickens. Like it or not he changed the world. People read books because of Dickens. Today no writer has had such an impact on us unless it is J. K. Rowling. Last year more than 30,000 novels were published in the U.S. alone. But almost none will be read in ten years. What sets Dickens apart from so many of those who write novels today is that he didn't just reflect culture, he transformed it (TIME). 

The critics still have their moments. Many dour religious people hate novels, believing that they are truly beneath the devout. The fact is that more Christians read novels than non-fiction. I do not know whether this is good or bad but it beats a number of alternatives, like endless television. I, for one, did not appreciate fiction as much as I now do until after I turned forty. Some think this in itself is proof of my slipping in my theological convictions but my late Wheaton professor, Clyde Kilby, would not agree. I wish I had really learned what Kilby taught me sooner than later.

A Conversation on Christian Unity with Cardinal George

Many readers of this blog know that I have been engaged in serious ecumenical conversation and mission for more than a decade now. This led me to visit the Vatican in March of last year. (Blogs about that trip can be accessed in the archives of this blog site from March 2011.) Shortly after I returned from Rome, in mid-March, Francis Cardinal George, the archbishop of Chicago, was featured on the front page of the Chicago Tribune. In a unique interview he spoke about various things that had been accomplished, and not accomplished, during his time in Chicago. One of his expresed interests was for a greater conversation between the evangelical Protestant community, with its great passion for Christ's mission, and the Catholic Church in Chicago. A member of the ACT 3 board, who had a wonderful friendship with a priest inside the archbishop's office, got a copy of Your Church Is Too Small: Why Unity in Christ's Mission Is Vital to the Future of the Church, to his friend who then gave it to the Cardinal. Cardinal George read my book and then contacted me by email to see if I would come to his residence for a personal, private conversation. I went in the summer of 2011 and it was a delightful time for me. 

At the end of that lovely visit I asked the Cardinal if he would come to Wheaton and continue to discuss my thesis of missional-ecumenism in a public context. He agreed. But then the details had to be worked out. With profound gratitude I can tell you that Wheaton College allowed ACT 3 to use the largest facility on campus, Edman Memorial Chapel, for this special evening. Thus on Monday, March 26, at 7:00 p.m., Cardinal George and I will meet again but this time we will have our conversation in a public setting. You are cordially invited.  

This event is free but seating is limited and we expect a very large crowd. I will say a lot more about this unusual dialogue in the next few days but please mark the date now. If you live far away from the Chicago area then you can see the video of this event on our web site sometime after it is over. (Some friends are flying in for this evening from both coasts!) We even hope to "live stream" the event via Wheaton College's radio station if the details can be arranged in time. I'll keep you posted on everything connected with this important event. 

Please pray for me when you think about March 26th. Pray also for Chris Castaldo, director of Gospel Renewal at the Billy Graham Center, who will moderate our dialogue. And pray for Francis Cardinal George, the leader of Chicago's Catholic community and a rightly esteemed leader in the Catholic Church in America. I am uniquely honored to know this man of faith and look forward to our conversation with some degree of fear. My fear is not of the Cardinal himself. He is an extremely gracious brother and will strive to build up everyone in love without flinching on what he believes. I fear that I might fail the task of properly representing the unity of Christ's people in mission, the passion of my life. I also fear that I will not show the love of Christ as I should. My heart is filled with love and regard for all of Christ's flock so I pray this will be evident in my words and actions. 

Finally, pray for all the work that goes into this event. We have a huge load of publicity to complete if this event is to be a great success. I need volunteers to do a great deal. A former staff member is coming from St. Louis to assist Stacy, my daughter, in running the evening event and handling the crowd, my books, etc. Pray for each person involved that we will all be safe, full of Christ's love and kind to all. 

 

 

Living a Whole Life

 

I have greatly profited from the writing and spiritual insights of Fr. Richard Rohr, the well-known Catholic mystic/teacher/writer from New Mexico. His books have helped me grow in areas where my evangelical background left me short in terms of grasping how action (which defines so much of my life) meets solitude and contemplation (which I’ve discovered only in the last few years). Rohr directs the Center for Action and Contemplation. Each day the center emails an excerpt from something that Rohr wrote that is intended for personal reflection. A recent entry from the Center for Action and Contemplation underscored once again just how valuable his insights can be, especially when you are my age and longing to love God with a Christ-centered love that is growing deeper by the day.

The first half of life is invariably about creating identity, finding some boundary markers (traditions, trustworthy authorities and structures), making some money, getting an education, marrying, and raising children—which we then must defend for the rest of our lives. Most of us are so invested in these first answers by the age of 40, that we can’t imagine anything more—not realizing that “It’s still all about me!”  Christians in the first half of life became obsessed with dying a happy death and going to heaven. Even religion became a rather privatized evacuation plan for the next world, and the clergy seldom recognized that much of religion was trapped at the individualistic and egocentric level. No actual love of neighbor, outsider, the poor, or even God was really necessary. This is “garden variety” first half of life religion, and it has passed for the real thing for much of the Christian era. Adapted from Loving the Two Halves of Life: The Further Journey

 

 

The Church: A Place Where Things Can Be Messy

I am a devoted churchman. I serve the church broadly through ACT 3. I also serve specific churches locally. I am the member of a local church and a minister in the Reformed Church in America. I am committed to the church as the visible expression of Christ's bride and as a sinful people who have found grace in Jesus Christ.

Perhaps the most frequent question that I am asked, from almost every church background that I know, is this: "Why does it seem that so many churches are in a state of personal crisis and conflict these days?" (It was not always this bad. I have lived long enough to see the level of church problems increase rather dramatically over my six decades.)

I could offer many observations and responses to this question based upon my experience as a pastor and a consultant. I can also offer some answers based on my understanding of the church in the New Testament. For starters, we all know that no church is "perfect." No system or government is without flaws, whether secular or sacred. The reason for this is simple: in all forms of government people are involved and people are sinful. When we put too much confidence in princes or pastors we fail to see that Jesus is Lord. He does not share that Lordship with any human authority. Many evangelicals believe that if they get a system of government that is closely aligned with what they believe the New Testament teaches then the problems will end. I have seen this kind of thinking tried again and again. No system of government works without (often serious) flaws because all such systems involve people. There are many mistakes that pastors and people make but none is more common, from what I've seen, than the myth that by getting the right form of church structure and leadership we can solve the problems. Even the pope confesses his personal sins on a regular basis. We could all follow his model and the church would be better for it.

Another reason for so much of this present chaos in the church is that modern Americans have increasingly treated the church like a corporation and the pastor like a CEO. The idea of a family, albeit a large one in some cases, has been all but lost. The church is a building, but one made up of living stones, not just bricks and mortar. It is family with brothers and sisters, albeit brothers and sisters who sometimes disagree. The church is also a political body, in the sense that it has form to follow with rules and procedures. But the dominant image should be a family.

Further, the church today seems to be suffering under the weight of numerous cultural and spiritual sins that cripple its effectiveness. One such sin is clearly prayerlessness. Another is the misuse of power by our leaders. Then there are people with all their own problems that they bring into the church and expect the church to conform to them. The list could be stretched to include a whole host of similar issues. All I know is that the church in America is seeing one congregation after another turn inward and then divide over this issue and that. The facts are plain. In the era of the great mega-churches Christianity is in serious decline in America.  

I thought about this problem recently because I heard about another church that I deeply love going through a pastor/elder/congregational debate about the future of the pastor's call. (There are no moral charges in this instance, just a disagreement about the effectiveness and appropriateness of the pastor's ministry.) After some back and forth the elders sent a letter to the congregation last week. In the final paragraph the elders encouraged their people to be honest with their neighbors about the trials that their church has endured in recent months. I love the way the elders finished this report with these words:

[When people ask about our church] candidly tell them the truth. Tell them that it is messy. Tell them it is not fixed yet and tell them that we are hurting. Ask them to pray for us. Tell them we need it and then tell them this: if you were ever looking for a place where you could go to church with a messy marriage, kids who weren’t fixed and problems that hadn’t been neatly solved, then we have just the place for them; it is called ________. This is the perfect time to join us. We’re accepting new sinners daily. Jesus told us that there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety- nine righteous men who have no need of repentance. That is true of churches, too! We have great need of repentance and a Savior who rejoices in a people who will do so. God is at work. Please be in prayer for [our Sunday] meeting, our leadership, our congregation, our staff, our missionaries and our community. 

 

Is It Necessary to Be Sexually Active to Order to Be a Healthy, Flourishing Person?

This is a rather amazing piece of popular television dialogue. You will clearly note that Tim Gunn does not take a moral position about sexual practice in his comments. So, at least for a moment, please leave the moral questions off the table. Watch this short clip for what it says and how the speaker actually says it, as well as the context in which he says it. His words clearly challenge the regnant modern Western idea that sexual experience is as necessary (almost) as food, clothing and shelter. If you are a sexual person, and all of us are created as sexual persons, then the argument generally made by our culture is that you should either be having sex or preparing and planning on having sex sooner than later. Why? Sexual expression is normal and human. It is argued that it is thus a part of who you are and without experiencing it you cannot express yourself in serious relationships. If you choose to remain celebrate then you are abnormal, or so much of the culture seems to say in our modern debates about this issue. It is this thesis that I believe we should profoundly and patiently challenge, regardless of our moral perspective. We need to seek common ground where we can find it and this is genuinely a place to start a serious conversation. We might disagree about some verses of Scripture (as serious Christians do) but the question remains: "Must normal adults with strong sexual inclinations be sexually active in order to be healthy people with great friendships and full lives?" The dominant answer is clear! But should we listen to the Tim Gunn's narrative and consider seeing this question differently?

   

You will note that Tim Gunn is still a homosexual by his own definition yet he has not had an active sexual relationship for 29 years. Watch the response of the panel and see how they are "silenced" by the clarity and integrity of Tim's simple narrative and earnest response. I wonder if they thought to themselves, "This guy is really strange!" (I'm not taking a shot at the persons on this program but their body-language, and what one says just before Tim tells his own story, is rather clear.) I wonder if the hosts of this show, and many viewers, were stunned to actually realize that a person can be a healthy and normal human person (in this case a homosexual person) without having sex? I would love to have seen this question discussed openly. I hope we can inject this type of discussion into the sexual narrative that we communicate in our culture. 

I suggest that this entire debate (whether about homosexuality or heterosexuality) needs to move toward the discussion Tim Gunn's narrative creates if we are to get away from the perspective that we have so widely accepted as completely normal. 

What Are Conservative Bona Fides?

In the Monday evening political debate in Tampa interviewer Brian Williams asked Governor Mitt Romney what his conservative credentials were? It was a kind of open-ended question and Romney appeared stumped, at least according to many reports and what you can see on the video of the moment. His answer has been criticized by the pundits in the news coverage since last night. Here is Romney's answer "Well, number one, I've raised a family," he said. "And I've -- I've -- with my wife, we've raised five wonderful sons, and we have 16 wonderful grandkids." A real gaffe right?

Governor Romney went on to reference his private sector background and his gubernatorial experience, but the reference to his family will stick says another morning critic. The reporter adds, "Romney had a chance to brandish his conservative bona fides and instead gave Republicans a somewhat nonsensical response about his number of children. It's not clear how raising a family ties to contributing to the conservative movement in the Republican Party” (emphasis mine).  

I do not report this exchange to either endorse Romney nor to comment on whether or not he was actually well-prepared to answer it, which it appears he was not. He really did seem caught off guard and thus he spoke off the cuff, maybe from the heart. (Ironically it is said that he does not do this well, being so well trained and not-so-genuine in his manner.)

Here was the general conclusion of much of the press, at least as given in the morning news:

Romney's answer highlights his inability to connect to many rank-and-file members of the conservative movement, a problem that's continued to haunt him after his stunning defeat in South Carolina last week. He's skilled at detailing the X's and O's of policy, but his efforts to prove he's a rock-ribbed conservative often come up short.

So let me see if I understand this point. Romney's initial, unrehearsed, appeal to being a father and grandfather came up short in demonstrating that he is a real conservative. I understand differences in political philosophy really do matter. I also understand that Romney was not well prepared for this question, or perhaps it was just a bad moment. But when pushed about his conservatism Romney appealed to family in the spur of a moment. 

I am sure of one thing about the present cultural decline that we are experiencing. Every major indicator reveals that our schools and related community activities are failing precisely because families are falling apart and the family structure is in massive disarray and radical redefinition. Charles Murray's newest research reveals this to be the case, except among the wealthiest and best-educated. Perhaps the greatest single indicator/predictor of "success" in one's personal life is rooted in their family system and social background. I would think conservatives, of all people, recognized this clearly. I guess I am wrong in my assumption. After all, the candidate who is on fire right now is no paragon of family values. I get the feeling the term "conservative" is about as useless a term to describe anything important as the opposite word is in so many cases. I'm weary of the words and the process and it is still January. Don't we know that none of these candidates can truly make a big difference in the wider culture?

 

"A Bible and a Radio, But No Church"

One of the leading evangelical and ecumenical theologians of our time is Thomas C. Oden. Tom turned 80 last fall and continues to write magnificent works that serve the wider catholic community. He has provided the church with a fresh treasure of magnificent written work that will survive him by decades. You can sample something of Tom's story, a story of of how he turned away from theological liberalism in particular, in an online article that is well worth reading. 

I have had the privilege of knowing Tom for the past ten years-plus, though we are not extremely close as friends. We have served together in one specific ministry context which allowed us to talk and share several times in private. I count Tom among my Top Ten modern Christian thinkers and writers. In an aticle in Christianity Today, published in 2011, Tom wrote:

Christ promised the early church the Spirit, who came on the first Pentecost and continues to dwell in the lives of the faithful. He promised that the Spirit would abide with this community, guide it, lead it to all truth, and help it recollect the words of the Lord. This is just what has been happening for the 20 centuries since the ascension. We’re moving in the wrong direction when we say individualistically, “I’ve got my Bible; I don’t need anything except these words.” Protestants now need to recover a sense of the active work of the Spirit in history and through living communities. Our modern individualism too easily tempts us to take our Bible and abstract ourselves from the wider believing community. We end up with a Bible and a radio, but no church.

I have been reading a lot of Facebook posts recently. I am increasingly sensing that there is real value in using the social media to build ongoing conversations that can become healthy relationships. It is also a way to build up existing relationships through further social contact. Either way the social media cannot replace the biblical emphasis on real human relationships that must be found in community with real people. These relationships can not simply be virtual conversations. Oden explains why this is so in the quotation above.

I believe the majority of evangelical Christians that I've met over my long lifetime have a Bible and a radio/tape/CD/conference experience (fill in the blank), but NO church. Yes, some still go to a church but increasingly I hear of friends who are abandoning real church for all kinds of fads that suggest they believe we can be healthy disciples without the physical/spiritual reality of meeting with real embodied people where we pray with them, sing with them, weep with them, laugh with them and receive the body and blood of Christ with them. 

A few days ago I took communion around the front of my church at the Table. The people were positioned in such a way that I was literally touching the shoulders of the persons on my right and left as I took the sacrament. I was reminded by this simple embodied experience that Communion is a spiritual high point precisely because it is taken in the flesh with others standing/kneeling beside me. Anything less is not full-orbed Christian practice. Think about the physical aspect of this deeply spiritual experience and remember that if all you have is a Bible and ______ then you do not have a church.