I've been astounded by all of the feedback I've been getting on this series of posts. Thanks to everyone for your comments, emails, re-tweets, etc. If you are interested in exploring this issue more, Adam McHugh has some great ideas.

Now…a few final thoughts for church leaders about how to deal with the introverts in your flock.

First, I am not a proponent of rearranging everything in your church to accommodate introverts. Statistically speaking, introverts are – at best – going to comprise about 30% of your membership, and even then many of those may be so mildly introverted that much of what I've said in the last two posts doesn't even apply to them. Introverts are, relatively speaking, a minority, and – unless "introvert outreach" is your church's mission – it makes no sense to structure your entire community around the needs of this particular group.

Having said that, I do believe that fostering some degree of sensitivity toward the way your church "culture" affects introverts can pay huge dividends. Primarily, you need to avoid a mentality in which attendance at "chatty" social events and bold personalities are somehow equivocated to healthy spirituality.  Watch out for the subtle ways the theological language of the church regarding ideas like "community" and "fellowship" get translated into casual socializing and gregariousness. They are not the same thing. When people become convinced that 45 minutes of talking about the news and sports at the weekly men's breakfast is "authentic community," you are fostering unnecessary guilt among introverts (who probably don't attend) and complacency among the extroverts.

In addition to more social events, find a way to organize some events that center on contemplative spirituality. Many introverts, particularly those that have never experienced this sort-of thing, will love this stuff. Think about mid-week prayer services that are mostly about silence and meditation. Encourage the practice of lectio divina in your Sunday Schools. By all means, keep the "stand up and greet your neighbor" segment in your worship service, but also include an extended time of silent contemplation. Some amazing things can happen – for extroverts and introverts – when, in the midst of a time of prayer, a full sanctuary is simply silent for 2-3 minutes.

As introverts arrive at a place where they are ready to contribute, take some time to get to know what interests them. Do they like to build things? Think about asking them to do community service (either alone, or with a friend or two – don't make it a "big event"). Do they like to read? Perhaps they would contribute a 2-3 paragraph book review to the church bulletin. Are they into hobby board games or pen-and-paper roleplaying games? Encourage them to invite people to the church for a regular game night with people who share the same interests.

Once the introvert becomes comfortable with you and with the Church surroundings, you may be surprised to find that it is like uncorking a bottle of wine or perfume. They may look very mundane on the outside, but on the inside there are a lot great things just waiting to come out. Often, they are things that will benefit not only the fellow introverts, but others in your church, as well as in your community as a whole.

As I mentioned in my last post, most churches in America tend to be places where there is lots and lots of talking. The emphasis is usually on casual, spontaneous conversation. This type of atmosphere is often fostered by Church leaders because it creates a sense of friendliness and informality – something that is appealing to a lot of people. However, for introverts such as myself, it can feel intimidating… even hostile.

I’m not an expert on the topic, but – having been a part of several Churches over the course of my lifetime – I do have a little advice for my fellow introverts who are struggling to “fit” in these types of churches.

• Choose Your Church Carefully.  Most of my advice is going to be for people who, like me, have been part of Churches for some time. However, for those who are just trying to join-up, I think you should take some time to pick the right place. Take some time to meet with a Pastor or staff member from the Church to tell them about yourself. Ask them if they think  you would be a good fit. If you attend for 2-3 weeks, and you are just feeling that there is too much “social” pressure, move on. There may be other places where you are more comfortable.
• Accept Your Limits and Embrace Your Strengths. The reality for most introverts is that we are not going to socialize as extensively as most of the rest of the people in the Church. For that reason, you may not attend every event that is offered up. That’s okay. The fact that God created you to operate on a different “wavelength” doesn’t make you defective. Rather, it provides you with a unique set of gifts to contribute to your Church; gifts which it may be missing.
• Own Your Introversion. I wish I had learned this a long time ago. Learn to talk about your personality. Help them to understand who you are and why you may not be as chatty as others. Something as simple as “I really need my down time to recuperate from the work week” can be enough to give others great insight as to why you behave the way you do. It also helps them to know how to “handle” you when you don’t seem talkative.
• Learn to Affirm Others. Because of the heavy emphasis that our culture places on casual conversation, people can get the idea that you don’t like them because you don’t talk to them much. A great way to deal with this is to find a few words to speak to others that acknowledges their value. On one occasion, after my daughters’ dance recital, I ran across a dancer that our family knew, but to whom I had hardly ever spoken. I felt awkward not talking to her, so I mentioned to her how beautifully I thought she performed in one particular piece. When she heard this, she lit up, because – in one sentence – I had managed to dispel her fear that “maybe he doesn’t like me/approve of me.” A few words that let people know you admire them and value them can often make up for the 30 minutes of chit-chat that will slowly drain the life out of you!
• Make a Well-Connected Friend. This is basic networking theory, but its really important. Make a conscious effort to develop a good, working relationship with an extrovert who seems to be well-connected in the Church. This will not only help you to be known by others, but it also gives you a level of “visibility” within the community that will bring ministry opportunities.
• Look for Ministry Needs that Suit Your Temperament. One of the most memorable ministry projects of my life involved building a 7 foot-tall volcano for a Vacation Bible School. I did almost all of it myself, working in my back yard, after I finished work each day. After I was done, I called up a friend with a pickup and we delivered it to the VBS site. The kids loved it, and I was gratified that I had found a way to contribute, without pulling my hair out the next week in 3-hour interactive marathons at the church.
• Sometimes You Gotta Suck it Up. Like it or not, extroverts love to talk to you. Sometimes, when you have the spare reserves, the best ministry that you can offer to someone is to simply listen to them. Remember how I talked about my disdain for the “stand up and greet your neighbor” part of worship in the last post? I think our Church should do that every week, just like we do. Not because I enjoy it, but because it gives me a chance to be hospitable to others.

I could add a few more things, but by now you are getting the idea. Accept yourself. Own your personality when you speak to others. Find ways to make sure people know that you value them. Then, look for ways to contribute that “fit” your personality.

Any other suggestions from fellow introverts?

I test out as an introvert on the Myers-Briggs type indicator. And by that I mean seriously introverted. I have 99% of the signs and characteristics of this personality type, and probably a few additional ones that would fascinate the psychological profession to no end.

Some people are surprised to hear this because I am a litigator. A lawyer? Not so surprising. After all, someone needs to sit in front of their computer for hours on end drafting things like those license agreements that we never read when we install software on our computer – and who better to forego hours on end of personal interaction than an introvert, right? But a litigator? Who has to deal with witnesses? And judges? And juries? And other lawyers? And – gasp! – clients? How does that work?

It actually works out much better than you would imagine. I have arranged my work and non-work patterns so that I get a lot of quiet time, and the rest of my practice actually helps to get me “out” and interacting with people on a day-to-day basis, something that my extroverted wife insists is good for me.

Dealing with church, however, has always been an interesting challenge. This isn’t because introverts are incapable of rich, healthy spiritual lives, but because – to the introvert – most modern-day, Western churches look and feel like social minefields.

Inspired by a recent reading of Adam McHugh’s Introverts in the Church, a book I would heartily recommend for pastors (introverted or otherwise) and introverted lay-leaders as well, I will try to explain – in this post – why doing church (as its come to be called) is challenging for introverts. Then, in a couple of posts to follow, I plan to provide brief survival guides for introverts in the church, and for the church leaders who deal with them.

So…what makes church such a challenging experience for the introvert? To answer the question, lets look at some typical traits of introverts, and consider the way they impact their interactions within modern-day churches.

• Introverts often prefer solitude over socializing. Introverts require a certain quota of time in which they are either (a) alone or (b) in the company of a only select person or group of people, such as a spouse or family member (and even then, not conversing very much). This gives us time to process the things that happen to us in our lives and to recuperate from the difficult task of interacting with the world. Some people go crazy if they spend too much time alone. Introverts go crazy when they spend too much time with people, even people that they like.
• Introverts value conversational quality over quantity. Introverts are not interested in constantly talking when in the presence of others. If you happen to stumble over a subject that interests the introvert, you may find yourself in a deep conversation a few minutes later (like it or not!). However, if not, the conversation is likely to strike the extrovert as awkward and puzzling. For the introvert, small talk is hard work, and generally unpleasant. I often think of it this way: extroverts like to talk about what is on their mind at the moment, while introverts like to talk about what has been on their mind lately. The first is contemporary, spontaneous and semi-random; the second is an expression of a more purposeful train of thought that has likely bee in the introvert’s mind for weeks, months, or even years.
• Shyness and introversion are not the same thing. Some introverts suffer from communication apprehension, or the fear of personal interaction. However, many – like me – don’t really fear interaction per se. Rather, casual conversation – something that comes very naturally for most people – is simply experienced as hard work. When we are involved in purpose-driven communications – such as lectures or group meetings – introverts often shine. I’m pretty sure that some of the best preaching ministers/pastors that I’ve ever known have been extreme introverts. Give introverts a good format and forum in which to express their thoughts, and you may be surprised at the results!
• Introverts are Anxious About Being Misinterpreted. As I’ve said, casual interaction is hard work for the introvert. This isn’t because we dislike people, or because we think the subject matter of casual conversation is too trivial for our “deep” thoughts. Its just very difficult for us to stay focused on this particular type of conversation. We avoid extensive small talk because we are inadequate at it. However, at the same time, we fear that people misinterpret this as a form of rejection/withdrawal. Its a very awkward thing, and we often don’t deal with it very well because…well…we’re introverts. So the problem tends to spiral downward.
• Introverts talk less about themselves. At this point, it probably goes without saying, but introverts tend to be “closed” personalities. Though close friends and spouses know them well, they tend to talk about themselves less with their casual acquaintances. This makes it difficult for them to become well-known in social organizations, and they are often thought of as mysterious and reclusive.
• Introverts tend to prefer mediated communication. Books, email, and (even) Facebook are great forms of communication to an introvert, because they allow the introvert to communicate as much as they want, and only to the extent that they want. These tools allow the introvert to regulate the quantity and rate of communication at a level that is more tolerable.

Some people, I realize, have a lot of trouble “getting” what the big deal is when it comes to the lack of capacity for extensive, casual interaction. For those, a workable comparison can be made to the feeling that students get when they have to study for a test on a subject area that doesn’t interest them. The act of forcing oneself to concentrate can itself be very stressful and anxiety-inducing. Again, this isn’t because we dislike people – we just like to talk (a) less and (b) on a different “wavelength.”

So why are Churches such difficult places for introverts? The short answer is: modern Churches tend to be places where people are expected to talk – a lot! This is not necessarily a bad thing. It makes the Church an attractive place for most people. However, the problem lies in the introvert’s perception that they are required to participate in the chattiness. A great example is the “stand up and greet your neighbor” segment that many churches utilize during their worship time to help encourage an atmosphere of friendliness and informality. It works great for most folks…but – if the statistics are correct – every time it happens in a church with more than a handful of visitors, at least one of them is made less comfortable by the experience. The request to stand up and introduce yourself is actually experienced as something that is inhospitable. I know it sounds counterintuitive to say that the first thing an introverted visitor needs is to be left alone for several worship sessions, but that is often exactly what they need to acclimate themselves!

The theological language of “community” can also pose a problem. Church leaders often use terms like “authentic community” to describe something that members are supposed to experience. Another, similar term that I used to hear a lot was “fellowship.” While I think these are valid theological concepts, Churches often translate them into informal events, often involving meals and “fun” activities, in which everyone is supposed to come together and interact. All of the talk, no matter how superficial, is seen as the embodiment of “community.” Again, these types of gatherings are perfectly normal activities for most folks, but they have little to do with forming the type of “community” that is described in the Bible. Equating them with healthy spirituality can make the introvert feel like a second-class member.

One last example: small groups. Some churches put heavy emphasis on getting new members into small groups very quickly. The initiates are then asked to attend regular meetings and to interact with the strangers in the group about spiritual issues. Introverts need these experiences, but they probably need to start much more slowly, and they probably need to be a part of smaller, more intimate groups (even pairings). Rushing everyone into groups like this – while it may be effective on a larger scale – tends to drive out the more extreme introverts.

I write all of this because I think that both the introvert and the community suffer when a heavily “extroverted” culture develops in a Church. I’ll explain why as we continue in the next post or two.

In two recent posts, I’ve been reflecting on Walter Wink’s theological writings about “the Powers” – a concept from the Bible that arises out of the now all-too familiar experience of the social or political entity that suddenly becomes more than the sum of its parts – often turning on its makers like Frankenstein’s monster. Corporations, created to serve us by providing goods and commodities in an efficient manner, end up reeking havoc on our financial systems and (in the case of BP) our environment. Likewise nations, created to help maintain social order and to protect rights, end up committing acts of torture and lawlessness in the name of protecting “the people.”

The Bible uses the language of the demonic to describe this experience. The “powers and principalities,” it tells us, are in control of these entities. And while modern Christians may or may not think of angels and demons in the same way as early Christians, we should at least understand that all things have outer and inner characteristics – even (especially!) nations and large corporations. BP and America have their own “spirituality” – for good or bad – as much as any individual.

How, then, should we think of the Powers? Here, unfortunately, Christians have a tendency to shift into one of two extremes. And since Independence Day is upon us once again, lets consider two very different ways of characterizing America itself:

Characterization #1: America is a great nation, founded upon principles of individual liberty. It affords economic opportunity and personal freedom to all of its citizens. While all religions are allowed within our system, many of us are committed followers of Jesus who seek to do God’s will, and we should also be proud of the way that our country and culture are shaped largely by our commitment to the teachings of Jesus and the Christian scripture.

Characterization #2:  America is a great world empire, along the same lines as the Roman empire of scripture. It has a history of racial intolerance and imperialistic meddling. Its voracious consumeristic appetite is slowly draining the world of resources, while simultaneously doing irreparable damage to the environment. In the meantime, the aggressive military policies that are necessary to protect these interests are causing thousands of needless deaths in the third world.

These characterizations, both of which are common among Christians, correspond, rather obviously, to the two “poles” that make up our political system. One is clearly sympathetic to the right/conservative view of America, and the other is clearly sympathetic to the left/liberal view of America.

So which is it?

If I am understanding Wink correctly, the question itself is the problem. We have come to see the Powers as purely good or purely evil, and – without a more nuanced view, we are never going to be able to speak about or to the Powers in an intelligible manner.

The funny thing about the powers is this: they are created things, just like you and I. “In Jesus,” Paul writes in Colossians, “all things in heaven and on earth were created….whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers…” Thus, Paul goes on to say, God is reconciling himself to all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of the cross.

Paul is convinced, not only that the Powers are created things, but that they have a proper place in a universe that is ordered with Jesus as its supreme authority. The failure to appreciate this aspect of Paul’s perspective on the Powers is, I think, is a fundamental flaw the “anti-Powers/anti-Empire” mentality that results in the second characterization I outlined above.

Wink puts it this way: In order to place the Powers in proper perspective, we must simultaneously uphold three concepts: (1) the Powers are good, (2) the Powers have fallen, and (3) the Powers must be/will be redeemed.

This makes sense to me. Lose #2, and you will fall victim to blind, pro-nationalistic patriotism. Lose #1 and/or #3, and you may lapse into pointless anti-Empire blogging (a crime for which I have probably been guilty).

Consider the case of the “Powers” that are at work behind BP. We must think of BP as (a) good, (b) fallen, and (c) in need of redemption.

The first premise, I would guess, is difficult for many of us to contemplate, given the constant stream of criticism that is directed at BP these days. Yet it is true.

Energy corporations employ thousands of Americans, almost all of whom – I would guess – would never do something that would intentionally hurt people or unnecessarily damage the environment. Their ability to supply and deliver energy resources into our society enables all sorts of good things: world-class facilities for quality health care, transportation systems that keep our economy moving, and cool homes and workplaces during heat-intensive summers. These are all good things, and there is nothing per-se wrong with any of them. If BP “behaved” and brought only these benefits to us, I think we could fairly say that it is serving a good and appropriate purpose within our social and economic systems.

But, of course, it doesn’t behave, because – as is the case with every other business – the Powers are at work, subverting its good purposes. Safety standards that gradually softened and executive decision-making under difficult financial pressures eventually resulted in the Gulf catastrophe. As such, what is now needed is not pointless criticism and fault-finding directed at the individuals who were – on the surface at least – “in charge,” but an appreciation of the way our system of multinational corporations is in need of redemption.

The same is true of America. Is America a great land of opportunity with a system of self-governance that is markedly superior to the systems that came before it? Yes. Is America’s economic and political system deeply flawed, resulting in some of the abuses that I mentioned above? Yes.

Christians must be willing and able to see both of these things as true to develop the nuanced perspective of the Powers that is presented in the Bible. This is why Paul can say that Jesus is Lord (and not Caesar) at one moment, and encourage us to submit to the Powers because they are established by God in the next. It is why Peter objects that he “must obey God rather than man” on one occasion, and can encourage people to “honor the Emperor” on another.

The Powers are good. The Powers are fallen. The Powers must be redeemed.

So…when July 4 rolls around, there is nothing wrong with celebrating the things that are good about our country. My advice is: Pop some firecrackers. Eat some ice cream. Celebrate the innovations of a constitutional system of government and the Bill of Rights. If you aren’t comfortable celebrating the War of Independence itself – at least celebrate/uphold instances of non-violent resistance, such as the Boston Tea Party.

America is a deeply flawed society, prone to abuse its power – but it is not, by any stretch of the imagination (or by any characterization that is Biblical), all bad. By finding good things to celebrate as citizens, our voices as prophets can become even stronger.

The Barna Group, a firm that is well-known for sociological research on Christian America,  has just published the results of a study on church participation, or, more specifically, the tendency of Americans to participate in Bible study, Sunday school, and small groups. The profile of the typical “participant” that emerges from the study is interesting, even if it is not too surprising. Generally speaking, people who participate in these activities tend to be:

• Women
• Married
• 45 or older
• Southern
• Protestant
• Politically conservative
• Members of larger churches
• Devotional Bible-readers

(Notably, as a percentage of their population, African Americans are highly involved in their churches, when compared to whites and other minorities.)

For me, Barna’s profile of a Church “participant” raises some interesting questions: Are those who don’t fit this mold choosing not to participate? Or do churches tend to cater to the needs of a particular sector of the population? In particular, I am wondering whether activities that are designed to satisfy the needs of middle class families (a population that probably helps to keep the Church budget in balance) tend to alienate the unchurched and younger singles (who, conversely, are less likely to be significant givers).

Any thoughts on the subject? In particular, I’d be interested to hear from those who don’t fit Barna’s profile.

I am sure that I am not the first to observe this, but a rather disturbing pattern is emerging out of the various crises that have dominated our nation’s agenda during last few months.

Here is how the pattern operates: First, a particular sector of the economy generates a public crisis. People panic. Legislators, keen on satisfying the people’s need to perceive that they have control over the situation, enact legislation and call for increased regulation of the industry. Then, over time, the regulations are relaxed when the economy itself becomes the crisis-of-the-day (“The red tape is holding us back!” the industry argues). Furthermore, when the public eye is turned away, regulators invariably get cozy with the industry.

Then, suddenly, another crisis. Oil flows into the gulf. Sub-prime mortgage securities turn out to be worthless, triggering a devastating banking/mortgage crisis. Savings and loan institutions fail. Retirement plans shrivel as a result of deceptive public reports, backed by questionable accounting practices.

And now we find ourselves back at the start of the cycle, facing another crisis triggered by another entity which is so large, and so crucial to the economy, that it can’t be effectively “punished.” In the wake of the Gulf oil spill, the cries are rising again for regulation and for accountability in the energy industry, but…

We feel like we already know what is going to happen, don’t we? Despite our best efforts and intentions, the forces that brought about the Exxon Valdiz crisis of 1989 have cycled around to the BP oil spill of 2010, which will cycle around to another environmental disaster in another 20 or 30 years.

Things that ought to be within our power to control – democratic governments, publicly held corporations, regulated industries – behave in ways that we don’t intend. At times, their behavior even seems malevolent.

So what is happening here?

On one level, we could simply say that it is a failure in our system of government to sustain important regulatory policies over the long-term. However, I am pretty sure that Walter Wink (whose work I’ve been eagerly reading lately) would offer a much different answer.

Wink observes that the people who wrote the New Testament believed that there was more to the world than what the eye could see. Every human institution, no matter how humble or powerful, had its own angel or demon – a counterpart that existed in the “spiritual realm.” This counterpart influenced the behavior of the institution. Thus, for example, in Revelation, the heavenly visage of Jesus speaks not to “the Church in Ephesus,” but to “the angel of the Church in Ephesus.” The Ephesian church, like the other six churches in Revelation, has its own “spiritual” existence. And that spiritual counterpart reflected the nature of the church itself.

In particular, the phrase “principalities and powers” was used to refer to the spiritual counterparts of the most expansive and influential institutions of the day – chiefly nations and empires. The Apostle Paul often spoke about the threat of these “principalities and powers” and the manner in which they would ultimately be made subject to Jesus. It really is impossible to fully understand Paul’s belief system without accounting for his concept of what scholars now refer to – in shorthand – as “the Powers.”

As I mentioned in the last post, this ancient worldview (which holds that everything “down here” has a corollary existence “up there”) is not one that is widely accepted in the West, even by Christians. However, when we interpret scripture through an integrated worldview – one which is readily accessible in our culture, and which understands that all things have both a material, “outward” aspect and a spiritual, “inward” aspect – we can begin to make sense of the seemingly out-of-control nature of governments and corporations.

Here is Wink’s argument: each of these institutions does, in fact, have its own “spirit.” There is, he says, a “spirit of America.” For students in a High School, there is such a thing as “school spirit.” Every corporation – including BP – has its own spiritual nature. Any employee or executive officer can tell you that, even if they don’t want to admit that it includes a dark side.

When things go bad, you can decide for yourself, he says, whether it is nothing more than an unfortunate socio-political phenomenon or whether there really is an intelligent force – a “demon” – behind it. It doesn’t matter, because we can all experience it and observe it in the same way: the thing that we created is more than the sum of its parts – it is out of our control, working against us.

Wink believes that you cannot understand how the writers of the Bible viewed the relationship between Jesus and Rome or God and culture without appreciating the nature of the Powers, and I think his work in this area provides an important signpost for Christians who – like me – are struggling to understand the institutional problems that I’ve described above. In short, if Christians are to effectively speak to the seemingly endless stream of crises that are emerging out of our socio-political system, we must begin by understanding that the institutions that are at the center of each crisis (whether it be the US government, BP, or the finance industry) are under the sway of the Powers.

Stay tuned. There’s more to come.

In my last post, I talked about how some people have difficulty believing in the resurrection of Jesus not because of the lack of evidence, but because they hold a worldview that does not allow for people to rise from the dead. There is nothing wrong with this per se. For the most part, we don’t control – or even think about – these deeply ingrained assumptions about how the universe works. They simply are what they are.

Still, we live in remarkable times. For the first time in history, we are becoming aware of the concept of worldviews themselves. And this awareness is opening up the possibility of reflecting on the relative advantages and disadvantages of various worldviews. Perhaps we are even developing the capacity to choose new worldviews based on such reflection.

One aspect of our worldview is our cosmology – our understanding of the nature of the relationship between the material and the spiritual. For most people, it is the cosmological aspect of their worldview that influences what they can believe about miracles, resurrection, life after death, etc.

In The Powers That Be, Walter Wink argues that one particular worldview – an integrated cosmology – is the most sensible and satisfying of all of the choices. There is a lot more to the book than this particular line of thought, and I plan on getting to Wink’s other ideas in the coming weeks. However, for now, I want to focus on Wink’s concept of an integrated cosmology.

To understand this worldview, it helps to put it in context with some of the other worldviews that have existed through history. Here are the examples that Wink uses:

• The Ancient Worldview held that the material and spiritual realms exist in two separate places (usually conceived spatially as “up there” and “down here”). However, whenever something happens in one realm, something that corresponds that event happens in the other. Cataclysmic events, for example, are blamed on things that happen among the gods. This is the worldview that was held by the writers of the Bible.
• The Spiritualist Worldview holds that the spiritual is desirable, and that the material is evil and undesirable. Those of us who are in a material state are imprisoned in that which is imperfect, and we desire to be set free to live as beings of pure spirit. The ancient Greeks, many Buddhists, and the majority of modern fundamentalist and evangelical Christians live under this worldview.
• The Materialist Worldview holds that the only things that are real are the things we see, hear, taste, and touch. There is no such thing as a “spiritual” realm. Gratification can only come through the material. This is why people who try to accumulate things are often characterized as “materialistic.” They may pay lip service to a spiritual realm, but they function in the same way a materialist does.
• The Theological Worldview holds that the material and the physical exist in two separate, distinct realms that do not interact with each other. This is a view that dominates many modern seminaries and universities. It compartmentalizes the spiritual so that it does not interfere in any meaningful way with the goings on in the material world.

The integrated (Wink calls it the “integral”) worldview holds that all things have both an outward (material) and inward (spiritual) aspect. And he really does mean everything. Reading a book, eating, working in the yard, going to Church, playing a video game. Everything that you and I do has both an “outer” and an “inner” aspect.

The same thing applies to groups and organizations: little league teams, Churches, nations, a soccer stadium, schools, families. Within the integrated worldview, all of these things have both a material aspect as well as a spiritual aspect.  (Rob Bell, incidentally, does a masterful job of explaining this concept in his video Everything is Spiritual).

The integrated worldview can be seen in the Tao, a familiar Chinese symbol that represents the dance/tension between yin and yang. They both coexist in a whole. Indeed, there is even a small part of one in the other. They are integrated.

A similar worldview is also held by Native Americans, who think of nature as alive – brimming with its own spirituality. Quantum physics is also pointing – in many interesting ways – toward the efficacy of the integrated worldview.

Holding this worldview forces Christians to reinterpret the Bible – a book that, as I have already mentioned, was written from the ancient worldview. However, the two views are not so different that they pose an insurmountable problem. The ancient view is about “up there” and “down here.” The integrated view is about what is on the “outside” and the “inside.” The only difference is that, instead of seeing the material and spiritual as distinct– we see them as two aspects of one thing.

The integrated worldview also helps us to avoid the dangers of being completely “inward” people or completely “outward” people. It invites us into contemplative, inner reflection (Fr. Richard Rohr, for example, is well known for his contemplative spirituality and integrated cosmology), but also challenges us to see how things on the “outside” – nations, groups, corporations, etc. – are impacted by their “inner” life. A deep prayer life and meaningful social action are both a natural result of this perspective.

[This is the final part in a series of posts that summarize NT Wright’s argument for the historical validity of the resurrection of Jesus in The Resurrection of the Son of God.  You can read my overview of his argument here.]

In my house, the movie Nacho Libre is treated with a level of affection that is normally reserved for cult classics, such as Blazing Saddles or Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Hardly a day goes by that someone doesn’t quote or otherwise make a reference to a gag from this movie.

My favorite supporting character is Esqueleto, Nacho’s wiry, and not-so-bright wrestling partner, who is brought to life by Mexican actor Héctor Jimenez.

Esqueleto is an ardent athiest. When Jack Black’s character asks him why he has not been baptized (one suspects moreso because he is seeking every advantage he can find in his clandestine wrestling career than because he is concerned for his soul), Esqueleto repeats the classic line: “I told you: I don’t believe in God. I only believe in science!”

Jiminez delivers this line in a way that makes you fairly certain that – despite what he suggests – he has not spent a lot of time pondering the relative advantages of the modern/empirical and ancient/mystical worldviews. Nevertheless, Esqueleto does raise the objection that is the primary barrier to whether one can consider that the resurrection of Jesus has been “proven.”

Wright’s argument, you may recall, can be broken down into two parts. First, Wright argues extensively that the early Christians believed that Jesus really did rise from the dead. They weren’t using resurrection merely as a metaphor. They believed not only that it had happened, but that among them were many people who had witnessed it. Second, he argues that the best explanation for this belief is that it really happened. No other explanation – particularly an argument that the evidence of it was falsified – seems realistic.

But for people like Esqueleto, the term “realistic” is precisely the problem with the concept of resurrection. If one’s worldview is structured such that you don’t believe in God, and in which you are convinced that the universe functions solely in accordance with scientific laws, any other explanation is more acceptable than the explanation offered by Wright. It may be wildly improbable, for example, that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross after all, but at least it is possible in a universe that is governed by the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology.

If you, like Esqueleto simply cannot escape a modern/empirical worldview which renders the concept of resurrection to be impossible, Wright understands. However, he does offer one parting thought, which he hopes may help to erode the foundation of modernism that has created so many skeptics.

Wright goes to great lengths – particularly in the early chapters of RSG – to demonstrate that the worldviews that were prevalent in Jesus’ time didn’t allow for resurrection, either. In an exhaustive analysis, for example, he showed that the pagan worldview always assumed that, once you were dead, there was no coming back. Indeed, for Platonic philosophers, it would not even be desirable to come back. Similarly, a large number of Jews adhered to the teachings of the Sadducees, who were clear that death is the end of existence.

Only the Pharisees believed in the possibility of resurrection. However, their belief was that resurrection was something that would happen on “the last day” – a day of judgment appointed by God. No  Pharisee ever thought that a resurrection had actually occurred, or that it was even possible that resurrection would happen before that time.

The point is simple: you can adhere to your belief that dead people don’t get up and walk around based on a scientific worldview, if you like. However, you should realize that your particular worldview does not put you in a superior position to judge the evidence, in comparison to those who actually claimed to have experienced it. They had every reason – maybe even more – to be skeptical about what had happened. Yet they still believed.

So there you have it: Wright’s remarkable defense of the historicity of resurrection. For those of us who are willing to think that there is more to the Universe than what we can see and measure, it is quite a convincing case. For the rest of us, the case isn’t as good. However, even for the skeptics, there are reasons for wonder.

[This is part 3 of a series of posts that summarize NT Wright’s argument for the historical validity of the resurrection of Jesus in The Resurrection of the Son of God.  You can read my overview of his argument here.]

As I’ve already mentioned, Wright is essentially making two broad moves in his argument for a literal, physical resurrection. First, he demonstrates that the early Christian communities firmly believed that they had witnessed a physical-plus-more resurrection of a human corpse. I sketched out the major lines of arguments for this move in my last post. Second, he argues that the most reasonable explanation for this belief is that it actually happened, though some of the accounts that are passed down to us may not be correct in every detail.

If it didn’t happen as the Christian communities believed, what are the alternative explanations for their strong convictions to the contrary? The three that are most often cited are: (1) Jesus didn’t actually die, (2) mass hysteria or illusion, and (3) the accounts were fabricated by some of Jesus’ closest disciples.

Wright does not give much credence to (1) or (2), and he doesn’t spend much time addressing them. They are not very popular among modern critics of a literal resurrection. The first alternative explanation (that Jesus never actually died) assumes a failed crucifixion. But, at the time, the Roman army was the most efficient killing machine to have existed in history. If they knew nothing else, Roman soldiers knew how to kill people – and they certainly would not have wanted to be accountable to their superiors for failing to get the job done in a simple execution. Likewise, hysteria – or some other psychological explanation – seems unlikely in light of the number of different witnesses on different occasions.

The alternative that is most often proffered by modern critics is #3, the argument that Jesus’ disciples simply fabricated the account of the resurrection. Here, Wright’s argument is quite elaborate, but I will try to highlight what I think are the two most important threads.

The first question to confront in the face of this theory is: “Where is the body?” Within a few short months after these events, Wright argues, Jesus’ disciples were openly claiming in Jerusalem that Jesus had risen from the dead. This claim, we would expect (and we are told), was an outrage to the Jewish leaders. At this point, it would have been quite a simple matter to produce a body – one that was allegedly buried just outside of Jerusalem. Once such gruesome evidence was produced, the entire matter would have been diffused. No one would have believed Peter and the other apostles any longer. Yet it is clear that the Christian church was birthed in just this environment – Jerusalem, the city of Jesus’ alleged burial, just a few short months after his death. This could never have happened if a body was available.

(There is no account that explicitly describes an effort to produce a body. However, the closing chapters in Matthew’s gospel suggest that, by the mid-first century, accusations were floating about that the disciples had stolen the body. This would seem to imply that, by that time, it was well known that no corpse had ever been produced by any of the authorities.)

The second thread involves Wright’s assertion that it is unlikely that anyone would “invent” a story of this nature. Why?

• The chief/primary witnesses to the empty tomb are women – a fabricated story would likely involve men in this role.
• Most people didn’t believe it was possible for the dead to rise, and the minority who did (the Pharisees) only believed it would happen on God’s “return” to judge the world. No one thought or expected something like that would happen in advance. What would inspire someone to fabricate a story of this nature?
• While it is noted that Jesus had predicted his resurrection, the Gospel accounts repeatedly emphasize that the disciples had no idea what he was talking about. This rather unflattering characterization – particularly of Peter – would not be the best way to bolster his credibility, or that of the other apostles.
• The idea that God or the gods could die and rise from the dead simply didn’t exist. Some pagans believed that their gods, in a sense, died and rose with the harvest, but nobody claims to have seen their “dead” god eating Fish on the beach last Tuesday. Christians did.

Wright’s conclusion, then, is that the best explanation for the early Christians’ conviction that they had witnessed the resurrection of Jesus is that it actually happened.

That is all well and fine, you may say, but don’t we now know that people simply don’t rise from the dead? Isn’t that explanation simply preposterous on its face? Aren’t the other explanations, though problematic themselves, more likely because they are at least possible?

Wright has an answer to this, but I want to address it in another post, where we can explore a little more deeply his ultimate explanation for the nature of the Christian “faith” in resurrection.

During my blogging break, I had a chance to take an extended vacation with my family at Walt Disney World. For those who have never been there, WDW is a sprawling world-class resort that features several beautifully themed hotels and four separate theme parks.

My favorite theme park – by a long shot – is EPCOT. I had a chance to visit EPCOT in the early 80s, just after it opened, and I’ve been fascinated with it ever since.

Part of the mystique of Walt Disney, and one of the reasons I believe his visions continue to command respect to this day, is the way that he managed to combine shrewd business acumen with a genuine humanitarian spirit. Make no mistake about it, Disney wanted to make money with his theme parks. But he was also interested in creating park experiences that would inspire his visitors – even changing them, and the world, for the better.

Though it opened after his death, EPCOT is, in many ways, the culmination of Disney’s ambitions.

In the back half of the park is a huge World Showcase – a place where the very best of all of the cultures of the world come together in a single place in a celebration of architecture, food, song, dance, and play. And in the front part of the park is Future World, an area best known for a huge silver globe – the Spaceship Earth – that towers above the park. This is the part of the park that I really love. In addition to several world-class attractions, Future World, true to its original purpose, serves as a showcase for innovations that could potentially shape and transform society.

The architecture is sleek and rounded, in hues of deep blue, silver, and clay-red. Ponds and fountains are everywhere the eye can see. Lush, green planters, filled with beautiful flowers are tastefully sprinkled throughout the area. The music – usually sweeping, orchestral scores – is inspiring. I could just sit beside one of the ponds, taking everything in, for hours at a time.

Some would object to the entire experience, arguing that it is an illusion. The “world” that is on display is only available to a small percentage of the population who can afford the travel, and admission fee, to experience it. Its infeasible to transform the “outside world” into anything close to what one finds in Future World.

Yet I can’t help but think of the thousands of people who walk through this beautiful space every year. Surely, many of them are musicians, architects, landscapers, writers, artists – people who, like me are impressed with Disney’s efforts to create a small space where the world is more peaceful, more idyllic, and who are trying to re-create it in their own ways, in their own place, and in their own time.

For me, a part of the inspiration is the vision itself. EPCOT is profitable in more than one sense. It makes money, as any multi-million dollar investment must. But it does more than that. It manages at the same time to put on display a vision of our world, and our future, that is filled with celebration, hope and peace.

It is imperfect, to be sure. But its imperfections do not make it any less remarkable.