The practice of complex analysis.

Fritschel, Ann L.

  Demonstrates the capacity to carefully
  examine complex social, economic, scientific,
  and religious issues without oversimplification;
  sees relationships from a systems perspective,
  remaining spiritually centered in the face of
  ambiguity.

We live in a beautiful, wonderfully complex world. In appreciating the images made by frost on a window or the wonders of the human body, one can experience the joy of the complexity of creation. Yet sometimes the complexities of life seem overwhelming and threatening. We seek simplicity; complex economic and social issues are reduced to sound bites. We seek patterns and meanings where none may exist in order to feel secure and safe. The longing for security and safety, however, may lead to simplistic answers and poor theology.

I interned in Tulsa, Oklahoma, not a typical Lutheran region. One of the ecumenical gifts of Lutheran theology that Lutherans brought to that community was the ability to live in ambiguity and not rush to simplistic theological explanations. People, who had been told their cancer, divorce, or problem child was Gods punishment upon them for their sin, tried to repent of their sins. Still their problems did not go away. The simplistic, biblical doctrine of retribution as applied to their lives did not work. Some even experienced blame and shame for not "truly repenting" or "having enough faith." Their churches would give them no other answers; some of these suffering people eventually found their way to Lutheran congregations.

At Lutheran congregations they heard an acknowledgement of the complexity and ambiguity of life. They were not given easy explanations of their sufferings or solutions to their problems. Instead, they were given resources for living in the face of complexity and ambiguity. These resources focused above all on a gracious and loving God who seeks out and gathers the lost and straying to comfort and protect them, not to judge and punish. The power of grace was made real for them. Life did not become any less complex or ambiguous but it did become more livable. Indeed, Lutheran theology with its paradoxes and tensions--such as sinner and saint, the hidden and revealed God and the theology of the cross--seems inherently formulated to address the complexities and ambiguities of daily life.

Remaining Centered in the Gospel: Beyond the Pursuit of Easy Answers

The search for easy answers, a fragmented post-modern worldview and the complex realities of creation underscore the importance of the pastoral practice of complex analysis. Complex analysis embraces three related but distinct practices--that the minister: 1) demonstrates the capacity to carefully examine complex social, economic, scientific, and religious issues without over simplification; 2) sees relationships from a systems perspective; and 3) remains spiritually centered in the face of ambiguity.

Intrinsic to this practice is a theology of incarnation and incarnational ministry. Christians are embodied creatures who live in a material world where they are engaged by economic, social, cultural, political, and scientific ideas and forces. Christians are called to engage this world in its fullness. They are not called to retreat from the world or focus only on the spiritual elements of life; Christian faith and discipleship is concerned with all of life. Christian leaders are called to help others think theologically about the social, economic, scientific, and religious issues of the day through the lens of the Gospel in order to do justice to both the Gospel message and the complexity of human life. Gifted by the Holy Spirit with human creativity, intellect, and wisdom, Christians are called to employ scientific findings and other human endeavors to better understand the world. Also implicit in this practice is a theology of creation that affirms the beauty of this complex creation as very good and a gift from God. Complexity can be treasured, not feared.

The first component--the capacity to carefully examine complex social, economic, scientific, and religious issues without simplification--calls for the ministerial leader to resist the common cultural tendency to look for quick fixes or easy answers. She will draw upon a holistic approach to every issue, bringing all of her knowledge, as well as seeking the knowledge of others, to reflect upon an issue. She will actively collaborate with others, knowing that by working together, more possibilities and problems will be discerned. Proceeding in an organized, methodical way, there will also be room for synergistic creativity and unexpected, spontaneous insights.

The second component--seeing relationships from a systems perspective--embraces the complexity of life. Relational systems theories (such as developed by Murray Bowen) build upon complexity. They eschew simple linear or even multiple causations as an explanation for relational dynamics. Rather, in systems theory, the interaction of several interdependent and interrelated components is analyzed holistically (1)

Using relational systems theory, Friedman lists five key elements useful in thinking about family and congregational issues: the identified patient, balance, self-differentiation, the extended family field, and the emotional triangle. Together these elements remind the leader that the presenting problem is usually not the real issue, that many of our behaviors and beliefs are shaped by our family of origins and transmitted across generations, and that systems seek stability and are resistant to change. (2) Using a systems perspective, ministers learn to understand the complex interactions of congregational systems and gain skills to seek out and deal with the real, but often hidden issues, behind conflict and change.

The third component--remaining spiritually centered in the face of ambiguity--is already advanced by acknowledging that ambiguity is a part of life that cannot be avoided. Thereby the leader does not then spend inordinate amounts of time trying to control things that cannot be controlled.

Key faith resources will help a pastoral leader remain spiritually centered. Primary resources include keeping Christ at the center and acknowledging that God is God and we are not. Another helpful resource is the theology of the cross, understanding that God works in hidden ways, including through weakness and suffering. Others may find the promise of Christ to never abandon us--or a proleptic eschatology of living in the "already/not yet" time between the cross and the completion of God's kingdom--to be helpful.

Spiritual practices such as reading the Bible, communal worship, and prayer are crucially important. The theological curriculum at Wartburg Seminary allows students to explore a variety of spiritual practices, including using the Myers-Briggs personality types to develop those practices most meaningful to them. (3) Keeping in mind the incarnational aspects of this pastoral practice, students discover that a spiritually centered person is formed by paying attention to all aspects of their lives as described in the ELCA wellness wheel.

The Shape of Complex Analysis

So what might this pastoral practice look like at churchwide levels? ELCA social statements provide one instance. Consider the social statement on Health and Health Care adopted in 2003. The statement argues there is a health care crisis due to fragmented systems of care, high costs, and problems of accessibility to health care in the United States. Biblical and theological explorations of health and healing provide insights and goals, but do not prescribe solutions. The social statement encompasses economic, medical, and political information to think about how to discern solutions. The social statement demonstrates how piecemeal solutions are inadequate and calls for a comprehensive and systemic approach to dealing with health care issues. (4)

What might complex analysis look like in the local parish? Consider a pastor and congregation council looking at giving trends over the past few years in their congregation. Giving has remained stable or has begun to decline, even while costs are going up. It is clear that this trajectory is not sustainable. Some in the council believe an effort should be made to gain more members (under the assumption they will give). Others argue that the practice of tithing needs to be preached more. Someone complains that the young people are not doing their fair share. One suggests they publish what everyone gives in hopes of "encouraging'1 (i.e., shaming) people into giving more. Another suggests they keep telling people how difficult the financial situation is; surely people will respond to an appeal. (5)

Initial reflection suggests that some of these solutions may work over the short period, but they are all fraught with dangers. Evangelism simply to meet the budget does harm to the concepts of both evangelism and stewardship. No congregation will truly say, "What we want most is your money!" But we may assume that the good news should best be shared with those who can also help support the church financially. This approach tends to make those evangelized into objects rather than people in need of hope and healing. Tithing can become legalistic; encouraging people to tithe usually does not work because it does not address the forces that prevent people from giving more. Shaming is never a Gospel approach. Reminding people that the congregation is having difficulty paying its bills may only remind them of their own difficulties in paying bills. All of these solutions are problematic and address only surface rather than root causes.

Reclaiming Stewardship as Complex Analysis

The financial state of many mainline churches suggests that stewardship has been neglected for too long or relegated primarily to raising money for the church. The concept of stewardship as a key to Christian identity has often been minimized. While there are some solid books on the theology of stewardship, (6) one area just beginning to receive renewed interest involves the cultural context of money and stewardship in the United States. Why do people not give more money to the church? What prevents people from being generous with their money? Why do generous people give?

There are several core cultural issues around money and financial stewardship. The idolatry and power of money in our society is one issue. Money is seen as a private, individual matter. While people may talk freely about religion, politics, or sex, asking someone how much money they make is a taboo subject. The strong sense of individualism is another cultural issue. This can include a sense of entitlement, exceptionalism, and personal power: "It is all about me!" This individualism can result in either thinking about giving money in utilitarian terms ("What's in it for me?") or expressive terms ("How will this action bring me self-fulfillment or show people who I really am?").

Many of us also live in a culture of fear. Many people in the United States are among the wealthiest people who have ever lived. Yet we live with a strong sense of scarcity. Trust in God's abundance is both a cultural and theological problem. Another issue is the primacy of moralistic, therapeutic deism in the United States. This set of beliefs acknowledges that God exists and wants us to be nice to each other. The central goal in life is to be happy and feel good about ones self. God is around to solve problems but otherwise is pretty uninvolved. Good people go to heaven when they die. (7) Such a religion does little to promote concepts of financial stewardship and generous giving.

The greatest cultural issue, however, is the issue of consumerism. Consumerism is the belief that the possession and consumption of things can provide happiness, status, prestige, identity, and meaning to our lives. Fueled by advertising and marketing, it suggests shopping therapy will provide comfort to the anxious, depressed, or lonely. Moreover, consumerism instills the notion: "I own, therefore I am." One roadblock to peoples generous giving is the lack of disposable income due to the influence of consumerism.

While many of us do not truly believe the promises of consumerism, our lifestyles may suggest otherwise. Why do people continue to act out a belief in consumerism, often in unhelpful or even harmful ways, even when they know that consumerisms promises are empty? Sociologists, anthropologists, and psychologists are beginning to more fully explore this question. One intriguing theory has been offered by Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist. He suggests we use possessions and stuff to demonstrate personality traits in ways that can be quickly and easily noticed by others. Possessions give clues to our identity and being. (8) Church leaders will need to think theologically about these insights and develop Gospel proclamation that addresses issues of identity, being, value, and worth apart from possessions and money.

Conclusion

The practice of complex analysis has deep roots in Wartburg Seminary's history. The seminary faculty engaged the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod in decades of arguments about ordination, the anti-Christ, and predestination among others issues. Wartburg Seminary followed the stance of its founder, William Loehe, in claiming the idea of "open questions." This means that wherever there is not a clear understanding from Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions, it is possible for Christians to have a variety of theological understandings. (9) The concept of "open questions" acknowledges the complexity of the world and biblical interpretation. It can even be seen as a prototype for complex analysis. The practice of complex analysis has deep roots, based upon the inherent paradoxes and ambiguities of Lutheran theology and the multi-faceted nature of the created world.

For Discussion:

1. What theological themes help you analyze trends/issues current in our society?

2. What resources keep you spiritually centered in the midst of ambiguity?

3. What other cultural trends do you see that might affect peoples financial stewardship?

Key words: complex analysis, ambiguity, stewardship, consumerism, open questions

(1.) Murray Bowen, Family Therapy in Clinical Practice (Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson, Inc, 1993) reviews all Bowen's earlier works, summarizing his main theories.

(2.) Edwin H. Friedman, Generation to Generation: Family Process in Church and Synagogue (New York: Guilford Press, 1985), 19.

(3.) Sandra Krebs Hirsch, Soultypes: Matching Your Personality and Spiritual Path (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2006).

(4.) http://www.elca.org/What-We-Be-lieve/Social-Issues/Social-Statements/Health-and-Healthcare.aspx

(5.) While not discussed here, relational systems theories could help discern the underlying motivation for some of these suggestions.

(6.) For example, Douglas John Hall, The Steward: A Biblical Symbol Come of Age (New York: Friendship Press, 1982), and Mark Alan Powell, Giving to God: The Bibles Good News about Living a Generous Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).

(7.) Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton, Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 162-170.

(8.) Geoffrey Miller, Spent: Sexy Evolution and Consumer Behavior (New York: Viking, 2009).

(9.) Craig L. Nessan, "William Loehe on the Christian Life," Journal of Lutheran Ethics 10 (2010). <http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Journal-of-Lutheran-Ethics/Issues/February-2010/What-Does-Wilhelm-Loehe-Have-to-Say-to-Us-about-the-Christian-Life.aspx>. The "open questions" debate was raised around whether different theological viewpoints were or should be church dividing.

Ann L. Fritschel

Professor of Hebrew Bible and Director of the Center for Theology and Land Wartburg Theological Seminary