This thoroughly "post-modern" sentiment comes not from today's emerging generation, but instead from a great thinker of a different era, CS Lewis.  In The Great Divorce Lewis imagines an afterlife in which a traveler is stuck in a holding room between heaven and hell.  There, he witnesses believers and unbelievers conversing, with believers pleading with their friends to embrace the truth of Christ.  The quote above is from an unbeliever arguing against the notion of accepting anything so final as the truth of salvation in Christ.  Here is some additional dialogue that I found remarkably similar to views of our world today:

"Do you really think people are penalized for their honest opinions?  Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that those opinions were mistaken."

"Do you really think there are no sins of intellect?"

"There are indeed, Dick.  There is hide-bound prejudice, and intellectual dishonesty, and timidity, and stagnation.  But honest opinions fearlessly followed -- they are not sins."

Intolerance, intellectual dishonesty, not being true to one's self -- these are the real sins.  Sound familar?  Despite how much the world has changed since CS Lewis penned these words in 1945, they ring just as true and relevant today as ever. 

Yes our culture is changing.  Yes post-modernism is influencing our world.  Yes technology is making us more connected than ever.  But despite all these changes, the human condition and the human experience remain remarkably constant. 

As the author of Ecclesiastes says:
What has been will be again, 
what has been done will be done again; 
there is nothing new under the sun.

In every age and every generation, there will always be interesting intellectual arguments to be made against the need for a savior.  But in the end when all is stripped away, each of us will face our creator and be asked on whose life we should be judged -- our own, or Christ's.  It is frightening to imagine standing before the author of life without the covering of Christ. 

Our mission should be to connect the timeless truths of the gospel to today's culture in a way that is fresh and alive, in the hope that no one we know ever walks through life alone or faces death apart from Christ.

He noted a couple of things. One that the cover letter made reference to his book, An Army of Davids, and the second that the book is about the topic of the Holy Spirit in a pub.

Of course, as friendly emaily Todd let me know, this wee bit of attention came when the book site happened to be down. I'm taking care of that right now and in the meantime have forwarded links to my personal site here. While that site has a bit more info, I want to include a bit more here, for those who are new to It's a Dance.

Glen's book, and his efforts online, have emphasized how an “army of Davids” can bring radical change to all kinds of fields. This is no less true for religion, and my book touches on two very important aspects of this in Christianity. The first is the topic of the book itself: the Holy Spirit. What Glen Reynolds has emphasized as the many banding together to bring challenge and renewal to human systems is an inherent part of Christian theology. That is the work, we say, of the Holy Spirit. However, discussions of the Holy Spirit have consistently been relegated to the back of the theological line. Reasons for this are many but one big one is that a thorough theology of the Holy Spirit undermines hierarchical patterns and empowers all Christians to take a vital role in shaping both local and global Christianity. In pushing for a renewed examination of the Holy Spirit theologians and ministers are opening the door for what can really be called ‘open source’ Christianity. Those interested in how this affects broader culture might find chapter five especially interesting as it deals with a critique of the religious right and how a thorough understanding of the Spirit leads Christians towards different expression of public interaction and personal understanding.

The other aspect is the particular form of church that I have chosen to highlight in my book. Called the ‘emerging church’ it is a renewal movement that has taken off in the last ten years. There is a de-emphasis of buildings and structure and settled form emphasizing instead characteristics that seek to best reflect the mission of Jesus in bringing hope and renewal. The leaders of this movement have utilized technology in all its forms from the beginning, with blogs, podcasts, and other internet tools helping to bring many from around the world into a shared conversation. It is, in effect, the Christian expression of what Glen has emphasized in other fields.

This is a source for both the setting and the approach. While it is a theology book, it's not a dry one. Rather, it's a conversation set up between a reporter, a pastor, and some others, taking place in a pub. Essentially, as I was writing it I had my own questions and objections that came to mind. Instead of ignoring these I made them part of the whole. And thus made it an open, and hopefully continuing, conversation.

Thanks for having a look at it. And thanks again to Instapundit for highlighting it.

WORSHIP

Over the next few Sundays I will be preaching texts revolving and centered on worship. It’s amazing how worship is such a catch word these days and simply using it can cause such a raucous. I would be curious to see the statistics on churches that split up during the 80’s and 90’s and the involvement that “worship debates” played in those circumstances. The current situation is much the same with an added player in the game. The postmodern culture brings its own paradigm, or at least it is in the process of developing its own, to the table, which creates an interesting perspective. Now longer is the debate between the traditionalists and contempories, but now three sides play into the equation, unless of course you live in the south where the Southern Gospelites have their say. Let’s just say, I am glad I am not a worship leader!

This situation calls us to one specific conclusion; we desperately need the Bible. The Bible teaches us that worship is not about having what we like. Our consumer minded culture has invaded the church and Christians have accepted the Burger King slogan as our mantra, “We’ll have it our way!” God is calling us to surrender our way to him. Worship is not an hour block of the week where we come and have our predispositions about God further enforced, our agendas met, and/or our emotions tweaked. A church is not a worship shop where people peruse for what they want. It is this mindset which has landed us in this predicament. Worship is a lifestyle of daily surrender to the King which displays itself in actions of service, love, and humility that point people to the Messiah of Israel. What we do on Sunday morning should not be an entertainment show similar to a Night at the Apollo filled with commodities for consumers to devour, but it is an overflow of abundant joy exerted by grateful people of all kinds, types, song genres, races, generations, for the King of Kings. A worship service should magnify the name of Christ by using the gifts God has given to the people. In many ways a worship service should be bipolar and schizophrenic. I pray that as I preach this message over the course of the next month we here at Thorington Road Baptist Church will catch the wave of worship. Worship is so much more than what I have written in this entry! Over the next few days I will continue this discussion. Worship is that important! God demands and desires it!

Clarity: The ability of the process to be communicated and understood by the people.

Movement: The sequential steps in the process that cause people to move to greater areas of commitment. (They suggest that this step is normally the most difficult to understand).

Alignment: The arrangement of all ministries and staff around the same simple process.

Focus: The commitment to abandon everything that falls outside of the simple ministry process. (This is the most difficult to implement).

There are many helpful suggestions throughout the book but if you were looking for a more missional/organic approach to discipleship then it probably shouldn't be top of your list.

Most of what I experienced I found personally encouraging.  There is a strong and growing "incarnational / missional impulseof  what Alan Hirsch calls, "incarnational/missional impulse." A term Alan Hirsch describes in chapter five of his book The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church.   This impulse is active among both individuals and congregations.  

On Tuesday evening I listened to what I believe was the most complete and thorough presentation from Matthew 28:18-20 on what it is to be incarnational and missional: when our purpose is identified with the person of Jesus.  

Overall I found my time with the tribe spiritually uplifting and encouraging - something I was not expecting.  A wonderful blessing from a gracious and sovereign Lord.

Before I begin, since it has been so long since I've written on this great book, here is a review of where we've been:

• New Reality Number 1: The Collapse of Church Culture.
• New Reality Number 2: The Shift from Church Growth to Kingdom Growth.
• New Reality Number 3: A New Reformation: Releasing God's People.
• New Reality Number 4: The Return to Spiritual Formation.

The discussion in this chapter is very similar to the discussion of adaptive and technical challenges. Technical challenges are predictable, well-known, and its solutions are readily available. Adaptive challenges, on the other hand, are new challenges that require new solutions (new ways of thinking, behaving, etc).  For a simple example of an adaptive challenge, consider the evolution of the internet in the last decade.  How many people predicted and planned for the internet as we know it today back in 1990?  Very few, and everyone else had to develop new solutions to survive in this new reality.

McNeal is basically making the case that, for the church, the near-future is an adaptive challenge. He contends that the twenty-first-century is unlike anything we have experienced in the past. Therefore, it is not sufficient to plan our way to a predictable future, we have to prepare ourselves for a future that is unknown.  As usual, McNeal addresses this issue in the form of two questions:

First, the wrong question: how do we plan for the future?  McNeal is against the traditional form of planning because it makes two faulty assumptions:

1) the future is predictable.  Traditional planning is based upon our ability to predict the future.  The problem with this is, if the prediction is off, the planning is off.

2) the future is incremental.  "Planning also tends to be incremental, pushing what we currently are doing into a world that we imagine will be the same as it is today.  Incrementalism as an anticipatory strategy is dead."  Again, consider the internet, it has not grown incrementally but exponentially.

It is not that McNeal is against planning.  Rather, McNeal is "suggesting that there is a dimension beyond planning that is critical for us to understand."  This new dimension is the tough question that churches must ask themselves: how do we prepare for the future?

McNeal offers so much material in his answer to this question that it is impossible to explain it all here.  However, there seems to be one underlying theme to everything that McNeal says about being a church that is prepared for the future.  The underlying theme is this: "God is the one with the vision for our lives and the church.  It is our job to discover what he has in mind, not to invent something he can get excited about.  People who don't consider themselves to be visionaries can take comfort in this."  In other words, "vision is discovered, not invented."

What are the implications for this type of preparation?  Here are a few examples:

• Pastors and church leaders do not need to create a vision for the church.  Rather, they must listen to the people in their congregation and look at what God is doing in their community.  In other words, vision becomes a bottom-up process rather than a top-down process.
• Churches need to be open to changing their vision.  As congregations and communities change, one particular vision may only be needed for several years (McNeal suggests less than a decade).  Churches must be open to changing their vision when God changes his in a particular community.
• Churches must still seek measurable results, but the results they seek must be appropriate to the vision God has set for the community.  In other words, the traditional bench-marks of attendance and budget are probably poor measurements for measuring success in God's terms.
• Churches should work toward their strengths.  If God has gifted individuals in the church a certain way (and He has) and if God has gifted church communities in certain ways (and He has), then individuals and churches must work toward their giftedness in accomplishing the vision God has given them for their community.
• Individuals and church communities must continue to learn and grow.  The whole idea of being prepared is to always be in a mode of learning that helps individuals and churches understand where God is leading them.

I have not fully digested everything that McNeal is suggesting here, primarily because it is so contrary to what I have always been taught about management and leadership.  But I think McNeal is on to something.  He is on to something because being a Christian and being a Christian leader is not about being a good manager or a good planner.  Rather, being a Christian and being a Christian leader is about being submissive to the Holy Spirit.

A simple way of summarizing McNeal's message in this chapter may be this: stop relying upon your own planning but rely upon the Holy Spirit and go wherever He leads.  Now that is the type of Christian and Christian leader I want to be.

First Thoughts and Reflections

Having been trained at a mainline seminary whose theology could be described as moderate to liberal, homeletical theory which considers social location, plurality of interpretation, empathy, and the meaning of "meaning" is familiar territory.  These variables are part and parcel for the formation of preachers in seminaries across North America located on the same theological trajectory. Cultural hermeneutics, postmodern readings of texts, and pluralism have all been topics engaged in these contexts for faithful proclamation in the 21^st Century.  This is not to say that Powell's contributions here are either redundant or unnecessary.  On the contrary, what Powell offers his readers (and we presume his readers to be preachers) is a well argued thesis for how to reflect and act on bridging the gap between what the preacher says and what the congregation hears. The texts of scripture and the texts of preaching provide a plurality of interpretation, reflection, and impetus for praxis.  We must be clear that the gap is never portrayed by Powell in a pejorative light. What Powell wants to accomplish is an awareness of the gap and ways the preacher (and the hearer) can explore the multiplicity of meaning-options available under a given text so as to be faithful to God's Word in our own social location and context.  Powell hopes that this awareness will lead to practices (empathy choices, casting the scriptures, meaning making, etc.) that will "bridge the gap" so what the preacher speaks and hears and what the congregation speaks and hears are all part of the preaching event.        

Challenges to Thinking and Preaching

Meaning Making - Powell's distinction between "meaning as message" and "message as effect" (see chapter four) capture the tension between modern and postmodern theory of interpretation.  Defining the terms, Powell suggests that meaning as message has more to do with the cognitive aspects of a given text.  That is to say that what matters is the "point" of a text, to lift that point up, and to communicate it properly.  This modern, objective approach presumes that there is one point to a given passage and thus one point to proclaim.  Message as effect, however, resides much more in the postmodern discussions on meaning.  The meaning of a text under this framework is measured by the affect and impact it has on those who receive it.  Implicitly then there is no single point to lift.  It is by its very nature subjective. Sermons are texts on texts therefore the preacher interprets and proclaims the Word in such a way that creates space for multiple meaning, but more importantly, seeks to impact the hearer in the preaching event by providing for an experience of the Word which takes into consideration social location, identity, experience, etc. 

This distinction creates a viable and important question for preaching which Powell is willing to ask:

"Is the meaning of a sermon to be found in the message that it conveys - or in the effect that it has on its audience? And is the meaning of a sermon ultimately defined by its sender (the preacher) or bit its recipients (the congregation)? (Page 70)

    Powell's experiments are helpful at this point.  He found that clergy tend to opt for "author intent" when trying to convey the meaning of a text whereas the congregation leans into "message as effect" paradigms for interpretation.  Powell makes the point, the same point I opened this reflection with, that author-oriented hermeneutics (historical criticism) is yielding to more reader-oriented hermeneutics (narrative criticism, literary criticism, postmodern readings, cultural hermeneutics) in the seminary context.  Powell's respondents seem to have been homiletically formed in the author-oriented stream given their responses in his study.  The laity, Powell points out, tends to operate from a reader-oriented perspective which is more consistent with the emerging contours of postmodern homiletical theory.  What Powell wants to do is encourage an investment in reader-oriented exegetical methods to help bridge the gap between pulpit and pew.  He sees a failure in historical-criticism to adequately connect with the life of the laity (see page 102).  Powell is advocating a utilization of author-oriented hermeneutics, the supposed preference for the congregation, as a way in which the gap can be bridged between pulpit and pew.  

            Casting the Scriptures - The gap, as Powell sees it,  is widened by the empathy choices employed by preachers, that is who we/they relate to in a given biblical text, versus who the congregation may choose to empathize with in that same text.  These empathy choices are directly connected to the ways in which preachers have been taught to interpret texts.  If preachers have the authority and professional skills to interpret for the laity then it is quite natural that the preacher would identify with the one in the text who is teaching or "making the point."  Preachers tend to identify idealistically to the protagonist/hero in a given story whereas the laity tend to realistically identify with the antagonist (i.e. Pharisees) or observers (i.e. disciples) in the same story.  Powell's conversation around realistic and idealistic empathy is quite helpful particularly in light of his experiment around Mark 7:1-8 (see page 40-55).  Space is lacking to adequately do justice to all the nuances uncovered by this experiment.  What we can say is that how we as preachers and how a congregation locate themselves in a given text significantly impacts meaning and interpretation. To bridge the gap, Powell suggests the preacher "cast the scriptures."  This reminded me of an exercise one of my professors would employ upon the opening of every class.  She would read a text aloud and ask us to reflect and converse around two questions: "Where are you in this text? Where is God in this text?"  This was a practice in casting the scriptures.       

            Powell recommends the preacher to:

"Begin sermon preparation by employing a reading strategy I call casting the scriptures...First read the biblical story, ask yourself what the story means, and then consciously identify the character with whom you have empathized.  If this story were being performed on the stage of your life (so to speak), this is the character you would most naturally seek to play: this is the role with which you tend to identify. Why?" (Page 60)

Powell does not want us to end there.  He encourages the trying on of new roles, maybe even ones we could not have imagined playing.  He is advocating for the expansion of meaning, to discern polyvalence, and to catch a glimpse of what those in our congregation may hear in the reading of this text.  What is more, we catch a glimpse of the role they, that is the laity, may identify with in the proclamation event.           

Implementation and Praxis

By way of implementation and praxis, two things come to mind relative to my above mentioned reflections.  First, utilizing techniques that seek to evoke an affect from the congregation is an encouragement I would like to heed.  Not that I want to do away with historical critical methods of exegesis but how can these author-oriented methods be in service to reader-oriented methods?  If the congregation is operating from this hermeneutic, then would it not be a faithful move to meet them where they are and try to read and hear as they read and hear?  This practice can also serve to de-professionalize the clergy which is characteristic of a missional framework for the 21^st Century church in North America. The missional framework advocates for communal and egalitarian practices of the church which deconstruct the myth of religious expert. It seems to me that this practice of sermon preparation and delivery aid in that endeavor.

Second, I would like to establish space where feedback opportunities for both pre and post sermon conversations could flourish.  Specifically, I would like to be in a better "dialogue" with the congregation in terms of how they cast themselves in given texts.  This practice would be invaluable for hearing the text in the context of the church and the world.  Indeed the prospect of allowing multiple voices to speak in a polyphonic way can be frightening to the one who has come to believe that they are the only one who can faithfully deliver God's Word in a particular time and place.  Again, the professional paradigm has implicitly and explicitly led to this belief.  An exercise such as this one can further deconstruct that paradigm and give space for the Holy Spirit to speak and act through God's people, even the Church!

1. The "model minority" is a patronizing term. Model in who's eyes? Who would've thought that even civil compliance and good behavior could be subtly infused with racialization? Rewards for good behavior is a patronizing form of control...
2. The perception of being coy, or demure - this asian fetish thing. Sure our women are beautiful but can we just be ourselves w/o reverting to this perception?
3. Be proud of your heritage damnit. It's a double-sided coin. While we need to get out of the ghettoization of our ethnic communities to see a larger "America", at the same time we can't ever forget where we came from. Nor can we ever look down on our less-than-American ancestors.
4. We will work for the man but never be the man. Glass-ceilings are tough things to break through and very subtle, systemic things...
5. It's an uphill battle, folks. Asians in society at times feel the need to lose our "asian-ness" in order to make it. It's almost a reverse "white-fetish" where we hope we won't get noticed for the fact that we are asian, but we can blend right into white society with perfect intonation, no accent, dressing the right way. This just makes me cry. My black brothers educated me on a term used in black circles: "The Bourgeoisie" - when a person of color completely assimilates into white society and never looks back. It's a derogatory term for someone who refuses to identify with the color of their skin or their ethnic heritage. The bourgeoisie think they're better than the rest of us.

I feel sad. Sad that making it in this world so often means losing a bit of myself. Sad that we are playing by another man's rules that benefits his own. Sad that at the starting gate I am placed a few steps behind. I'm not asking for pity, because I will work my ass off to get to the same place as others. But I just want to tell my story, and that of countless others.

From the advent of the industrial age North Alabama was a source for cheap labor. Our vast river systems made it possible for various companies to set up shop here, hire from our large labor force and produces products that could be sold at a profit. The Tennessee River remains a main thoroughfare taking barge loads of product to the Gulf of Mexico.

Rich soil and a preferable climate made it possible for bumper crops of cotton to be produced in the region. My Great Grandfather Fuller received several hundred acres in a land grant as he journeyed south to cultivate an area in Western Morgan County. Many of the native Alabamians first came here through similar means.

July 3^rd 1941 The War Department announced that a site on the southwestern edge of Huntsville, Alabama, had been selected as the location for a new chemical munitions manufacturing and storage plant. That was the birthing of what eventually became Red Stone Arsenal. The military brought some of its best minds to North Alabama forever changing the cultural landscape of the Tennessee Valley. In the 1960's the Marshal Space Flight Center was also established in Huntsville to help in fulfilling President Kennedy's vision to put an American on the moon by the end of the decade.

So you might compare our culture to a dish of southern friend chicken topped with béarnaise sauce. Not what you would expect, but interesting none the less.

Where does that leave the mission minded Christian? How are we to engage this culture? It seems that the Tennessee Valley is responsive to what Adrian Rogers called, "Doctrine Aflame". Many of our native Alabamians were raised on an Appalachian style of preaching that was infused with passion and delivered with the utmost sincerity. Our beloved transplants bring a scientific mindset that is accustomed to thinking deeply and logically on various issues. The two marry to produce what I believe is an effective form of ministry in the Tennessee Valley region. This is where D.A. Carson meets Johnny Hunt - Billy Graham meets Francis Schaeffer. The effective ministry that will reach the cross section of Tennessee Valley culture must have a zeal that is in accordance with knowledge.

Tomorrow morning I'll be leaving Austria and returning to Cyprus. It's also the end of my three month sabbatical. My goals for the sabbatical were primarily rest, renewal, and refocusing the vision of the Cyprus ministry on disciple-making. Unfortunately, the time wasn't as restful as I'd hoped, and when I came to Austria I thought this would be the final straw leaving me thoroughly exhausted. I wondered why I ever scheduled the trip for this time.

But God knew what I needed, and I'm leaving tomorrow feeling as if all three goals have been met. In spite of being busy the whole time, I feel rested. Meeting with so many believers and living with the hospitality of my West African hosts has refreshed me spiritually. And as we've traveled and encouraged those who are fulfilling Great Commission throughout Austria, our conversations have helped me sharpen the focus for Nicosia. No doubt the work of my faithful prayer team has also helped bring all this about. Thank you!

In addition to encouraging and coaching the disciple-making process in Austria, I'll be returning to Cyprus to help asylum seekers start a chapter of Fellowship of Christian Refugees.

The meetings are over and I'm looking forward to a relaxing evening. We just returned from playing football in the park with some Turkish teenagers and watched Barak Obama in Berlin.  He's hugely popular in Europe.

Missional church is a community of God’s people that defines itself, and organizes its life around, its real purpose of being an agent of God’s mission to the world. In other words, the church’s true and authentic organizing principle is mission. When the church is in mission, it is the true church. The church itself is not only a product of that mission but is obligated and destined to extend it by whatever means possible. The mission of God flows directly through every believer and every community of faith that adheres to Jesus. To obstruct this is to block God’s purposes in and through his people. [82]

In a recent addition of Audio Ur, Alan discusses a new term, missional-incarnational, that gives an even better description of what the church should be doing in our western culture.

I want to suggest (as I did in The Forgotten Ways) that we combine the term ‘missional’ with the associated term ‘incarnational’ to come up with the term missional-incarnational. Its clunky I know, but the combination of these two words I believe captures far more completely a sense of the Church’s deepest theology and missionary calling in the world. It is laden with profound theological, and therefore missiological, meanings. If ‘missional’ carries the sense of being ’sent’, then ‘incarnational’ gives definition to the nature of that ’sentness.’ If ‘missional’ means being thrust into the world as witnesses to the redemption that is in Jesus, then ‘incarnational’ shows us that we ought to engage the world in the same way that God did in and through the Incarnation of the Word in Jesus the Messiah. We must go into the world to reach people, but we ought to stay and abide in order to communicate the Gospel relationally and meaningfully in any given context. Mission always sets our Agenda and Incarnation must always describe our Way.

See, the pragmatist in me say that reality is that we can mess things up really really bad. Maybe totally is too big a term, as 11th hour say, it's humanity that is in trouble, not creation. Humans may become extinct, not creation. So let's ask this question: Can humanity really mess up humanity? Can we wipe out humanity, or would God always keep humanity intact? (OK, until the second coming if you would).

On the other hand, the tradition in me say that God created and cares for humanity (good theist that I am), God will always keep the 7000 that serve God in place (1 Kings 19), God will never again destroy the earth by water (Gen 9).

Sitting in a class yesterday someone used the Missio Dei to say that we should sometimes relax, knowing that God is in any case working in the world, whether we are doing something or not. Now, I have some thoughts on the Missio Dei, but decided not to take part. I have my doubts whether we can say this, when I read the gospels and Acts it would seem like we are sent to the world, that caring for the world is a task given to the church.

What this illustrates, I think, is the danger of the extreme of the view that God will always keep thing intact (no, my classmate did not take this to the extreme), is passifism. On the other hand, I think the extreme of the pragmatist in me might be humanism (I'm not always sure that humanism is a bad thing, but as theologian I'm sure that as a believer there is more in following Jesus than you would find in humanism).

So, help me here: Theologically, would God always keep humanity intact, or can we mess thing up really bad? Is this a journey between the extremes of passifism and humanism? Is humanism the extreme?

Can we truly conceive of the church as an organism instead of an organization?  - (Tony Sundermeier via Bill's blog)

Frankly, no you can't. Because (A) people tend to organize, and even organisms are organized in and of themselves, and (B) implying that organism is a binary opposition to organization would require ignoring chunks of the New Testament.

To me, the whole "organism vs. organization" is a bit of a false dichotomy.  -
(Robbymac's comment at Bill's blog)

Well, Ben Witherington agrees with you Robby. He said basically the same thing in his review of The Shack today.

I agree with your point, but also believe that we need to discover more organic and relational forms of leadership and organizational structures. The positional structure of leadership within the church has not been healthy for the life of the body.

How about organic organization vs. corporate institution?  -
(My response at Bill's blog)

This is the beagle I've been following for the last couple of days...

Ben's thoughts...

And while no one would deny it’s very much about living and loving relationships, the truth of the matter is that it is a false dichotomy to separate Jesus from religion, or for that matter organism from organization.

Without structure, order and organization it could not ever be even a viable living thing. This is in fact true of all organisms, and that includes the church, if one wants to call it an organism. That doesn’t mean that human beings aren’t capable of over-institutionalzing things, or ossifying some of the structures, but to pit organism over against organization, with one seen as living and the other dead, one God-given, and the other man-made is absolutely a false dichotomy when it comes to the church.

More here.

John Frye...

I am not ready to say there is no place for Christian institutions...I believe the church is to be relationally driven, i.e., relationships with God, with one another, with those needing faith, and with creation.

More here.

Alan Hirsch...

Structures are needed, but they must be simple, reproducible and internal rather than external. Every living thing is made up of structure and systems.

For me the question is about the right kind of living structure, or medium, appropriate to the message of the apostolic church. And this will look significantly different to what we have come to know as the top-down, institutional/governance form of church—which is by far and away the predominant structural mode of the church in the West.

In other words we need to move away from institutional forms of organization and recover a movement ethos if we are going to become truly missional.

More here.

Reggie McNeal...

The church is the bride of Christ. Its union with him is designed for reproduction, the growth of the kingdom. Jesus did not teach his disciples to pray, “Thy church come.” The kingdom is the destination. In its institutional existence the church abandoned its real identity and reason for existence.

We do not need to be mistaken about this: if the church refuses its missional assignment, God will do it another way...God is pulling end runs around the institutional North American church to get to people in the streets. God is still inviting us to join him on mission, but it is the invitation to be part of a movement, not a religious club.”

(via Len Hjalmarsen)

Reggie McNeal...

The church is not the destination, but it is a connector... to get people where they really want to go - which is 'life'. That's what Jesus came to give us. He didn't say he came to give us 'church'... but LIFE. The destination is the kingdom, because that's where life is; that's where the king is.

(via Dan Horwedel)

From the Tangible Kingdom...

Church gatherings were never the intended goal; they were the natural result of people finding others who were living their alternative Kingdom story.  The goal of our missional life is not to grow churches.  The goal of church is to grow missionaries.  The goal of the gospel is not to get people to church.  The result of the gospel is that people will find each other and gather because of the deep meaning of a common experience.

This is why we encourage church planters not to start the church by launching a church service.  Instead, we advocate that they launch people and add the gatherings as needed.  When people are bent on mission first, the gathering takes on different purposes.  We have found that when the primary values are outward mission and incarnational life, the gathering becomes more about connecting people, corporate storytelling, vision casting, and celebration.

~

These are some thoughts I want to keep in mind as I re-read Reimagining Church, which has a strong emphasis on the organic nature of church.

We pause here with the "emerging then, emering now" series to respond to a friend’s comment on Barton Stone and his intersection with Emergent/emerging church sensibilities.

Here is the section of Jomato’s comment that I interact with:

now if i may offer an observation on your post: it appears that barton w. stone would stand out in stark contrast to much of what passes as postmodern christianity—emergent or otherwise. he was a preacher with strong convictions and clear doctrinal standards. these are admirable qualities which i hope more post-everythings learn to appreciate and emulate.

I have a difficult time seeing the stark contrast that Jomato bespeaks of. If anything, Stone seems to have been at odds with what I would call “modern Christianity.” Henceforth Stone had serious hang-ups with Calvinism, the control systems of clerical hierarchies, and long-held theological assumptions. And Stone displayed an epistemology that seemed starkly humble to that of Cambell’s.

Stone’s practice of theological questioning (as opposed to an unflinching dogmatism) is most clearly seen in his problems with his Presbyterian heritage, especially the concepts of the Trinity, Calvinism, and limited atonement. I could offer numerous other examples that would call into question the supposed “strong convictions and clear doctrinal standards” of Stone (See Newell Williams’ spiritual biography of Stone for more). Stone went through several stages of theological liminality and never declared himself to have arrived. Instead, he said things like the following:

“There is still light to break forth” (in regard to the Scriptures).[1]

Believing mankind to be fallible creatures, we therefore feel a spirit of toleration, and union for all those Christians, who…walk humbly in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord Jesus Christ, and who live by faith in his name, though they hold opinions contrary to ours.[2]

It would do us good to hear the above words of Stone in regards to the Emergent/emerging rift that has unsettled many folks on both sides of the "fence," myself included.

To assume that emergent folks do not have doctrinal standards is to deny the doctrinal standard of questioning faulty doctrines. This is what some call the prophetic hermeneutic of Jesus that many emergent folk embody (see Caputo's What Would Jesus Deconstruct?). In other words, many emergent folks are committed to the doctrine of uprooting theologically dead doctrine to make space for emerging theological trees to spring up. This is what Jesus did in his interaction with the religious conservatives of his day. He laid the axe at the roots of fruitless trees.

Did Barton Warren Stone ever put forth a static, constrictive, and reductionistic “statement of faith” void of respect to any context? My research did not come across any such document. Unfortunately, modern Christianity has taught its adherents only to find solace in once-and-for-all pronouncements of the Christian faith that align precisely with the safe and stale documents from the past 4-500 years. We have come to equate clear doctrinal standards with, for example, just one particular view of the atonement rather than an embodiment of the way of Christ that moves beyond immobile print. Clear doctrinal standards are not merely the stuff of ink and paper and statements of faith, but of a way of living.

It is this “way of life” that Stone truly exemplified. His good treatment of and work toward freeing his own slaves (as well as supporting the nation of Liberia) probably smacked of a “social gospel,” another mark against the Emergent folks.

I could go on here, but I think the point is made. Stone was a post-Calvinist, a post-Presby (would he have been Presbymergent were he around today?), post-lots-of-things. He emerged from a broken system and pioneered a way forward for believers in his day. Emergent or not, it's this picture of Stone that is worth emulating.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] D. Newell Williams, Barton Stone: A Spiritual Autobiography (St. Louis: Chalice, 2000), 155.

[2] Ibid, 154.

Originally uploaded by cyprusdugan

Our first appointment today was at the Austrian Bible Society. In addition to providing Bibles in over 500 languages, they have a small museum that includes one of 28 existing Gutenberg Bibles. They provided us with 50 free copies of a small booklet called 'I am She,' which is a book of Bible verses related to God's plan and love for women. We'll give this to the domestic workers, students, and refugees at the Nicosia International Church as a gift from the Austrian Bible Society.

The director has also promised to continue to provide us with resources and help facilitate further cooperation with the Cyprus Bible Society.

In the afternoon I led a Bible study tracing God's work of scattering his people through the world.  More on that later.

Can you imagine encountering such a creature? At the sight of Legion most of us would run the other way or, perhaps some, in a rush of adrenaline, would find the closest weapon and vanquish this evil with our gamer passion and skill. But remember, nothing could hold this thing; the strength of two thousand men. Enter Jesus, the demon-slayer. Well, not exactly.

Here are a few lessons I learned from this story in Mark 5:

• The Masculinity of Jesus: Jesus was radical but not because he was Van Helsing--vanquishing only evil and preserving good. Jesus conquered evil through counter-cultural redemption. In an age of emasculated, Fight Club, Ultimate Fighting voyerism, men do well to learn from the actions of Jesus. His masculinity was shaped, not by violent outbursts or the destruction of weird and wicked foes, but by mercy and redemption. He encountered the evil and suffering of this world with otherworldly wisdom and bold compassion. Is your Jesus this kind of manly?
• The Cultural Wisdom of Jesus: Jesus did not immediately banish the demons from the countryside. Why? Was he just a softy, caving into the pleading of demons? Not at all. Instead of just glorifying his power over the demonic, Jesus also glorified his wisdom. He sent them to the pigs. Unclean spirits to to unclean animals. In doing this Jesus passed cultural judgment on evil, while preserving the good creature he had made. Contrary to Jewish practice, Jesus did not exile the man but only the demon. As pastors and disciples we do well to learn from Jesus' cultural savvy, exegeting evil in our culture and banishing it in cultural stereo, but discerning that which can and should be redeemed and restoring that which is broken. Is your Jesus that wise?
• The Sensitivity of Jesus: Not only did Jesus restore and renew his mind and heart, but he also clothed the man. Jesus also addressed his social needs. Instead of bringing the former demoniac with him on the preaching tour, Jesus sent him home, to his friends, where he could celebrate and enjoy social restoration and the love and acceptance of his family. Jesus was preaching and living the whole gospel in the whole culture. Is your Jesus that holistic, that compassionate?
• The Mission of Jesus: Instead of passing judgment on the poor nameless demon-possessed, Jesus showed him mercy. The demon-possessed man wasn't simply an innocent host for misery-hungry demons. He was a sinner, unclean on account of breaking Jewish law, but more importantly, under judgment for his personal sin. Jesus did not write him off, culturally or personally, but had mercy on him. How? He restored his mind, gave him some clothes, renewing him spiritually and materially. Not only that, Jesus gave him a new purpose. Instead of crying out in pain day and night, the former demoniac began to preach in cities concerning the mercy and person of Jesus, to extol the Lordship of Christ. Jesus made a demon-possessed man a missional disciple. Is your Jesus that powerful, that missional?

'N' has a car but no driver's license, so I did the 7 hours of driving that took us to and back from Kragenfurt near the Austrian border with Slovenia. We were joined by 'I,' an Austrian woman whose husband is being discipled by 'N.' Though it was a long day, not a minute was wasted.

First, we packed the car with as many clothes as we could to deliver to the refugees in Kragenfurt. As we drove we discussed the Bible study 'I' would be leading the next day and the unbelievers who would attend, discipleship as a foundation for church ministry, and the Austrian churches that would be involved in the discipleship training being led by African refugees.

During lunch with African refugees in Kragenfurt, a homeless/jobless Romanian couple came by. Two things amazed me: first, that this European couple was being ministered to by African refugees; and second, that this man had spent years living in Michigan as a UPS driver. The FCR (Fellowship of Christian Refugees) leaders will continue to help this couple, but we were able to spend some time praying for them and sharing the gospel.

We visited a refugee center that burned over a month ago and stopped by the hospital to encourage one of the men injured in the fire (another was killed). 'N' left him with a Bible and the FCR leaders will continue to follow up with this man who used to be a drug dealer.

God is using FCR to facilitate discipleship movements across Austria and Europe. Not only are they ministering to refugees, but they're discipling Austrians and bringing new life to churches. Just as we're seeing in Nicosia, refugees and international students are changing the face of European Christianity.

God is moving across Austria!

An aside...

Fugazi is the best! I was just listening to The Argument while waiting two and half hours to cross the border back from Tijuana yesterday (another story, another time) and thinking how criminally underrated that album is. It was released back in 2001, but still runs circles around most of what is coming out today -- the track Ex-Spectators is a precursor to bands like Battles and Foals.

And we're back...

Jason and his wife Brooke lead the Ecclesia Collective, along with their intentional community at the Hawthorn House. As our family has gotten to know theirs, their friendship has been a Godsend. Their warmth, generosity and authenticity are a breath of fresh air. Although more is being said these days about the new monasticism movement, for the Evans family this is not about fads or trends. Within and through them, I can see the Kingdom breaking into our world.

I believe that churches and communities will be transformed not so much by the "celebrities" we encounter at conferences and on the big stage but by real people with their feet on the ground, following Jesus around the reality of their everyday lives.

I strongly encourage you to consider supporting their work financially. In doing so, you will support a ministry that impacts not only a local community here in San Diego, but also reaches people around the country (plus, you'll receive their monthly newsletter!). If you're in one of these neighborhoods, drop in and see them during their upcoming Justice Kitchen tour.

Sabbaticals have a lot to do with imagination. Sometimes they arise when your imagination no longer fits within your current role. Other times, they come from a realization that your imagination has run dry. I thought mine came from the former, but I now recognize elements of the latter, too. In either case, it's helpful to identify others who are currently living out of imaginings that have the potential to inspire in the areas of your questions. Recently, I made two such contacts.

The first is The Gig in Kitchener, a community that exists for the sake of a larger community, in this case artists in the K-W area. While I've come across other churches that have an arts focus, they seem to do so largely to create artistic worship services and other programs. In the case of The Gig, the focus is truly on the artists themselves. This means much of the real work happens throughout the week in the theatre space owned by the community where artists are given space to preform while community members volunteer. Sunday worship services are not a big performance but rather a place artists at any place with faith can join with others in exploring Jesus.

Rob, the pastor, generously gave several hours of his time to me in conversation. What was most helpful was the theme of moving forward with our dreams. At times it feels like dreams can only be followed if we have a detailed plan with all our competencies in place and contingencies covered. Rob embodied and encouraged a movement forward in faith even when things aren't so neatly in place.

The second community I've connected with is the 614 Network, specifically the church in Regent Park, Toronto. 614 churches are embedded in under-resourced urban neighbourhoods. Like The Gig, the are communities that exist for a larger community, in this case the people that live in their neighbourhood. This is incarnational ministry at its most obvious: move into the neighbourhood, tie your fate to those you are living with and trust Jesus to do what he does best: bring good news to those who need it.

Having read much and talked to people involved in this kind of ministry, it was helpful to actually walk the streets with Zoe, a leader in the community. Theory quickly becomes real and messy when you see actual locations and meet people. For a suburban guy like me, the life of those in this community is a stretch. It raises pesky but helpful questions for me about how well I could give myself in love in such a context.

It's very helpful to be in conversation with people from both communities. I hope their vivid imaginations rub off on me!

Buildings are not the answer to any church's problems, outreach or otherwise.  Buildings add to the complexity of church ministry because you need people and programs to fill them.  So, before you "build it" hoping "they will come" start some programs right now.  When we dreamed of building a community center, we started the Boys and Girls Club program first in the space we had, with a staff of 2 people.  Having that program established before we built and opened the community center guaranteed us an anchor program, complete with staff.  Currently the program serves about 80 kids a day with a paid staff of 5, plus additional community center staff of 3.  We also use volunteers, but we do not rely on volunteers for critical functions.  Volunteers supplement on-going programs, and relieve staff to focus on essential responsibilities.

Next myth to be busted: "Don't worry, the building will pay for itself."

1. Prayer Prayer must be a conviction that establishes its priority. Before we see movemental Christianity, we will have to be praying, asking God to change us.
2. Intentionality: We will also need to show the intention of being movemental (see the next 8 elements). As of now, I believe our focus is primarily defensive and incremental, not intentional and exponential.
3. Sacrifice: Change will not come without giving something up.
4. Reproducibility: Movements do not occur through large things (big budgets, big plans, big teams). They occur through small units that are readily reproducible.
5. Theological Integrity: Churches wanting to be involved in transformative, movemental Christianity hold firm and passionate positions on biblical views.
6. Incarnation: Movemental Christianity recognizes that the gospel is unchanging, but the expressions and results of the gospel will vary from culture to culture.
7. Empowerment: Movements only occur when the disempowered are given the freedom, and then take up the responsibility, to lead.
8. Charitability: A movement of God cannot be contained in a single movement or theological tradition. Therefore, movemental Christianity requires charity to maintain our firmly held convictions while rejoicing for and speaking well about those with whom we differ but are being greatly blessed by God.
9. Scalability: When God begins to move, and believers allow movement Christianity to begin to grow, structures must be able to rapidly re-size to not stifle such movements.
10. Wholism: Movemental Christianity will practice wholistic ministry much in the way of Jesus.

Read the whole post here.

Just got back from Journey to Mosaic, a 4-day long bus-trip visiting sites of (needing) racial reconciliation in the Northwest. The film "The Color of Fear" started the dialogue on the Seattle - Prescott leg of the journey and right away it plunged us headlong into the question, "Is racism dead?"

So here are some meditations on "The Color of Fear" (and pretty much all of J2M):

• Racism: Dead or very much alive? Kicking and screaming, or holding on to last gasps in a politically correct age?
• White privilege: is it a myth? Something we minorities use as leverage, and when flustered, a card to use to mask reverse racism?
• Systemic racialization - is it a cop-out to blame it on the system? Is racism embedded into the way society and culture works?
• Liberation Theology: Is a "black theology" legit? (Or Latino, for that matter). Why are many "orthodox" seminaries dismissive of liberation theology? In my school it has been placed in the "unorthodox" category. Why? (note: there are very few blacks and Latinos represented @ forementioned school).
• Illegal immigration: Cmon. Do you really think these Mexicans are terrorists? Can somebody say "scapegoat". This is the Japanese "internment" camps happening all over again.
• Victimization Mentality and Reverse Racism: this was not brought up at all @ the J2M - BUT I wanna see the other side. Is all this talk just a victim mentality for minorities and an attempt to scapegoat the white man?

Dang this is a lot to chew on - each point deserving a post of its' own. More to come.

The truth is that most Christians pick a church based off of the latest greatest programs, the praise and worship team that can put on the best show, where I get the most goose bumps, the speaker who can pump me to live my best life now, and a place that won’t require much out of us—the great exchange—I pay my tithe, I help with the building fund, attend two services a week, and if I’m really serious, take my turn as a greeter, and for that, the church better be able to train my children, make me feel spiritual, and teach me how to have a better life. Here is the crazy part of all that, it’s understandable. It’s our default mode isn’t it—watch out for number one—me. Out-source the spiritual development of our kids, teens, and house. My problem isn’t so much that the population is a consumer society on a whole, but that the leaders of today’s modern church continue to feed the beast weekly.

It seems that a lot of today’s churches are led by CEO’s, Managers, and salesmen, whose focus is to keep you coming backing, selling you whatever you want so they can be successful. The truth is, this is a dangerous cycle, that many of us get caught up in, and end up living a spiritual comatose life and end up being just as lost as the people outside our doors that scare us. Though not very spiritual, the movie Fight Club does a great depiction of what the consumer mindset does to a society.

This is not the picture of someone who is living life with Christ. This is not a missional person, A truly missional person is not actively seeking how to become a better richer them, but they are actively seeking to be equipped, trained, and taught as a missionary trough accountability, transparent relationships, sound bibilical teaching, and permission to articulate and actualize the gospel in the lives of their friends who do not know Christ.

In seeking this, and when you find a church that actually focuses on this, that isn’t to say that you won’t find a church with all the bells and whistles, you may, you may not, the point is, are you seeking to be trained to be God’s missionary to where you live, work, and play? This is what the leadership of the church should be supplying. However to do this, it means we must check our ego at the doors, we must learn submission, we must desire an affective life over an affluent life, again, I am not saying you won’t have both, but what is the desire that motivates us – to be more like Jesus or to be a god unto ourselves.

I long for the day when we begin to see a real Ephesians 4 church, verses a church ran like a modern American business selling goods to customers in hopes that they come back to keep us in business and popular.

Ephesians 4:11-16 - ...he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

The truth is, one could turn these 5 verses into about a ten week series, that would, if anything not guarantee church growth, but it would guarantee church depth. In most of our western minded Christians, Jesus is seen as a whore! I know that isn’t very pc, and there isn’t a church that would say that, but if Jesus is the whore I sleep with to get my greatest desires fulfilled – prosperity, health, healing, the perfect mate, the American dream, etc – then pastors are no more than pimps selling Jesus to bring in the crowd so they can make more money. After all Jesus shouldn’t be that hard to sell, who doesn’t want the perfect one-night stand? On more mild terms, Jesus seems to be the road map to desire, rather than being the actual desire, the actual fullness of all truth and of everything good.

The truth is, if Christ is truly our motivation and not self, then we should gather to be equipped and trained and edified and rebuked, and then to be sent out to be ‘fishers-of-men.’

The goal is not to be wealthy, though there is nothing wrong with wealth. The goal is not to be healthy, though we need to be. The goal is not to be successful, though there is nothing wrong with that. The goal, is to be more like Jesus every day—period—everything else is secondary. If this is really our goal, then when we are seeking a church or spiritual leadership, we will seek leadership that teaches us to be more like Jesus, love like Jesus, live like Jesus, care like Jesus, and completely and utterly worship Jesus, the God-man who was punished mercilessly so that you and I may be given relentless mercy and be justified before the sight of God the Father…this needs to be our desire, so may our motivation not be self-indulgence, but may we actively seek to be equipped, trained, and taught as a missionary trough accountability, transparent relationships, sound Biblical teaching, and permission to articulate and actualize the gospel in the lives of our friends who do not know Christ...until next month...I love you!