futurewatch

What Does It Mean to Be Missional?

2011-06-02T12:33:00.002-04:00

What does it mean to be missional? This question is one that is increasingly on the minds of pastors and followers of Christ in general. Understood very simply, the emphasis that missional church or missional Christianity highlights an outward focus in our ministries and lives as followers of Jesus. We don’t follow Jesus out of the world but into the world. That shift alone, from in to out creates some difficulty for many people. But understanding the nature of the following into the world is where the real heart of the missional shift lies.
Among the strands of the tangled web of reasons why churches may hesitate or fail to engage missionally is the fact that the concept of missional engagement is not, presently, clearly understood apart from some very traditional understandings of the word “mission” as used in evangelical circles. The word mission, from which the concept of missional emerges, has a limited range of meanings in the life of the church. Wright (2006) has noted that the root of the word mission means “to send,” which for many people is the whole of what mission or any variation of the word means. People are sent by the church into the world both near and far (though primarily far) for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel. In the context of the Evangelical Congregational Church, the nature of the sending that is done is for the purpose of evangelism.
The problem is made more complex because evangelism, like mission, has a narrow expression in the context of many evangelical churches. The narrow expression of evangelism is the verbal proclamation of the gospel with the intention of converting an individual to faith in Jesus Christ. But there is a growing consensus among missional thinkers and a suspicion among some followers of Jesus that while evangelism as simple verbal proclamation is important and valuable, it is an insufficient expression of the mission of God.
Among those who hold that evangelism is a sufficient expression of the mission of God there is little argument that evangelism can and should have a component other than verbal proclamation. Therefore practices like feeding the hungry, building schools and hospitals, liberating the oppressed or serving one’s neighbors and countless other acts of service are simply evangelism with more depth and the new word for this is missional. However, this broadening of the understanding of the nature of evangelism still places verbal proclamation and individual decision to become a Christian as the only non-negotiable and truly significant component of the gospel and mission. To state it in other terms, all activity other than verbal proclamation only serves to enable more effective verbal proclamation.
But if what was just described is not missional what then is missional? Christopher Wright defines missional as “…our committed participation as God’s people, at God’s invitation and command, in God’s own mission within the history of God’s world for the redemption of God’s creation”(Wright, 2006, p. 23). This definition includes evangelism but is so much bigger than simply getting people saved to go to heaven. Missional is about the participation with God in the redeeming of the entire creation! If Wright is correct, then all of our activity as followers of Jesus has significance for the ushering in of the kingdom of God.
Walter Raushenbusch (1991) said it well, "No man is a follower of Jesus in the full sense who has not through him entered into the same life with God. But on the other hand no man shares his life with God whose religion does not flow out, naturally and without effort, into all relations of his life and reconstructs everything that it touches. Whoever uncouples the religious and the social life has not understood Jesus" (p. 48).

What say you?

In the next post we will talk about missional and its relation to what it means to be the church.

Rauschenbusch, W. (1991). Christianity and the Social Crisis. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Wright, C. (2006). The mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s grand narrative. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Creation War (again-see May, 2011)

2011-06-02T12:18:00.002-04:00

See the latest on the creation debate at http://christianitytoday.imirus.com/Mpowered/book/vchto11/i6/p2. Are evangelical scientists and biblical scholars going too far afield? How figurative can we see Adam and Eve in light of, say, Romans 5:12-19? What should we be teaching our children in light of these further discoveries and as they face evolution in the public schools? Should we now be more open to it? How does this affect teaching creation in your church? Or, should we keep this kind of thinking among ourselves? Can the church discuss this in a civil manner?

Leaving the Church (Building)

2011-05-17T12:22:00.000-04:00

I am sometimes confronted with cloistered nature of the typical evangelical church. Three examples: As pastor of church plant required to set up every Sunday, we sometimes run short of necessary supplies. Not too long ago I ran to Home Depot at about 9:30 AM on a Sunday morning for some duct tape. Never having been to Home Depot on a Sunday morning, I was at first simply glad they were open and didn’t expect much in the way of a crowd. I was astonished to find a packed parking lot. An employee I know casually later confirmed, “Yeah, Sunday is usually our busiest morning.” When I mentioned this to a friend at church a week later, she puzzled over it a moment and then replied, “It’s hard to comprehend that the rest of the world just goes on doing its thing without us on Sundays.”

A single mom visited on Sunday. From the parking lot of the school where we meet, I could hit her house with a softball and a good line-drive. In conversation she mentioned that she never knew a church was meeting in the school until she ran into our street-corner Night in the Light table on Halloween night. (It took her 6 months to muster the courage to actually visit.) We’ve been in this location for 5 years. We put out portable signs each week. We’ve delivered invites door-to-door at least a half-dozen times. But our presence was a mystery to a young lady for 260 Sundays until we invaded her territory.

In the fall of 2010, our middle & high school youth group ventured out to find and then feed some of the homeless people who live in semi-hidden homeless camps around the city. It was obvious the kids were afraid when I discovered some brought pepper spray and they began asking questions about knife attacks. Camps were found and people were fed. We all survived. When we returned home to debrief, the kids were ecstatic and begged to do it again. (We’ve continued with monthly trips to the camps.) That evening one kid told his parents, “That’s the first time I ever felt like I was doing something Jesus would do.” Good news… except this particular child has been part of church since diaper days and it took this long for his real-life WWJD moment.

This isn’t a new predicament for many church leaders. We know, I think, that God modeled an incarnational ministry model. We want to make a kingdom-difference in our communities. But somehow mobilizing our churches to actually invade the neighborhood extends as far as the seven people on the Outreach Team. Strategically, I’ve never found a better approach than to tell stories of other churches and then hope it’s contagious. And, in truth, I think the desire to make a local impact is contagious. But putting a working strategy into place has been much more difficult.

That’s changed. At the recent Wesley Forum held at the Evangelical Theological Seminary, I heard Drew Williams reveal how ‘mission-shaped communities’ (MSC) have revolutionized his church (St. Andrews Church Chorleywood, England). Something like 90% of the congregation is engaged in neighborhood-invading projects and ministries. Drew is now repeating the process in Connecticut and freely admits to borrowing the concept from other churches in England. The foundational concept is to organize the entire church round these mission-shaped communities (bigger than a small group, smaller than a congregation). It’s brilliant, I think, and biblical as a bonus.

Simply defined, a mission-shaped community has a defined purpose (say…feeding the homeless), it has a name, clear leadership, and a size-limit (no more than 50). Congregants gravitate to MSCs that align with their particular passions and interests. MSCs meet regularly outside of the church location in order to plan, worship, disciple, etc. If a particular group in an MSC wants to branch out or develops a more specific interest (housing the homeless, for example, in addition to feeding them), a new MSC is formed. In the book you’ll discover that some MSCs meet on their own three Sunday mornings out of four and participate in the larger congregation once per month.

Drew and fellow pastor Mark Stibbe tell the story in the book, Breakout, which is fun reading. Some of the nuts & bolts get lost in the telling so a companion book by Mike Breen, Launching Missional Communities, might be a good follow-up read. However, once you get the story, the concept is pretty easy to understand. I checked and you can’t get Breakout on Amazon so you’ll have to pursue the book through the UK distributor at the following link: http://www.authenticmedia.co.uk/search/product/productPowerSearch.jhtml?keywords=breakout Or, Google ‘Authentic Media UK’ and you can find it.

Frankly, the story and the concept have inspired in me one grand thought: There’s hope.

11 Trends for 2011

2011-05-16T17:38:00.002-04:00

If you’re wondering why you are so confused, check out http://www.outofur.com/archives/2011/01/eleven_trends_f.html for the recent trends for 2011.

Creation War

2011-05-16T17:36:00.004-04:00

About a year ago, Old Testament scholar Dr. Bruce Waltke resigned from Reformed Theological Seminary over comments he made about creation and evolution. Unfortunately for Dr. Waltke, the video statements were lifted out of context, and placed on the internet for everyone to see. He appeared to be supporting evolution. He later released a video defending his more conservative views on Genesis. RTS still let Waltke leave as many of their donors holding very literal interpretations of Genesis 1-2 were upset. For detail on the incident and other links, see http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/june/1.14.html.
In a bit of a twist this year, Answers in Genesis (AiG) founder, Ken Ham (young earth, literal 24hr. day), was disinvited from the Great Homeschool Convention for remarks made about the convention and other speakers at the convention who do not hold his view. Brennan Dean, organizer of the Great Homeschool Convention, said Ham’s remarks were “unnecessary, ungodly and mean-spirited,” in addition to being “divisive at best and defamatory at worst.” One can only imagine the name-calling as Ham’s exact words are not known. For this story and other links (including a defense from AiG) see, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/marchweb-only/kenhamhomeschool.html.
With some losing jobs over their views on creation and others being “disinvited” for name-calling, it seems the “creation war” is on. Much of what Ken Ham has to say (http://www.answersingenesis.org/) is directed toward The BioLogos Forum (http://www.biologos.org/) and in particular, Dr. Peter Enns. They are at opposite ends of the creation spectrum. There are, of course, a number of interpretations of Genesis 1-2 held by the best minds in evangelicalism. In addition to the “young earth/24 hr day” view, we have the “framework,” “day=age,” “day followed by an age,” “analogical,” “functional,” and “theistic-evolution” interpretations. There are, no doubt, other interpretations as well. We must understand that all these views are held by men and women who are born again, hold a high view of inspiration and affirm the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, etc.
If there is a “creation war,” most of the shooting (the loudest voice anyway) comes from Ken Ham and his “intolerant” followers. The AiG blog states, “The position of Answers in Genesis is that when it comes to biblical truth, there is only one truth, and we are called to be intolerant of all other opposing claims to truth. AiG is therefore, at least willing to admit our ‘intolerance’ in this area.” For Mr. Ham, if you are not a “young earth/24 hr. day” interpreter, then you are a “compromiser.” That is, you compromise the authority and truth of Scripture in favor of modern scientific views. The same was probably said to Copernicus and Galileo.
We understand following scientific "fact" is dangerous as scientific fact may change through further testing and discovery. However, science can be a Christian endeavor and checking our interpretations against discoveries in the arena of general revelation is not evil.
Mr. Ham is well within the scope of evangelicalism with his view, but so are the other interpreters, and calling them “compromisers” (or worse) of God’s Word, insisting AiG alone has the truth is truly intolerant. And, because this intolerance may also seem unreasonable, arrogant and unchristian, it will get you “disinvited.”
Although we can admire one’s passion for truth, a more civil approach is in order. For example, in his systematic theology (p. 308), Wayne Grudem closes his chapter on creation with, “Progress will certainly be made if . . . Christians will be more willing to talk to each other without hostility, ad hominem attacks, or highly emotional accusations . . . and without a spirit of condescension or academic pride, . . . for these attitudes are not becoming to the body of Christ.”
If there is a place for tolerance, patience and understanding, it is here. There is much to learn from one another as we dialogue on the Word, treating our brothers and sisters in Christ with the respect they deserve. Don’t let this attitude of intolerance over the doctrine of creation infect your church. This is not a reason for division in the family.

Video Church--Again

2008-08-19T10:15:00.004-04:00

A recent article in Slate, "The Chick-fil-A Church," highlights the growth of "video venues" among churches. They "estimate 2,000 to 2,500 U.S. congregations now operate multiple campuses." Leadership Network "says there will be 30,000 of them within a few years." LifeChurch.tv has churches in six states and Andy Stanley's North Point (Atlanta) has 16 video venues and is "gunning for a total of 60 by 2010," according to Slate. One North Point site (Buckhead) has a $250,000 HD system. Even Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, which has resisted this in the past, has three of ten planned sites now open.
The article also mentions how much easier this is than the typical church planting. "Church planting, as it is known, can be arduous and time-consuming, and there's no guarantee it will reproduce the home church's success."
The article can be found at slate.com/id/2197166/. Note some of the responses to the article, especially from the unchurched. Also see wsj.com/article/SB121331198629268975.html for an article in the Wall Street Journal for how this is helping overseas mission outreach.

What's your response? Is this exciting or frightening? Is this now the new way of leading hundreds of thousands to Christ? Are mega-churches going to become "gigachurches?"

More to the point, in light of the above, what are your thoughts on the EC goal of planting seven churches in the next five years? On target? Antiquated? Needs revision? More aggressive? Video?
Also, what if "Mr. Purpose Diven Life" dropped a video venue on your block?

Updating Sin

2008-03-12T12:12:00.002-04:00

According to the Associated Press, the Roman Catholic Church has recently updated its 'list of sins' (http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-vatican-sins,0,3514069.story). A careful reading of the Vatican's position, however, indicates that there's nothing new when it comes to a definition of 'sin' itself. Any change results from the necessity of the Church having to address contemporary problems and issues. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, believes it is now necessary to address issues such as genetic manipulation, mind-altering drugs, the imbalance between rich and poor, and environmental concerns. Monsignor Girotti, a Vatican spokesman, suggests the current emphasis '...has a weight, a resonance, that's especially social, rather than individual.'
In light of the Future Watch Group's intention to track trends in mass & church culture, this has me wondering...
- Has the evangelical marriage with the Republican party caused us to ignore the poor? A dialogue with a prominent African-American Christian leader provided me some insight concerning the tendency of African-Americans to support the Democratic party. In short, the policies of the Republican party do not help the poor. My own opinion: This is more than perception. Much of mainstream evangelical practice borders on health & wealth platitudes. So why is this a Future Watch concern? It is my observation that younger generations of evangelicals are increasingly less passionate about addressing the sins of our fathers (homosexual marriage, for example) and are more fired-up about issues such as social justice and environmental concerns. Admittedly, this is purely anecdotal and not the result of any formal survey of attitudes. However, I know of one group of teens that has stopped attending a prominent church because the church spent more on hiding exterior speakers in fake rocks than in helping the poor. (Granted, a little hypocrisy is present since the same group shops at a mall that does the same thing...but thankfully, the teens still expect more from church.) But, given the weight of biblical concern for the poor, perhaps the younger generation is on to something.
- Is the current discussion concerning "Question #7" about sin, tradition, or holiness? If it's about sin, it would seem to have a pre-determined end: A biblically-defined sinful act does not become 'un-sinful,' does it? If this concerns tradition, it's a different question: 'Time to change our tradition?' If this is about holiness, and I think it is, it becomes a slightly more difficult question. Do standards of 'holiness' change with cultural shifts? For example, having read about the roaring '20s, I understand why the holiness movement frowned on dancing. Dance halls were not nice places... far from it, in fact. Dancing at my high school prom, my wedding, or a friend's anniversary is a world apart. It seems that standards of holiness adjusted. In the context in which I pastor, I find myself having to sometimes explain 'Question #7' to an increasingly stymied church. At a post-Christmas caroling event two years ago, the host had a cooler of beer beside the cooler of Coke. As the men gravitated to the basement to peruse hunting trophies, the host casually handed beer to each guy headed downstairs. In the brief discussion which resulted, about the only comment that resulted from my explanation was, "Wow, I didn't know anyone believed that,' as he sipped his beer. Certainly, a discussion about sexual purity on-line would have generated much more serious, and relevant, concern.
Understand, I'm not suggesting that definitions of biblically-defined sinful behavior can change. Simply, does the application of holiness to life adjust ... particularly if we're asking questions about future trends?
Bud Daneker

I Like My Jesus Not Yours

2007-12-12T13:08:00.000-05:00

It is common now to hear and read that people really like Jesus but not the church, or even , they like Jesus but not Christians. In an interview with Rev. Bill Hybels, Irish rocker Bono says, “I never had any problem with Christ but Christians were always a bit of a problem with me. . . . Christians can be very judgmental. . . . I grew up very suspicious of Christians but determined to know more of Christ.”
This is the same perspective the emerging church is hearing and the need they are trying to meet in our postmodern world. Karen Ward of Church of the Apostles in Seattle says that a poll taken in her area “found that 95 percent of the nonchurched have a favorable view of Jesus . . . . It is the church they dislike.”
Barry Taylor of Sanctuary in Santa Monica says his church “focused on the humanity of Jesus and lost all the categories of church history.” Sanctuary adopted the Jesus of popular culture, not the church. Taylor says, “I needed to stop reading Paul for awhile and start focusing on Jesus.”
One can understand disappointment with Christians as we are often disappointed with ourselves. We can also understand the interest in Jesus. However, there is a problem in letting the culture interpret Jesus for us. The 95 percent of the nonchurched who have a favorable view of Jesus, have a favorable view of their understanding of Jesus. Is their understanding correct? Should we stop reading Paul and focus on Jesus? Who do we think Paul was focusing on?
It is true that the Gospels have their own themes and Jesus was all about the Kingdom entering the world, while Paul was more interested in interpreting the cross and resurrection. But, to see the two as mutually exclusive is to ignore the continuities in New Testament theology and to give a very selective, incomplete, skewed or false understanding of who Jesus is . The apostles were all about interpreting Jesus.
We do have to start where people are but staying there is not discipleship. Building a ministry on an incomplete view of Jesus is not fair to those who find an initial attraction to our Savior.

Ravi on Postmodernism

2007-12-05T11:18:00.000-05:00

Ravi Zacharias recently spoke at the Evangelical School of Theology on the subject of postmodernism. In his address he pointed out the growing "stridency of the willingness to live with the ramifications" of atheism. I've observed this as well. An atheist friend regularly sends links to Youtube videos wanting my response. (Check out this example, if you can handle the regular use of the "f" word: http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=gyILS5RL3M8 .) You're familiar, I'm sure, with the growing number of popular books promoting atheism. What I've discovered in my dialogue with my atheist friends is that logic alone no longer wins debates. Zacharias suggested the Church needs to enter the debate with a 3-pronged approach: 1) We need an apologetic that's not merely heard but also seen. Our faith must be visible. 2) We need an apologetic that's not just argued but also felt. And 3) We need an apologetic that is conscious of the ends as well as the means. It's worth using these 3 criteria to evaluate our/your church's missional agenda.

Oops! I Was Wrong

2007-06-06T15:48:00.001-04:00

It's not often you hear a well known leader suggest that he or she may have been wrong. In a recently published article in Rev. magazine, Sally Morgenthaler suggests such a thing. Sally, as you know, published the influential book, Worship Evangelism, and suggested that worship could reach the unchurched. Following an extensive and painful evaluation of how worship-driven churches have been doing, Sally has had to admit it's just not working. Her candid review of what's happening in churches is a frank admission that we just are not missional. Pollsters for decades have suggested that church attendance hovers around 40% of the population in America. More thorough research suggests that if you actually count occupied seats on Sunday morning, church attendance is at an all-time low: 17.4% (down from 20.4% in 1990). Sally talks honestly about the churched and unchurched cultures and suggests that we should be paying much more attention to what the unchurched are saying about us. For example, rather than getting our britches in a bunch over movies like Saved, maybe we should be paying attention to what's being said about us. Sally's article is well worth reading. It's time we get dead serious about being truly missional... before we just get dead. Read her article at the following link: http://www.willowcreek.com/events/arts/2007/Morgenthaler.pdf

Terms of De-construction

2007-04-17T11:21:00.000-04:00

Part of the cultural divide/idealogical wars involve defining or re-defining terms. Terms become blurred with repeated advocacy efforts. It works both ways with commitment being a larger determinate factor. It is important to recognize when the term no longer connotes what it once did culturally. The MOVEMENT may better recognize the language of the culture and be more agile to adapt to the shifts than the institution. If we aren't willing to fight for the language we must also recognize when the relevance has moved on.
Paul Chesser addresses several current trends in this link: "...For a long time there were names that differentiated groups within Christianity, with Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, and Fundamentalist being a few.Another category of Christian, however, is rapidly losing its traditional identity in our culture: Evangelical..."
http://www.examiner.com/a-651481~Paul_Chesser__Defining_evangelicals_down_and_to_the_Left.html

Emerging Church Defined

2007-03-13T16:12:00.000-04:00

Gibbs and Bolger have written what is being hailed as the best book on the emerging church. The book set out to research and compile a kind of profile of what emerging churches look like and how they manifest in the cultures of which they are a part. Over a five year period Gibbs and Bolger visited and interviewed emerging churches and leaders in the United Kingdom and the United States and came away with a snapshot of this nascent movement that shows the emerging church as more than just a bunch of disgruntled postmoderns bent on rebelling against authority and affirming themselves. This book may be the best book on the emerging church if for no other reason than the thoughtful analysis based on extensive research as opposed to reaction to isolated instances or individuals.
Many of the books and articles I have encountered on the subject of the emerging church have been written either by those within the movement who are reluctant to define the movement and ipso facto turn the concept emerging church into an oxymoron or from critics who have taken issue with the movement because of perceived threats to the faith based on anecdotal evidence. In either case someone on the outside looking in is hard pressed to find a big picture understanding of the movement that enables a thoughtful engaging of the subject as opposed to a reactionary taking of sides. I suppose if one was able to spend a lot of time reading very widely on the subject of the emerging church it would be possible to discern much of what Gibbs and Bolger have discovered. But I suspect that few people have neither the time nor the inclination to wade through such a large volume of literature to accomplish that task. This makes Emerging Churches an invaluable resource for understanding what is happening in these churches.
Interestingly, like many of the books on the subject of emerging churches this one begins with an apologetic for the study of culture. I find this interesting because the apparent necessity of the apologetic belies the voiced commitment of the traditional church to the great commission found in Matthew 28. Of course some might argue and have argued that we could be committed to the great commission without the commitment to understand and enter into a cultural context and that to do so is actually to water down the gospel. But Emerging Churches makes a strong case from the evidence of effectiveness and from the scriptures themselves that believers must follow the example of Jesus who contextualized God the Father in our world. The primary doctrine then that drives the emerging church practice is the Incarnation.
In Chapter one of Emerging Churches in answer to the question “Why Must the Western Church Today Study Culture?” Gibbs and Bolger offer eleven reasons (pgs 16-23). (1) Because of the Incarnation. (2) Because Cultural Understanding Has Always Been Essential to Good Mission Practice. (3) Because Christendom and Modernity Are in Rapid Decline. (4) Because the West Is in the Midst of Huge Cultural Shifts. (5) Because the Church Is in Decline. (6) Because the Majority of Current Church Practices Are Cultural Accommodations to a Society that no longer exists. (7) Because the Primary Mode and Style of Communication in Western Culture Have Changed. (8) Because a New Culture Means That New Organizational Structures Are Required. (9) Because Boomers Are the Last Generation That Is Happy with Modern Churches. (10) Because of the Increasing Appeal of Spirituality Derived from Other Religions. (11) Because Many Christians No Longer Follow the Religion of Their Parents.
While these eleven reasons are elaborated on in the text the truth is that the statements alone are sufficiently self explanatory to elicit discussion and take seriously the question of why it is important to study culture.
In my own ministry context the unwillingness to accept the truth of reason number six (“Because the Majority of Current Church Practices Are Cultural Accommodations to a Society That No Longer Exists”) is perhaps the biggest obstacle to missional ministry. For example in a congregational meeting at which the church was considering the purchase of a new organ I remember one person stating with full assurance that “You cannot worship without an organ.” I could go on. The authors of Emerging Churches have done a great service by arguing that we need to place Jesus at the center of our life as churches and move out from there and into the world we have been sent to and showing examples of churches endeavoring to do so.
After the Culture discussion and a chapter on defining the term Emerging Church with this caveat “…we do well to follow Pete Rollin’s advice to hold loosely our reconstructions, for ‘whatever we put in the void of the divine darkness will end up as a grand conceptual idol if we do not view it with humility.’ Let us now look at what is built after the dismantling process is complete.”(pg. 46) The authors go on to discuss the results of their research into what it is that characterizes the emerging church.
The authors identify nine characteristics of emerging churches these are each discussed in successive chapters. The nine characteristics are (1) Identifying with Jesus. (2) Transforming Secular Space. (3) Living as Community. (4) Welcoming the Stranger. (5) Serving with Generosity. (6) Participating as Producers. (7) Creating as Created Beings (8) Leading as a Body. (9) Merging Ancient and Contemporary Spiritualities.
As I read through this book it struck me on several occasions that one of the most attractive aspects of the emerging church is the attempt to live as consistently as possible the way Jesus invites us to live as his body. These churches take very seriously the person of Jesus and from that flows everything else. In the churches of which I have been a part there seems to be little in the way of a coherent world view. Several years ago I taught a world view class in which we used James Sire’s Naming the Elephant. In Sire’s book he identifies seven basic questions that any worldview must answer (pg.20). The first questions is “What is the prime reality—the really real?” The answer to that first question is critical because from the answer to that question should flow the answer to the other six questions. For the final paper I asked the students, ranging in age from 35-70 years old, to answer the seven questions. Every one of the students answered each of the questions discretely. Not one of the students allowed the answer to the first question to inform the answer to any of the other questions. Perhaps I had not taught them this concept clearly enough but it was a telling exercise in that I saw for the first time the reason for the incoherence of the faith many people profess. In contrast to that is the picture of a group of people looking to not only speak coherently about their faith but to live it as well. Perhaps it is the fact that they are able to articulate a more coherent faith that enables them to live it more consistently.
If you want to get a glimpse of what the emerging church looks like, this is the book.

Gibbs, Eddie; Bolger, Ryan. (2005). Emerging Churches. Grand Rapids: Baker
Sire, James. (2004). Naming the Elephant. Downers Grove: InterVarstiy

Our Cynical Age

2007-02-13T19:51:00.000-05:00

My daughter returned home from college for a visit. She brought with her a letter from her bank. Until recently, this bank had a branch in the college Student Union. Quite convenient. In my daughter's words, "I could get my check at my mailbox, walk 4 steps and deposit it in my bank." Now, according to this letter, the bank is relocating the branch office to the next town over. According to Mapquest, it's 8 and 1/2 miles away.
Now, none of this would normally bother me. They own the bank, they make the call. I would have groaned for my daughter's sake since banking just got a whole lot more complicated for students without transportation. Still, that's life.
Except for the letter. Here is the opening sentence: "In keeping with our dedication to provide you with banking that is easy and convenient...." I read that sentence twice, then finished with my own cynical answer: "...we're moving your bank 8 and 1/2 miles away."
This is why my Cynicism Meter is constantly blinking red. And cynicism is no longer reserved for lawyers, bankers, and used car salesmen. It's infiltrated the church. The 20 & under crowd has grown increasingly cynical about life in the church. Read the Leadership interview with Sarah Cunningham at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2007/cln70212.html

Shifting of Christian Politic??

2006-12-05T14:55:00.000-05:00

After the recent mid-term elections, articles have been written about a possible perceived or hoped for shift in the political views of conservative evangelicals; “A New Faith-Based Agenda” (Newsweek, November 13, 2006, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15566389/site/newsweek/), “Evangelicals vs. the Religious Right” (Newsweek, November 13, 2006, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15566654/site/newsweek/).

Some have suggested evangelicals are shifting from stringent conservative political concerns to more of an interest in social issues: poverty, HIV/AIDS, genocide, human trafficking, forgiveness of debts, compassion for homosexuals, etc. Perhaps evangelicals are beginning to show concern for these “people-issues” and will encourage increase financial giving to these issues. Michael Gerson, in his “A New Faith-Based Agenda” writes the following about this supposed shift:
During my time in the White House, the most intense and urgent evangelical activism I saw did not come on the expected values issues—though abortion and the traditional family weren't ignored—but on genocide, global AIDS and human trafficking. The most common request I received was, "We need to meet with the president on Sudan"—not on gay marriage. This reflects a head-snapping generational change among evangelicals, from leaders like Falwell and Robertson to Rick Warren, focused on fighting poverty and AIDS in Africa, and Gary Haugen, confronting rape and sexual slavery in the developing world. Since leaving government, I've asked young evangelicals on campuses from Wheaton to Harvard who they view as their model of Christian activism. Their answer is nearly unanimous: Bono.

However, in “Scholars Offer Data on Religion's Role in American Life” (Newhouse News Service, November 7, 2006, http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/briggs110706.html), it was found that Christians spend a good amount of money on Christian items, such as clothing, jewelry, etc. Citing a study, it was found that “Nearly half the respondents to the 2005 Baylor Religion Survey reported spending money on religious goods in the past month. Twelve percent reported spending $50 or more, while 22 percent spent less than $25.”

Recently there has been a focus to tap into that source of money. Lately businesses have been focusing upon advertising to Christians with product placement; “Product Placement in the Pews? Microtargeting Meets Megachurches” (Knowledge @ Wharton Network, article 1605, published November 15, 2006, accessed December 4, 2006, http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1605). The article states:
Advertising has begun to seep into churches, and the phenomenon shows no signs of slowing down, say academic, religious and marketing experts. Among the wave of early adopters: the Republican Party, which successfully sold its platform to church-goers in the 2000 and 2004 elections; Hollywood, which discovered the economic power of faith when Mel Gibson's church-marketed film "The Passion of the Christ" became a blockbuster; and publishing, with Rick Warren's best-selling The Purpose-Driven Life, heavily marketed by a Christian publishing house.

There seems to be a conflict. While evangelicals appear to be making a shift in social concerns and are displaying an interest in directing money to people in need, they are at the same time spending an increasing amount of money on material things. These material “things” are frequently labeled “Christian” merely because of the Christian themes associated with them. It’s Christian “stuff.”

So where does that leave the church? Certainly it’s Christ-like and in obedience to scripture to teach and motivate people to be concerned about the poor and sick. But what should be our approach when promoting and purchasing Christian “stuff?” At what point is our consumerism keeping resources from greater, legitimate needs? How much has the American Church gotten caught up into “Christian materialism” while ignoring the plight of needy people worldwide? Are we being hypocritical in ignoring the poor at the expense of our own wants? Is there anything the Church can and should be doing to address this hypocrisy?

Is Vision Casting A Waste Of Time?

2006-11-30T14:22:00.000-05:00

Pastors chiefly rely on inspiration and encouragement to move people to advance the church’s agenda. One of the main ways to do this is vision casting. Vision casting is meant to motivate the church toward a preferable future and one cannot attend a pastor’s conference without someone speaking on vision. Mega-church pastor Andy Stanley, Visioneering, writes, “Vision evokes emotion. There is no such thing as emotionless vision. . . . Vision provides motivation. . . . Vision-driven people are motivated people.” So we cast the vision in hope that the church will catch it, grow and advance the Kingdom of God.
However, Jim Collins in Good to Great, writes, “Doesn’t motivation flow chiefly from a compelling vision? The answer, surprisingly, is, ‘No.’ Not because vision is unimportant, but because expending energy trying to motivate people is largely a waste of time. One of the dominant themes that runs throughout this book is that if you successfully implement its findings, you will not need to spend the energy “motivating” people. If you have the right people on the bus, they will be self-motivated.” For Collins, having the “right people on the bus” means having the right people in the key leadership positions of your organization (see more below, “Small Church”).
Admittedly, Jim Collins is writing for the business community not the church, and we recognize pastors are not CEOs. But where does that leave us? Is vision casting still “largely a waste of time.” Vision doesn’t last precisely because it is based on emotion. Even Andy Stanley has a chapter on how to maintain the vision because he knows vision dissipates.
Maybe the bigger question is why Christians are not self-motivated toward advancing the Kingdom of God through their church?
What has been your experience with vision casting? Is it largely a waste of time? Is there anything better a pastor can do?

Big Screen Church

2006-11-29T15:08:00.000-05:00

A recent church conference focused on the growing number of mega-churches expanding their influence through satellite churches, and we mean satellite. Mega-churches are planting new sites 20 or more miles from their main campus, and via satellite, broadcasting the sermon portion of the service to these off-campus sites. These new sites have many of the advantages of the home mega-church. They have their local pastor, youth minister, music and drama performers, small groups, etc. The Sunday morning worship is all live and in-person on the site, but the sermon is a broadcast on the big screen from the mega-church.
This is not your usual church planting. Mega-churches are not particularly interested in placing these new sites in unchurched areas. For example, Willow Creek Community Church, South Barrington, Illinois placed one of its sites less than half a mile from another evangelical church that is itself 1000 people. However, there are probably several hundred (thousand?) people from that area who travel 20 miles or more to attend the main Willow Creek campus each Sunday. Placing a satellite church there made sense.
Another church, LifeChurch.tv (yes, that is the name) in Oklahoma City has nine different locations around the city and has an off-campus site as far away as Phoenix, Arizona. Through this format it reaches 13,000 people each week in 40 different services. Again, each site has its own pastor/worship leader, praise band etc. with only the sermon broadcast from the main campus.
These are just two examples. Where is this going? What are the implications? Will we all eventually be going to one of three different churches?

Hope For The Small Church?

2006-11-29T15:00:00.000-05:00

A wise elderly pastor once told me, “Small churches are small for a reason.” Now the reasons may be quite varied. For example, I’ve been in the farm country of Iowa, where there may be no more than a hundred people within 10 miles of a church. Also, a church may be in an area that is over-churched, or in a section of a city that is particularly resistant to the Gospel. Or, in many cases there is a lazy/uninspired approach to evangelism mixed with an “us four, no more” closed-minded attitude. Unfortunately, the church people in the last scenario may not think of themselves that way—they are blind to their exclusivity.
The question is, “Is there hope for the small church?” That is, “Is there hope for it to grow, to become an ever increasing force for the Kingdom in its area?” My answer is, no; there is no hope for the small church to become more than it is. But, let me qualify my answer. I’m not writing about the new church plant that may be small at this time but has momentum and energy for evangelism. I’m not referring to the small church that may be fortunate enough to be in a location that is growing and by “dumb luck” (not a theological term) finds itself increasing, too. I’m also aware that the Holy Spirit can do miraculous things, but the Spirit uses us, and too many in the church are not open to the Spirit working in their lives. The sheer number of small churches (plateaued or decreasing) is testimony to their resistance to the Spirit’s promptings. Again, this is not to say the small church is of no use at all, but if it has no mind to grow (anybody remember the great commission?) its usefulness to the kingdom is minimal at best. Unless a small church has a massive Spirit-filled renewal, there is no hope.
But, I believe the small church is small for more practical reasons. Its leadership.
Author Jim Collins in Good to Great (and its follow up monograph for the social sector) examines several companies that have made the jump from being good to being great and the principles/people/culture that got them there. As we cannot take space to review the whole book, I would encourage you to read it and make your own comparisons to the church. I only draw your attention to a couple items that may apply to the small church’s problem, that is, why it stays small.
First, good to great companies have “Level 5” leaders—“ambitious first and foremost for the cause . . . fierce resolve to do whatever it takes to make good on that ambition. . . . (and) a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will.”
Second, “those who build great organizations make sure they have the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the key seats before they figure out where to drive the bus.”
Third is a culture of discipline, “disciplined people who engage in disciplined thought and who take disciplined action.”
Herein lies the problem for the small church. Even if we assume the pastor is a level 5 leader, which may be a great leap of faith, the problem lies with the people on the bus (lay leadership in the church) and a more casual, i.e. undisciplined, approach to church leadership by lay leaders. The average small church has only one person whose job it is to think about the church on a regular basis. Even if we assume the pastor is a Level 5 leader, he may not have the right lay leaders on the bus much less in the right seats. And, even if he does, lay leaders do not have the luxury of putting in the time needed to move the small church toward something greater. The difficulty is compounded when there is resistance to leadership among the congregation.
Large churches on the other hand pay to have the right people in the right seats on the bus. There may be an elder board with oversight, but the paid staff moves the agenda (disciplined culture). And, with larger churches, come more people and volunteers interested in evangelism, discipleship, leadership and a seeker sensitive church philosophy. Any resistance to the direction given by leadership can be largely ignored.
The advantages of a multiple staff in the large church cannot be underestimated. The disadvantages of relying on lay leaders, distracted by their own family/work life, are enormous. The disadvantages are insurmountable if the lay leadership is not the right people in the right seats on the bus. The smaller the church is, the greater the chance of not having enough of the right people. Not everyone has a gift for leadership or evangelism. Small churches are small for a reason.
Now that we are either depressed or angry, and not wishing to contradict everything I have already said, let’s at least try to end on a positive note.
What can we say to the small church? Assuming a measure of openness to the Spirit, what can be done?
1. Start small. Focus on one thing at a time and draw attention to a small victory. Build on it.
2. Invest in leadership training.
3. If the church has been small for a length of time, consider erasing the chalkboard and starting over. How would we look if we were new? If we were a church plant? How do we break out of our church culture (inward focused, prideful, etc.) and meet the postmodern culture around us?
4. Think larger in the sense of merger. If three or four small churches in an area are supporting full and/or part-time staff, what might they do together? Co-Pastors? Leadership Team?
5. Collins, Good to Great, would add, “Retain unwavering faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, and at the same time have the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they may be.”
6. Realize that it is the work of ministry that is meaningful, not the size of the church; and . . .
What might you add? Do you even agree with the assessment or conclusions above?

Twenty Somethings Do Not Always Return

2006-11-19T22:26:00.000-05:00

Barna research studies the spiritual commitment of twentysomethings as they encounter the clutter of life. These are some of the main points:

... despite strong levels of spiritual activity during the teen years, most twentysomethings disengage from active participation in the Christian faith during their young adult years – and often beyond that. In total, six out of ten twentysomethings were involved in a church during their teen years, but have failed to translate that into active spirituality during their early adulthood...

...the most potent data regarding disengagement is that a majority of twentysomethings – 61% of today’s young adults – had been churched at one point during their teen years but they are now spiritually disengaged (i.e., not actively attending church, reading the Bible, or praying). Only one-fifth of twentysomethings (20%) have maintained a level of spiritual activity consistent with their high school experiences. Another one-fifth of teens (19%) were never significantly reached by a Christian community of faith during their teens and have remained disconnected from the Christian faith...

...Even the traditional impulse of parenthood – when people’s desire to supply spiritual guidance for their children pulls them back to church – is weakening. The new research pointed out that just one-third of twentysomethings who are parents regularly take their children to church, compared with two-fifths of parents in their thirties and half of parents who are 40-years-old or more.

...David Kinnaman, the director of the research, pointed out, “There is considerable debate about whether the disengagement of twentysomethings is a lifestage issue ... – or whether it is unique to this generation...this debate misses the point, which is that the current state of ministry to twentysomethings is woefully inadequate to address the spiritual needs of millions of young adults. These individuals are making significant life choices...while churches wait... for them to return after college or when the kids come... ”

...Loyalty to congregations is one of the casualties of young adulthood: twentysomethings were nearly 70% more likely than older adults to strongly assert that if they “cannot find a local church that will help them become more like Christ, then they will find people and groups that will, and connect with them instead of a local church.” They are also significantly less likely to believe that “a person’s faith in God is meant to be developed by involvement in a local church.”

"....There are certainly effective youth ministries across the country, but the levels of disengagement among twentysomethings suggest that youth ministry fails too often at discipleship and faith formation. A new standard for viable youth ministry should be – not the number of attenders, the sophistication of the events, or the ‘cool’ factor of the youth group – but whether teens have the commitment, passion and resources to pursue Christ intentionally and whole-heartedly after they leave the youth ministry nest.”

Source: The Barna Group, LTD 2006

Triumph & Tragedy in Evangelism

2006-10-27T14:42:00.000-04:00

It’s now well known that evangelism is a process. Individuals are at various stages in the journey towards salvation in Jesus Christ…and even in the journey with him as new creations. However, this knowledge hasn’t yet made much of an impact in the way we plan for the process of evangelism. For the most part, any evangelism planning we do is done under the assumption that one event (or one style of event) will suffice. In doing so, we resemble a homeowner trying to paint his whole house, inside and out, with a two-inch sash brush. While he will be thoroughly satisfied with the results when he paints the windows and wood trim, he’ll grow tired and frustrated—and even do a poor job—trying to paint the exterior siding and interior walls with such a brush. Our world now requires us to be very deliberate about tailoring our evangelistic efforts towards people who are at vastly different stages in their spiritual lives.
An example: Along with several churches, we recently participated in a local evangelistic event at which more than 1,000 people attended. In the follow-up, I noticed at least 3 typical responses to the event. Christians loved it. They were thrilled by the opportunity to take friends & family to a quality event that would both entertain and provide a Gospel presentation. People I would label “active seekers” (those who attend church but have never made the life-altering decision to follow Jesus Christ) were equally positive. In fact, this event seemed to be tailor-made for this group of people. Many of them became followers of Jesus Christ on this night. In fact, in the church I pastor, one entire family joined the Kingdom on this night. As my British friend would say, “The night was ‘spot on.’”
There’s a third group, however, left less than enchanted. There are a small handful of people attending our church who have zero church background. None. One 20-something lady was never in a church before attending with a friend…with great fear and trepidation I might add. Several other people took friends with a similar vacuum in church experience. My conversations with these people have been significantly less warm. While they knew the event was sponsored by Christian churches, and that the performer planned to talk about Jesus Christ, they were unprepared for both the length of the presentation and the “arm-twisting” (her word) they felt. In fact, the reaction was universal distaste from this group: each, in one way or another, said they felt cheated, wanted to leave, and refused to “fill out that stupid card.” Ugh. I apologized.
Now, negative feelings should never cause us to back away from evangelism. This particular event was a great success for those familiar with the church and its ways. However, if we’re going to target people who are much farther away from the Church (not necessarily from Jesus!), I’m convinced our approach will have to be different. If we’re going to plan our evangelism with the process in mind, it’s going to require us to be much more deliberate about what (or whom) we’re trying to reach. Where in the process are we attempting to “land” with this event? Further, it probably isn’t safe for us to guess…I would have guessed wrong on this one! We’ll have to find a way to ask.

Revolution or Reformation?

2006-10-11T16:47:00.000-04:00

Mark Twain in his short story, Was It Heaven or Was It Hell, exposes a well kept secret about many Christians and consequently many churches. That secret is that we have allowed a pious selfishness to substitute for a deep a connectedness to the heart of a God who seems less concerned about propriety and far more concerned about communicating his profound love for us. The story in its entirety is well worth the time to read through but this following excerpt makes the implicit explicit. Hannah and Hester are sisters caring for a niece who is very ill and her young daughter who has told a lie. This excerpt is an exchange between the doctor and the sisters after the sisters forced the little girl to confess to the mother.
"ALL lies are sinful," said Hannah, setting her lips together like a vise; "all lies are forbidden."
The Only Christian fidgeted impatiently in his chair. He went to attack this proposition, but he did not quite know how or where to begin. Finally he made a venture: "Hester, wouldn't you tell a lie to shield a person from an undeserved injury or shame?"
"No."
"Not even a friend?"
"No."
"Not even your dearest friend?"
"No. I would not."
The doctor struggle in silence awhile with this situation; then he asked: "Not even to save him from bitter pain and misery and grief?"
"No. Not even to save his life."
Another pause. Then: "Nor his soul?"
There was a hush--a silence which endured a measurable interval--then Hester answered, in a low voice, but with decision: "Nor his soul."
No one spoke for a while; then the doctor said: "Is it with you the same, Hannah?"
"Yes," she answered.
"I ask you both--why?"
"Because to tell such a lie, or any lie, is a sin, and could cost us the loss of our own souls--WOULD, indeed, if we died without time to repent."
"Strange . . . strange . . . it is past belief." Then he asked, roughly: "Is such a soul as that WORTH saving?" He rose up, mumbling and grumbling, and started for the door, stumping vigorously along. At the threshold he urned and rasped out an admonition: "Reform! Drop this mean and sordid and selfish devotion to the saving of your shabby little souls, and hunt up something to do that's got some dignity to it! RISK your souls! risk
them in good causes; then if you lose them, why should you care? Reform!"

Since reading this story some years ago I have been haunted by the thought that much of what we say we do for God really has much more to do about our own sense of what we think God values than it does with what God really does want. We battle over all kinds of silly things that keep us busy and feeling pious but we are not transformed into Christ-likeness by any of this endless activity so much as numbed into compliance by fear of being damned or worse yet, judged by our fellow believers to be not spiritual or respectful of God.
The ironic thing about this mentality is that is stands in stark opposition to our theology which tells us that God in Christ Jesus has already saved us and is making us new apart from any action on our part save receiving the gift. But like Hannah and Hester we keep trying to figure out how to save our own souls.
In the process of telling God what is and is not acceptable we create environments in our churches that are not welcoming and instead are uninspiring at best and judgmental at worst. Growth in Christ-likeness is not measured by how much like Christ we become but how much like the surrounding church culture we become. The church, instead of being a light that shines in the darkness, becomes a little more than a service organization or dry repository of historical artifact.
In the face of this comes a movement that is now significant enough to be measured. George Barna in his book Revolution has taken a look at the people who are leaving the institutional/traditional church. These people are not leaving the faith in fact they say they are leaving to keep and grow in the faith. These people claim that the institutional church is no longer helping people to grow and so they leave and find people in their neighborhoods or job places or schools or coffee shops or wherever who feel similarly disenfranchised and they “become” a church, a group of people who want to grow spiritually.
What’s the church to do? Is this movement a legitimate one or not and if not why not? I would love to hear your thoughts on Revolution or Reformation.

NextLeaders

2005-10-24T20:32:00.000-04:00

One has to wonder where we as evangelicals are going with the link between theological education, denominationalism and ordination. Eddie Gibbs (Fuller Theological Seminary) writes, “There is a serious decline in the number of students taking the Master of Divinity degree, . . . The reality is that the majority of pastors serving churches in the United States do not have a Master of Divinity degree” (Church Next, IVP, pp.92-93). The MDiv has traditionally been the core of most seminaries and the foundation for ordination in most denominations. But, things are changing.

Historically, evangelical denominations worked hard to become educationally respectable—going from the Bible institute to the graduate seminary. But now at least one denomination offers a full ministerial credential through two years of on-line classes, the majority of the mega-churches train their own staff, and the emerging church has more interest in relationships, journeys and authentic worship than in theological expertise and credentials.

Our problem is that we are now face-to-face with the effects of postmodernity. Postmodernity requires more theological expertise from us than ever before, but we are running in the opposite direction. The problem is compounded by both boomers and Gen-Xers who have a tendency to mistrust authority represented by the seminary or denomination. Seminary may not be the first choice of one seeking to enter the ministry, and denominations are an old idea and seen as irrelevant.

Seminaries are attempting to meet the challenge as they are bringing the seminary to the student at sites off campus and making the studies more relevant, including certificate programs and other master degrees than the MDiv. Yet the tide of church culture is changing rapidly, desiring relevant leadership not theological professionals. Many churches are growing because of gifted entrepreneurial leaders not seminary trained professionals. Nobody ever said, “Too bad for Bill Hybels, he never got the MDiv.” In fact, Donald Miller believes seminaries may actually be discouraging to people with entrepreneurial leadership skills (Reinventing American Protestantism, University of California Press, p.188).

Continuing this line of thought, it seems that anyone with a gift for speaking, a praise band, and a projector can be a pastor (or “leader”—“pastor” isn’t used in these circles). Last December, Christianity Today ran a full page ad for Next Leadership Association—“Postmodern, Connection, Contemporary, Timeless, Change Agents, Leaders. . . . Next leaders are emerging leaders who are starting communities of faith that are artful, soulful, captivating” (CT, December, 2004, p. 74). Its doctrinal statement is the Apostle’s Creed, its mission is to connect and equip emerging leaders. Check out nextleader.org.

Can organizations like Next Leadership Association or even Willow Creek Association become more important to the future of the church than denominations? Should they? Have they already become more important? Are denominations irrelevant?

Several points can be made and please excuse me for sounding “modern”. Like every church movement, the direction of the evangelical postmodern church or, “faith community” has pluses and minuses. On the positive side, and the reason why I pray the trend continues, the “postmodern” church has led the way in making Christ more relevant to the emerging culture. Sadly, many have left and are leaving established churches and denominations because the Christ they preach has nothing to say to our times. This is a necessary correction and the established church must take note and change or continue to be irrelevant.

But, the trend outlined above has its dangers. First, the lack of theological rigor in a postmodern church will create a theological fog which in turn can lead to either liberalism or heresy at the local level. Perhaps the future of the church is a lead pastor with entrepreneurial skills and an associate pastor with theological expertise (a biblical consultant to the leader?). And second, denominations will be missed because of their support of local ministries and the church’s biblical need to be accountable to a higher authority.

What are your thoughts? What is the future of theological education, ordination and denominationalism?

Click on the comment section and let us know.

Postmod Definition

2005-10-24T20:24:00.000-04:00

I recently heard an amusing definition of postmodernism and thought you might appreciate it—“Being really happy about what might be the truth.”

Emerging Church: A Review

2005-10-24T13:00:00.000-04:00

Many want to know what the “emergent church” is all about. One way to find out is to read all the works by such people as Brian McLaren, Steve Chalke, Dan Kimball and others. Perhaps a simpler way (in addition to reading some of their works) is to read D. A. Carson’s, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, subtitled “Understanding a Movement and Its Implications” (Zondervan, 2005).

Carson tells us that behind this movement, or better “conversation” (McLaren’s word), “lies the conviction that changes in the culture signal that a new church is ‘emerging.’ Christian leaders must therefore adapt to the emerging church. Those who fail to do so are blind to the cultural accretions that hide the gospel behind forms of thought and modes of expression that no longer communicate with the new generation, the emerging generation” (p. 12).

In the opening pages, Carson states he views the emerging church as a protest movement—protesting in particular, traditional evangelicalism, what it understands by modernism, and the seeker sensitive church—mega church (p. 36). Much of the above protest emanates from the emerging church’s conviction that the present evangelical church is not equipped to evangelize postmoderns. “The attempt to break out of what is perceived to be the holy huddle of traditional evangelicalism is driven, at least in part, by evangelism, in particular the evangelism of a new generation of people who are shaped by postmodern assumptions” (p.52). Carson is exceptionally laudatory of the emerging church in this regard.

Much of Carson’s book also concerns itself with modernism, postmodernism and the epistemological differences. If the reader is not accustomed to such terms (in addition to philosophical pluralism, relativism, etc.) this book may be a slow read. But, these terms should not keep one from reading this book as Carson graciously defines these terms as he goes along (p.27 for example). Some of Carson’s main concerns and criticisms of the emerging church lie in these areas of thought. Risking oversimplification, Carson faults the movement for a reductionistic view of modernism and little concern for truth claims in a postmodern approach. “It vehemently denounces modernism, but offers nothing very penetrating when it comes to postmodernism. In particular, it has wrestled unconvincingly with the related matters of truth, certainty, historical witness, and even with the nature of the gospel itself” (p. 125). All of this Carson supports by many examples.

Although praising the emerging church at many points, Carson has some biting criticism. Chapter 5, for instance, lists several failures of the movement. They are failures to 1. Come to terms with the importance of non-omniscient truth claims; 2. Face the tough questions, especially if they are truth related; 3. Use Scripture as the norming-norm over against an eclectic appeal to tradition; 4. Handle “becoming” and “belonging” tensions in a biblically faithful way; and 5. Handle facts, both exegetical and historical in a responsible way.
When it comes to truth issues, Carson says, “On what basis do emerging church leaders commend the gospel and invite others to join them if at most levels they are more than a little reluctant to say that Christianity is true” (p. 132)? On the truth of Christianity, Carson comments on McLaren, “Sadly, I find just about every step of McLaren’s argumentation on this point either factually questionable or frankly manipulative (p. 135).

Finally, the latter sections of Carson’s book challenge both McLaren and Chalke. In particular, he sees McLaren as the most articulate spokesman for the emerging church, but finds his doctrine to be weak (“wrong and silly”) on the atonement, hell and ethics (pp. 166-177). Concerning McLaren and Chalke on the cross, Carson says, “Given this mindset, repentance has to be redefined as well. It no longer has to do with renouncing evil. The call to repentance is the call to fulfill our natural potential, to improve ourselves by acting like God. . . . If words mean anything, both McLaren and Chalke have largely abandoned the gospel” (p. 186). In sum, Carson refers to McLaren with adjectives such as insightful, right, wrong and silly.

The book concludes with some very helpful and relevant biblical studies and comments by Carson.

For another and (probably) better review of this book, see the October 2005 issue of Christianity Today. The reviewer is Eddie Gibbs who has his own book on the emerging church coming out soon.

Your comments?

Radical Change And The New Apostolic Reformation

2005-10-18T20:46:00.000-04:00

"Are you ready for radical change?" C. Peter Wagner began his talk on the new apostolic reformation. "This is the most radical change on how we do church since the Protestant reformation," Wagner continues.
C. Peter Wagner, despite his ordination as a Congregationalist, has become an observer and chronicler of the recent moves of the Holy Spirit in both the charismatic renewal and now the "new apostolic reformation"(Wagner's own term). Wagner, having been a professor of church growth for almost 30 years, had his interest piqued when he discovered that this movement was the fastest growing movement on six continents. He believes this is due to their exercising the power principles and missiology found in the book of Acts. David Barrett, a statistician, has also noted this fantastic growth stating, "Of the five megablocks of Christianity 'neoapostolic' is the only megablock growing faster than Islam."
In a recent alumni meeting of the Dove Christian Fellowship Church Planting School, Wagner outlined four major changes taking place in the church today. They are as follows:
1) The church is moving from denominational government to apostolic government. We must remember donominationalism is only a little over 200 years old. Denominationalism was born in America the same time democracy was being born. (Before that we had state churches, and before that we had the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.) Denominations have a philosophy that says never trust an individual, always trust a group. The church is moving from strict controls to more flexibility and networking. We're moving from democracy to trusting an individual.
2) The church is moving from internal reform to apostolic renewal. Since 1960, almost every denomination has had a "charismatic renewal." The charismatic renewal peaked in 1977 in Kansas City. Today the second generation renewal leaders are finding themselves stonewalled by denominations that welcomed their predecessors. The result is that many are pulling out of those denominations and forming apostolic networks (new wineskins for what God is doing).
3) The church is moving from church vision (let's build our denomination or megachurch) to kingdom vision. The new apostolic churches are much less exclusive than say the Baptist Church. There is none of that "you don't baptize the way I do, so I can't associate with you" kind of attitude. The apostolic churches bless everybody that preaches the name of Jesus and will work across denominational lines with anybody to reach their communities for Christ.
4) The apostolic church is moving from expansion of the church to the transformation of society. It begins by winning souls, planting churches, taking care of the poor and needy, and ends by transforming society one soul at a time. The apostolic church is less pessimistic than the traditional church. They believe things can change. They live with their eye on the future. Wagner notes, "The Kingdom of God can't overthrow the Kingdom of the World until its government is in place."
The new apostolic reformation reminds me of the birth of the Evangelical Association. At that time, our structure was more of a network. We were bound together much like the apostolic church, not by doctrine or tradition, but by shared experiences and a passion to reach our (at that time German) communities for Christ. To find out more about the new apostolic reformation you must read Churchquake by C. Peter Wagner. It is a clarion call to individual churches and denominations to wake up. Though he is pessimistic about the future of denominations, he does speak of individual churches within denominations and a whole denomination in Australia that have moved and are moving into the apostolic. One final caveat the new apostolic reformation is not exclusively charismatic, though in the United States, it maybe 80 percent charismatic.

Out of the Closet Kid's Books

2005-06-10T09:13:00.000-04:00

It used to be that only small, lesser-known publishers would dare publish pro-gay children's books. Soon, several heavyweights will be stocking shelves with at least a dozen books telling kids it's OK to be gay. Simon & Schuster, Scholastic Books, and others are about to publish several gay-themed books aimed at children and teenagers. Titles such as, The Sissy Duckling, And Tango Makes Three, Rainbow High, A Really Nice Prom Mess, You're Different and That's Super, and King & King and Family, are all intended to tell young people that being gay is just another lifestyle. But perhaps the most damaging message contained in these books is that those who oppose this "Gay is OK" message are somehow society's real sickos. While not all the books condemn the critics and moralists, several suggest that anyone who challenges the pro-gay message is barbaric and intolerant.
Several concerns are raised: Since values are generally formed early, should the evangelical children's literature be tackling this issue from a different perspective? Following a review of current Sunday School and VBS material, one notices a great deal of creation lessons, Bible hero lessons, and the general "Be nice" lessons... but there is a total absence of teaching concerning the issue of tolerance or a Biblical view on sex and sexuality. Of course, it's hard to imagine a week of VBS with a Join the Happy Island of Biblical Sex theme, but should not writers and publishers by attempting to tackle these subjects in order to form counter values?
Further, should we be spending an increasing amount of time teaching our evangelical young people to be prepared to take counter-cultural views? If the prevailing mood is that it is wrong (or immoral, or mentally deficient) to challenge the "gay is just fine" mindset, then it will take increasing courage to take a moral stand. This seems to be a difficulty for quite a few adults, much less our young people.
Finally, we're required to continue to make our church communities places of healing and wholeness-seeking. Young teenagers will be assaulted with conflicting messages about sexuality and that can only increase the isolation and hurt. It's been our longstanding conviction that only the Gospel offers a solution for this. Somehow, we've got to offer this healing to people before they reach the apparent preferred target age of 45 in the average church.

Ragsdale/Ehrman on Mission

2005-06-06T22:34:00.000-04:00

The just completed EC National Conference highlighted missions as John Ragsdale completed his task as Director of Global Ministries . His wife, Shirley, turned a candid phrase or two in giving a colorful account of life together "in the field". Missionaries were on hand to attest to his vision and fortitude as he mentored and assisted.
Jim Ehrman and Aiyana and family are ready to transition for this new episode and challenge together as they prepare to serve as DGM. Part of the initial serve will be to observe and understand. Then, comes the focus as prayers are always accepted in knowing God's lead.
The guest speakers (Phil Tuttle, Clive Calver) also spoke to the mission. These are times to "kick it up a notch". There is no blame to be cast elsewhere should we not follow through. There are opportunities that need to be recognized as the Holy Spirit guides. The mission field may not be getting easier. The mission field is everywhere.
pw

Virtual Church

2005-05-25T18:36:00.000-04:00

“Can I do church without church?” is the question raised by one participant in a new virtual church created by the Methodist Church of Great Britain. With church attendance at an all-time low (some reports show British church attendance at somewhere between 4 and 7% of the population) Methodist Church leaders are hoping to increase interest by encouraging people to participate via computer. And this goes way beyond posting sermons on the net…users create a computer character (an “avatar”) and can actually attend an animated service. Participants can instruct his/her animated character to tour the church, kneel, pray, listen, or participate in any number of virtual church activities. The site also makes numerous chat rooms and virtual discussion groups available…a quick peak indicates regular usage by quite a few people. Online records seem to indicate that as many as 40,000 people may be visiting the site with some regularity (68,000 visited during the first two days of operation). A tour around the chat rooms suggests that quite a few participants are either skeptics or have been hurt by church people in the past---no surprise there.
Two good questions come to mind. One, asked by a chat room participant: “Can I do church without church?” And two, How shall we effectively transmit salt and light over the web?
Visit the site at www.churchoffools.com.

Exporting Culture

2005-05-09T23:08:00.000-04:00

The influence of American pop culture dominates perceptions around the world. America’s biggest export determines, to a large extent, the negative image of America. We may have noticed a change over the decades in programming on TV, in lyrics, and movies. The Parents Television Council (ptl) has a database that chronicles the levels of base (and debasing) behavior to which our culture is subjected by the media. The influence of these “teaching methods” is apparent as our culture assimilates these behaviors with no regard for God’s standard.It is biblical tradition that has determined much of America’s guidance in good times and bad. There are people who do not know or understand this. This is our opportunity, but where do we start? We have slowly, easily allowed what seemed “harmless, little” infractions against “proper conduct” to become a whole new “acceptable” way of conduct lacking little concern for neighbor or God.
From a world perspective, this degradation is noted in what is often their only acquaintance with Americans: the imported TV show, music, or the technologically laden violent movie full of expletives and plenty of skin. In a recent article, Mike Medved was quoted, “The biggest concern that people [in other cultures] have is the erosion of local traditions, the encouragement of immediate gratification, the emphasis on a superficial view of reality.” Zachary A. Goldfarb in a Washington Times article refers to a new book (Oct. release) by Marvin L. and Margaret Defleur, Learning To Hate Americans: How the U.S. Media Shape Negative Opinions Among Teen-Agers in Twelve Countries, which contends: “though teens embrace American movies, TV, and music, they believe that the violence, crime and sex portrayed in pop culture accurately depict ordinary life in the U S.” Is this the “Great Satan” that the world sees? Sadly Argentina, is the only country where teens viewed Americans positively. We have helped this with our viewing and accepting in “little bits and pieces” what we may have known was wrong.
This is what drives an image of America that many in the world hold.It matters what our decisions are with money (movies, music), leisure (TV), material goods, or witnessing an injustice and saying nothing. It begins with the individual as to what is acceptable. What should we buy? Should we keep up with the Joneses? Are the Joneses in tune with God? Should we watch that TV show if we know we lend support? Each decision to view or purchase is a vote for something, a support for something. Each decision to purchase should be tempered with need, or want. For His glory, or mine? For if one infraction is allowed the way is paved for others with decreasing resistance. That paved way is often not the path.
Pete Wood (2004, archive)

A God in Our Image

2005-05-09T15:18:00.000-04:00

One story appearing in evangelical literature attacking postmodern religion tells of a man who says, “I firmly believe in reformed theology and in reincarnation.” Our religious culture is now one of make-believe. There are no rules. Contradiction does not matter. We now live in an age with little regard for truth and great admiration for relativism (whatever is true for me). Religiously, we create our own spirituality where we believe whatever we wish, forming our faith and ethic on the basis of choice, not truth. “Spirituality becomes more of a consumer item than a matter of facts, arguments and truth” (Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay, 28).
The renewed interest in spirituality is a hopeful trend and perhaps evangelicals can take advantage of it. But, it also creates a whole new challenge as gods come in differing shapes, sizes and blends. Whereas the modernist theologian had to argue for the existence of God, the postmodern culture believes in every god. Who can be sure where this is going? “The next major new religion . . . , will probably not be one of the old forms of overt paganism, but rather a syncretic hybrid. In a postmodernist and increasingly consumer-centered world in which truth is relative, people will pick and choose various aspects of the different faiths according to what they ‘like’ ” (Gene Veith, Postmodern Times, 200). This combination of religions is seen most recently in Hallmark’s television movie, Reluctant Saint: Francis of Assisi. Francis is made “into a religious pluralist who is shocked out of his parochial Christianity into a new respect for the goodness of Islam” (Mark Galli, Christianity Today, April 2003, 107-110).
We see this new spirituality all around us and in many forms. Consider, for instance, Hollywood’s spiritual perspective. We have seen the “Force” of "Star Wars", the ballplayers of "Field of Dreams", the spirits of "Ghost," and the magic of Harry Potter. Or, consider our renewed interest in angels (in our curio cabinets, on women’s lapels and TV’s "Touched by an Angel"). This trend is not without a postmodern context. We choose angels because they are our guardians and messengers—a safe spirituality. Unlike God, they demand nothing from us and help to create our own warm and fuzzy spirituality. We want a god created in our image and to our liking.
We see this new spirituality on college campuses every Arbor Day as feminists use the occasion to worship Gaia, mother earth. And, along with the worship of Gaia is the worship of the goddess Sophia, which is more prevalent than we might think. “In this ultimate struggle for mastery, the pagan goddess Sophia seeks to usurp the place of God the Creator and Redeemer. This is not colorful hyperbole. The conflict is real, the protagonists irreconcilable” (Peter Jones, Pagans in the Pews, 234—Jones compares many of the modern spiritualities with ancient Gnosticism). In addition, feminist interpretation of the Bible (always questioning biblical authority) is very extensive and has made its way into the church. Once again, we create a god in our image.
Recently, all this became very real as I made the acquaintance of a man whom professes to be “born again.” In further conversation, I discovered he has an altar in the basement of his home, complete with a statue of Buddha and various colored candles (New Age).
Many questions come to mind. Although this man claims a “born again experience,” is he really saved if he practices syncretism? Could he be a member of your church? How much right theology must one believe to be saved? How inclusive can we be? How can we connect with him and others like him? What kind of apologetic do we bring to a postmodern world?
Where should we begin? For starters, a few sermons, Sunday School lessons or Bible studies on the exclusivity of biblical Christianity would help. Lay people under the daily attack from “the world” can lose this perspective. Also, for info on newer religions (and even older ones) try this web address: dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/. Be sure to click on Angels, Organizations and Women. At the same site, click on Faiths and Practices and do not miss Native American Religions and New Age. For a more scholarly approach, the University of Virginia has this site: religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/ (this site also has many resources). Each pastor should view these materials before recommending them to his congregation, as most are not pro-Christian (but helpful).
For issues regarding salvation in a spiritually pluralistic culture, see Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips (eds.), More Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World.
For lay people, try the video series by Ravi Zacharias based on his book, Jesus Among Other Gods. Although this video is “safe,” it may still need some explanation for the lay person not educated in these areas.
Robert (2004, archive)

The Future of Marriage

2005-05-09T14:57:00.000-04:00

The most recent studies of trends in marriage and family life are very encouraging for evangelical Christians. Not that there is a mass movement toward biblical morality, but that many of the liberalizing trends of the 1960s and 70s have lost momentum. In addition, studies consistently reveal that adults in long-term marriages, and children being raised in two-parent households are happier and healthier. When it comes to wealth, mental/emotional health, physical health and overall happiness, long-term marriage and two parent families are preferable to all other options.
Over the last decade, and among young people in particular, marriage and family life have increased in importance. Youth look forward to life-long marriages and children, and believe marriage should only be ended in divorce as a last resort. They do not believe in staying married for the sake of the children but do believe divorce can cause significant problems for children. Although young people believe that marriage is the ideal situation for raising children, they see no stigma in unmarried childbearing, which to them is better than a forced marriage, abortion or adoption. In addition, there are more conservative attitudes toward uncommitted pre-marital sexual relationships and less tolerance for extra-marital affairs.
However, young people have become less conservative in one area—cohabitation. “A significant majority of young people go a step beyond acceptance and actively endorse living together before marriage as a good idea to see if they really get along. These trends toward acceptance and endorsement of unmarried cohabitation appear to be relatively long-term and have continued with strength into the late 1990s” (Thornton and Young-DeMarco, “Four Decades of Trends in Attitudes Toward Family Issues in the United States: The 1960s Through the 1990s,” Journal of Marriage and Family 63 (2001):1009-1037). In the last two decades over half of all marriages began in cohabitation and according to the studies, this trend will continue far into the future.
Every pastor and lay person knows this trend has also touched the evangelical church. How should the church respond to young members who are cohabiting? Do young people even know it is a sin? Do they care? Should we employ church discipline or ignore it and hope it goes away? How should the pastor and church respond to cohabiting couples who wish to be married in the church? Should we ignore the need for repentance or refuse to marry them unless they repent? What can the church do now in a proactive manner to address this need? It is a problem that will not go away soon.
For more details and information on marriage and family issues, one should go to The National Council on Family Relations at ncfr.com, and The Heritage Foundation at heritage.org.
Robert (2003, archive)

The Largest Transfer of Wealth in History

2005-05-09T14:42:00.000-04:00

Last year a bulletin insert from Focus on the Family caught my attention—“members of the baby-boomer generation, many of whom are now in their mid-50s . . . will soon inherit more than $10.4 trillion as their parents pass from the scene. It is the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world.” The cover story of Worth (March, 2003) also began, “The numbers are staggering. In the next 50 years, families will give their heirs an astounding $25 trillion—the largest transfer of wealth in history.” These numbers are based on an original 1993 study be two Cornell University economists. Others estimate that the average estate will be $90,000.00. The major concern of both articles is how people will handle the wealth. Worth states, “Wealth obtained through the death of a loved one can erode the work ethic, poison family relations, and kill the soul.”
Christians will be part of this inheritance of the future. The Bible looks upon inheritance in both a positive and negative light. “A good man leaves an inheritance for his children’s children” (Pr 13:22). Yet, “I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me. And who knows if he will be a wise man or a fool?” (Ec 2:18-19). The prodigal son also comes to mind. But wealth (even inherited) can be a blessing of the Lord (Pr 10:22), and a gift from God for those who love wisdom (Pr 8:21). In general, we are instructed to honor the Lord with our wealth (Pr 3:9).
But, will the Lord be honored with the wealth coming our way? With this coming massive transfer of wealth, some money will be bequeathed to the church and some will be donated as people give offerings based upon their new fortune. Will this be a boon for the church? Will this even be good for the church? Will Christians and churches make the most of this future transfer of wealth for the cause of Christ? One lay delegate confided that when his church received a major bequest, giving decreased because the congregation felt (in his judgment) the church did not need the money. Instead of being able to use the gift toward their vision, it was needed to pay bills.
People will inevitably give to the church they love through their wills and through offerings coming from inheritance. But is this the best we can do for the Lord? Some churches on the plateau may be able to use this money to initiate movements for growth, but others in decline may dissipate the money only to stay open one more year. Could the money be of greater use for church planting, missions, education or camp? How will the church and its people handle their new fortune? Will greed get in the way? Will a lack of faith drive the churches to hoard it for a “rainy day?”
It is time to study the biblical teaching and prepare our people and churches with principles for how they can best honor the Lord with their wealth and how the church can be the best stewards of bequests.
If the Lord tarries, the next few years will see a massive transfer of wealth which holds the promise of greater funding of ministries to reach the unchurched. But, will Christians and churches be ready and faithful? Will it be a blessing from the Lord or a curse? What is your perspective?
Robert

Brian McLaren Department

2005-04-05T20:08:00.000-04:00

Five Core Values of Postmodernism
1.Postmodernism is skeptical of certainty.
2. Postmodernism is sensitive to context.
3. Postmodernism leans toward the humorous.
4. Postmodernism highly values subjective experience.
5. For postmoderns, togetherness is a rare, precious, and elusive experience.

Fifteen Realities for the Church (our title, but Rev. Mac's ideas)
1. We have to distinguish between genuine Christianity and our (individual and various culture-encoded) versions of it.
2. We need to see truth and goodness where they exist in postmodernism.
3. We need to magnify the importance of faith.
4. We ought to be more fair.
5. We need to be more experiential.
6. We need to address the postmoderns' existential predicament.
7. We need to listen to the postmoderns' stories.
8. We need to tell our stories.
9. We need to address issues we have never even thought about before.
10. We need to avoid coercion and pressure.
11. We need to see the postmoderns in here, out there, and everywhere.
12. We must rely more than ever on art, music, literature, and drama to communicate our message.
13. We must believe that the Holy Spirit is out there at work already.
14. We must become seekers again.
15. We must reassert the value of community and rekindle the experience of it.