Ed Stetzer is provoking (in a good way) a syncroblog discussion on the theological issues of Missional church. I appreciate that. I think it’s needed. Today’s question on his blog relates to the question of salvation. How does Missional church deal with the idea of salvation.

Ed argues that the idea of salvation in Christ took a turn in the Enlightenment.  He says:

“The response of church and mission to the challenge of modernism was generally twofold among Protestants. The first response was simply to disregard the challenges of the Enlightenment and carry on as if nothing had changed. The second response took the challenges of modernism more seriously, to the point of a fairly uncritical accommodation. Instead of maintaining Jesus as God-incarnate who fulfills all righteousness and satisfies divine wrath on behalf of sinners, in modernist Protestantism he became the ideal human being to imitate, the moral exemplar. The person and work of Jesus was no longer at the center of mission, but rather the example and cause of Jesus took stage. The teaching supplanted the Teacher; the kingdom of God obscured the King.”

There are parts of this statement I agree with. The characterization of how protestant mainline Christianity (as it later became described) has some merit to it. Yet we must not ignore the part of the protestant wing that carried forensic atonement to new individualistic  heights primarily under the influence of the Enlightenment. I don’t think either Luther or Calvin imagined what modernity would eventually do in isolating and reducing the atonement to a forensic transaction between each individual and God. This view of salvation became fully flowered in American revivalistic evangelicalism. This view of salvation, I would argue, has done as much damage to the furtherance of Mission in the world as the protestant mainline development. Do you agree? So I see Ed’s point, and I agree that the Missio Dei as it became used by the Ecumenical mainliner councils erred in this way. Today, as a result of both developments, we are left with a monstrous problem of a over hyped, individualized salvation that takes the shape of either people individually promoting a Kingdom enlightenment agenda for justice (de void of the actual power of God’s reign manifest in Jesus as Lord), or people promoting a version of a ticket out of hell for individuals. To me this is now almost old news and now we need to explore where God is leading us theologically and in practice. This is one the strengths of the Missional movement as led by leaders such as Ed Stetzer.

So Ed asks the question:

So what is your understanding of salvation and how it is mediated? Do you agree that missiology is closely connected soteriology– that one’s take on the “reach” of salvation determines the range of one’s missionary enterprise? Do you have any concerns that within the missional conversation some emphasize the example of Jesus over the salvific work of Jesus? Or that the vertical dimension of the God incarnate, Jesus Christ, saving men and women unto Himself is under-emphasized by some and rather a horizontal “conversion” towards one another is the primary focus?

To these questions I reply that salvation – to paraphrase N T Wright – is the working of God in the world to make all things right. In Jesus Christ, God is fulfilling his promise to the world – in the covenant of Israel – to make all things right. This is the work God has begun in Jesus Christ, of reconciling the whole world to Himself (2 Cor 5:17-22).  This salvation is inextricable from the sacrificial atonement in Christ to bring us into a justified relationship with God thru Jesus Christ. But this new relationship with God is inextrricable from the horizontal reconciliation God is working every where in the world. The personal and social are so inseparable that to even talk as if they are two (like I just did) is to do violence to God’s work. We move therefore from asking people “have you made a decision to accept Christ as your personal Lord and savior?” to inviting others to join us in entering the salvation begun in Jesus Christ that God is working for the sake of the whole world. This to me is what it looks like to be saved witjin the Mission of God. This includes, and cannot be brought to fruition, apart from a conversion to the dying with Christ and resurrection with Him into the new life with Christ. I think theologians like N T Wright, Michael Gorman and even John Milbank help us see how this salvation has been birthed in a people through Christ’s life, sacrificial atonement and resuurection and his ascension to the right hand. They show how His Kingdom has been inaugurated in His rule, and that we can enter it now and by so doing invite the world into it. This births a peoiple, in communities, to live and witness to this life engaging the world in the New Kingdom life God is doing. (this is how this salvation is mediated).

I don’t want to be labor this post (I’m finishing up an entire book reframing the evangelcial doctrines and practice for participation in God’s mission). There is much more that could be said. But this approach I believe avoids the problems Ed talks about.

Does anyone else want to fill this out? Push back? Answer more of Ed’s questions in this regard? Chime in please.

This discussion will continue this week on the blogs below as well as Ed’s. I invite you to follow along! and chime in! and thanks Ed Stetzer for provoking this discussion.

Rick Meigs: The Blind Beggar
Bill Kinnon: kinnon.tv
Brother Maynard: Subversive Influence
Tiffany Smith: Missional Mayhem
Jared Wilson: The Gospel-Driven Church
Jonathan Dodson: Creation Project

Filed under: Uncategorized | 11 Comments

Within post-evangelicalism, no two issues divide the terrain more than the issues of women in ministry and the gay/lesbian question.  I think how they relate to each other is telling as to what theological currents drive the various “streams” ‘emerging’ out of evangelicalism.  In a continuation of my effort to sort out the streams of post-evangelism in N America, I lay out the tenets of the three positions (Neo-Reformed – Emergent – NeoAnabaptist Missional) on these two issues and some comments on the theological currents that drive each one. I HAVE GROSSLY OVER-SIMPLIFIED – THIS IS A BLOG POST REMEMBER – SO CUT ME SOME SLACK . In this post I treat Neo-Reformed and Emergent which leads to my second post on the Neo-Anabaptist  Missional position. I hope to clarify the issues better so we can all discuss some day what drives us to the conclusions we have come to and why we come off certain ways to each other. In each position, I treat the position’s view on Scripture, authority in the community, sanctification, and desire. I hope this helps!

Position No. 1 – No Women in Ministry/ Not Affirming to Gay/Lesbian Sexual Relationships(The Neo-Reformed)

In this view – a.) women are hierarchically subordinate to men in ministry and b.) all gay/lesbian sexuality is against the norms of God-ordered creation.

This is grounded in a view of Scripture that sees it as propositional and perspicuous. Scripture as propositional truth is clear and absolute. What we need therefore is good study, someone with certain gifts, expertise and wisdom to make it clear. This understanding of Scripture lends itself to an autocratic view of authority.  I mean this not in a disparaging way. Rather, because of this view of truth and Scripture, church authority in decision-making and leadership must be exercised in top-down fashion. Afterall, if we can’t all agree in church, who will make the final decision? All of this serves to argue for men to be over women in ministry because Scripture is clear on it and authority is autocratic. In this world, authority must carry itself in the same way within marriage. Men must be heads of their homes because – afterall – if a husband and wife disagree, who is going to make the decision? I am fully aware that various forms of soft complementarianism has “softened” how these principles are carried out within this group.

Within this view, sanctification is an individualistic pursuit. Sin is recognized, forgiveness received and then one seeks to follow (Scripture) in dependence upon the Spirit. Desire is, to grossly exaggerate, inherently depraved (some post Calvinist influence here). One must measure all desires against the Scripture, and all that doesn’t jive must be suppressed, or in effect denied. This is oft prone to a strange subtle legalism. “You are free, you are graced with forgiveness not of anything you’ve done, it’s all up to the Spirit now, but hey, you’re not doing it – the Scripture says ______ , so stop doing it!” I call this a Cartesianist view of sanctification. There is little appreciation here that cognitive knowledge does not lead to sanctification, that all desire must be reoriented in the spiritual disciplines of walking into the Spirit corporately as well as personally. This approach is oft prone to a harsh, dispassionate judgmentalism especially when it comes to the gay/lesbian question. The Scripture says “such and such” so for goodness sake, go and do “such and such. You will be blessed.”

It is out of this approach to sanctification, that this group speaks to the gay/lesbian issues. Because of what I see as lacks in this approach to sanctification, it comes off as lacking compassion and hopeless.

Of course this is the caricature of evangelicalism that so many people disavow these days. The Neo-Reformed carries much of this same theology yet softens it quite a bit with compassion and holistic mission. I see Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller and most Neo-Reformed bloggers coming down in this camp and attempting to reshape its theology away from the lacks mentioned above. 

Position No. 2 – Yes to Women in Ministry/ Affirming of Gay/Lesbian Sexual Relationships (Emergent)

In this view – a.) women and men are equal to each other in the exercise of authority and roles within the church and marriage, and  b.) gay/lesbian relations are affirmed as inherently life-giving, loving and God honoring when monogamous in some way.
The view of authority here is derived from the political understandings of Western political democracy, – liberalism as a political philosophy (which drives evangelicals and prot mainliner alike). Authority is best exercised in democratic fashion by a charismatic leadership within a tolerant inclusivist community. The singular concern here is the ultimate value of each individual to flourish into the person God created him/her to be. Each person is equal to the other and should be judged on skills and merits for the job or role in life, ministry and marriage. Women therefore should be considered equals with men in ministry and marriage. They should have equal access to the authority structures of the church. Scripture is interpreted via these values.  Gay/lesbian peoples should not only be tolerated but also blessed in the ways God has created them. Scripture is interpreted via these insights.

Often the narrative of women and gay/lesbian relations is constructed via the historical progression of the liberation of the individual from oppression. The story goes, the African slave was once oppressed via Scripture. Today the slaves are free. Women likewise were once oppressed and today are emerging free. Now the same liberation needs to be set loose for the gay and lesbian peoples among us and welcomed and affirmed into full participation in the Kingdom. Scriptural hermeneutic is an evolving exercise and should be interpreted with this history in mind. This makes sense of the key value that drives this group, the liberation of the individual as seen and understood via a Western individualist romanticist liberal (read liberating here) understanding of the world.

Sanctification in the Christian life is the daily walk of following the way of Jesus. Desire is seen (mostly) as inherently good as created (versus inherently depraved in group one). The calling out of one’s sanctification is in challenging each one to live into the love, grace and renewal of all things inaugurated and exemplified in Christ. This is often understood in terms of “following the way” of Jesus. He taught the Kingdom of God, a new way of forgiveness, love, living for the other. Let us live into and work for these great ideals in the world. This is the Kingdom of God. Yet there is also an edge against “religion” that seeks to oppress individuals and maintain its ideology. Some deconstruction is in order to help us see how various power interests/religious structures are at work to hold us back from life with Jesus. (Derridian Messianic Democracy fits well with these values). It is this aspect of their critique which moves this group beyond the bland protestant liberalism of the past.

Of course, herein lies the ideas most associated with Emergent and the emerging churches that aligned with this group. Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones and friends most often come down in this direction.

Have I been fair here? Have I overly generalized? Again, I am not trying to make enemies here – just get the lay of the land. I am sure people on both sides disagree, can you show me why, point me to some quotes? I am merely trying to delineate the issues in what is emerging in the three streams of post evangelicalism. In the next post, I hope to argue for a Neo-Anabaptist Missional position no. 3 which says: Yes to women in ministry, but is Non Affirming to Gay/Lesbian relationships as normative for the Christian life. I hope to show how this position is most adequate to the tasks of Mission/Witness in post Christendom, post modern contexts.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 19 Comments

I am intensely interested in how “being the church” – in terms of a set of certain practices – enables the church to participate in God’s Mission in the world. I’m worried (probably too much) that in the process of de-institutionizing the church, we lose the wherewithal in Christ to be shaped for and into His Mission. So, for me, I believe we need conversations around the many key ideas that form the missional conversation in our day.

This is why I am glad to participate in Ed Stetzer’s new effort at creating a conversation around the core issues of “Missional Church.” Starting next Monday, and then for several Mondays thereafter, Ed Stetzer will be addressing a “big idea” in the missional conversation. The bloggers below (inlcuding myself) will be addressing it as well. A syncronized conversation will then hopefully unfold across blogland leading to significant input inthe Missional Manifesto to be rolled out at the Mission Shift conference this summer.

Today’s post kicks this new syncroblog off (See below). I’m priviledged to be quoted in the opening post (just so you know I am not quoting myself eh?). I’m priviledged to be among this fine company of bloggers as well. I’m looking forward to where this goes. I invite you to chime in every Monday. Join us and Ed in this endeavor.

NOW TO THAT KICK OFF POST – HERE WE GO ….

_________________________________________________

David Fitch once said that most missional thought leaders “emphasize incarnational forms of church over attractional; the church as Missio Dei over mission as program; organic forms of missionary living in neighborhoods over ministry set in a building.” Yet many others seem to add the term to the current program they are attempting to promote or make cool sounding. As Ed Stetzer noted, “The word missional is used to bludgeon legalism and antinomianism alike. To some it is a sign of freedom from all established forms of the church and to others it is a degeneration into syncretism with the world.”

So, do we abandon the term and move on? Not yet, because the concept behind missional is really big and words help us when we can agree on their definitions— or at least we can agree what we mean when we use a word.

Over the next few weeks, we want to discuss how “missional” happens in our lives and in the life of the church. It will be discussed here as well as at other places including the blogs listed below. As the conversation moves forward, we hope you will move from blog to blog and offer insights from the scriptures and how you see missional happening in your local community.

By doing this, we can all be a part of a specific missional conversation. As many of you know, there are several working toward a “Missional Manifesto” that will be rolled out as a part of the missionSHIFT conference on July 12-15. The intent with the manifesto is to say, “This is what we mean when we talk about being missional.” It is not the manifesto’s intent (or within its ability) to say this is what everyone should think or say about the term, but reflects a hope that it will help us all be clearer and more mission-shaped in our own thinking and practice.

Conversation on the grassroots level is important, so be sure to join in here and at the other blogs and let’s see where God take us. Here is the team that will be leading the conversation:

Rick Meigs: The Blind Beggar
Bill Kinnon: kinnon.tv
Brent Toderash (Brother Maynard): Subversive Influence
David Fitch: Reclaiming the Mission
Tiffany Smith
Jared Wilson: The Gospel-Driven Church
Jonathan Dodson: Creation Project

So for the sake of conversation today, leave a comment about with your own 1-sentence definition of “missional.” And, in the weeks to come, we will be addressing certain points or issues in the missional conversation that need consideration and perhaps clarity.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 22 Comments

Here’s a couple of “heads-up.” Ecclesia Network has a church planters training gathering May 17. I’ll be participating along with many other veterans of missional church planting. I think this gathering is a really needed alternative to other “boot camps” which may focus extensively on doctrinal issues and matters of pragmatics. Here we’re focusing on the many issues surrounding preparing people to land teams and engage a context missionally (and of course there are theological issues here). If God so provides, I encourage you to join us. Go to the web site and contact Chris for more info.

I also want to let you know that we have a few openings still to fill in a scholarship program at Northern Seminary. We;’ve been working hard to develop a set of prepatory Masters degrees for missional ministry. If you’re 27 and under, had a 3.25 or better in undergrad, you would qualify for full funding in this particular program. Want to know more? E-mail me at dfitch@seminary.edu .

Filed under: Uncategorized | 3 Comments

It feels a bit ominous to read the blog reviews of Brian McLaren’s latest – A New Kind of Christianity. The book is raising quite a stink. No surprise eh? One gets the sense there is something different going on this time versus the last couple book releases of Brian’s: The Secret Message and Everything Must Change. One gets the impression we are at a pivot point, a moment that upsets the whole terrain of theological allegiances having to do with the post evangelical emerging church developments of the last ten-fifteen years. It’s like Brian is shaking up the foundations of post evangelical theology. I read the book on my flight home from the ecclesia network national gathering last week and here are some initial observations.

The first chapter was a highlight. Brian outlines all the developments that led to his emergence as a writer and the questions he has been motivated to ask and write about. He tells us about his own development in relation to the various problems with the church in N American evangelicalism. This is insightful. It reveals the basis of his appeal to all of us who have grown up with the same doubts, problems and issues with American church life, particularly American evangelical church. In this brief introduction is why we love McLaren and his influence endures. The question in the back of my mind is: Would Brian McLaren have had anywhere near the attention he’s had if he was writing his books out of the protestant liberal context?

In almost every chapter, Brian rehearses the familiar critiques against the evangelical church in America: its narrow forensic view of the atonement and the gospel, its duplicitous judgmentalism towards the gay/lesbian community, its fascination with the Bible as a fact book to be used as a propositional weapon, the church as a survival exclusivist institution, I could go on and on. This is another source of Brian’s appeal. It is safe to say many of us were looking for someone to say a lot of these things way back when during the times we were all struggling. Thanks to Brian for all this. He has been a gift. The question in the back of my mind in reading all of this was: Have we saturated this subject and indeed isn’t it time to move on from these well-worn critiques? It sure seems like even the most fundamentalist of evangelicals gets these concerns. If not why make more enemies?

Brian spends quite a bit of time developing a version of what he calls “the Greco-Roman six-line narrative,” its dualism, its separation of the next life in heaven from life on earth and its multiple negative effects on traditional Western theology (and evangelical theology) and the way we think about salvation. For many of us this critique goes way back – all the way to Harnack – the godfather of protestant liberalism. There’s some good stuff here but of course there is some overplay (as all popular books tend to do for the sake of the audience). The question in the back of my mind in reading all of this was: Has Brian himself fallen captive to the same modernizing and Platonizing tendencies in his own constructive proposals. In other words, in McLaren’s opened ended theological proposals, is not the incarnate (non-dualized) Christ – the coming of the infinite into the finite, the universal into the concrete – in danger of being conceptualized into some “ideals” which de-incarnate, de-particularize His coming into the world as the Christ/Messiah of the New Kingdom. (this was Yoder’s critique of Niebuhr). Isn’t this Western Greco-Platonic?

For instance, in the chapter on “Jesus and the Kingdom” (ch. 15)  there seems to be a missing component in his exposition of Romans – the need for conversion. There seems to be a glossing over that this great reconciliation and renewal in the Kingdom comes only in the individual actually getting down and dirty and dying to his/her own flesh and participating in the renewal of all things in the life in Christ (Rom 6-8). This “entrance” into reconciliation/renewal is incarnational. Without it, the kingdom can become a gnosticized ideal. To me, this is the danger of reading N T Wright too casually (who never renounces the personal justification by faith as entry into God’s greater justice working in the world “to make all things right”).

For instance – there seems to be a missing component in his chapter on eschatology (ch. 18). He sees the end of time as open ended, as “at every moment, creation continues to unfold, liberation continues to unshackle us, and the peaceable kingdom continues to expand with new hope and promise (p. 194).” The “second coming” seems to be missing from Brian’s account. He seems to lack appreciation that God is working in Christ “to reconcile all things to Himself” (2 Cor 5:17-22) and this is leading us somewhere in time. This definitive end – the culmination of history in the second coming – is incarnational to me. i.e in history. Without it, the kingdom can be pushed into an ideal which has little to do with Christ’s reign in history. Many of us are on board with McLaren (have been for a longtime eh?) that the overly pessimistic dispensationalist eschatologies turned us inward and negative towards the justice God was bringing into the world. But in rightfully rejecting these things, has McLaren idealized the future into an ideal/a value that can be carried out apart from Christ and His comsummation of it? In diminishing the physical second coming of Christ to culminate his Kingdom (p. 197) does not McLaren do the ultimate move of Greek mythology – propose that Jesus’s redemption has nothing to do with the physical consummation of the Kingdom here on earth? Is this perhaps a reversion to the Enlightenment myth of eternal progress and the de-incarnationalizing of God’s work in Christ for the justice of the world into a wider societal progress?

I think similar questions could be asked about his positions on the gay/lesbian question, the grounding of the authority if Scripture, etc. In each chapter there’s a lot to agree with. But I’m left asking has he de-incarnationalized Christ into a set of conceptualizations/ideals to be sought after as individuals carrying the Christian banner?

A Parting of the Ways is a Good Thing

This all gets to my final point: Brian’s NKoC, for better or worse, articulates the theology of a specific coalescence of emerging church people – that group most associated with the former Emergent Village. Right? It seems that the same people who regularly defend Emergent (as part of Emerging) and a lot of the positions therein are also doing the legwork here in defending Brian? To me this is a good thing. Help me out here but why should anyone at Emergent have a problem with that? It signifies a clarifying coalescence around Brian and all those who were what once was Emergent. Meanwhile, as TSK or Jeremy Bouma or the several others announce they are leaving associations with Emergent previously, it appears a realigning is happening. I see this as a grand clarification. I see NKoC as aiding and developing this clarification.

In the meantime NKoC is promoting a similar clarification among the other streams. For better or worse, three major streams have emerged in the Emerging meltdown of the past few years. They are Neo Reformed stream, the Emergent/Emerging Stream and the Missional (often Anabaptist) Stream.
1.) The Neo-Reformed is armed with a host of great blogs as well as a theological “coalition.”
2.) The post-Emergent Village Emerging stream is certainly being carried on by the Christianity 21, the Transform group, the Ooze and the Emergent Village website itself.
3.)The Missional stream is the most scattered , from the missional blogs of the Great White North (upon which Mike Morrell has labelled – and gotten a lot of heat for it – the Missional Right), to Len and Forge to Alan Hirsch/Shapevine to the old GOCN to many others. In my opinion this last group needs some theological coalescence (the group I most associate with). Much like “the Gospel Coalition” has done for the Neo-Reformed and the McLaren, Jones and Pagit trio and their edited book series (along with others like John Franke) has done for the emergent stream.  We need to work on what our commitments are theologically (especially ecclessiology, soteriology and the prolegomena)

My point is however that I see Brian’s book polarizing the coalescing of these three streams in a positive way. (Is this what Trevin Wax is already saying over here.) At the very least it will coalesce the group that is around McLaren, polarize the Neo-Reformed stream and push us Missional folk to articulate more what our theological commitments are. This is crucial for the next step in post evangelical N. America because it is only by clarifying our differences and having on-the-ground rooted communities working out this stuff that a post-evangelical faithfulness can be demarcated in N America. The ideal would be to see all three streams (after clarification) come together in submission to Christ in a kind of mini-post evangelical Nicaea for the future of the missional church. But if we don’t clarify each others commitments, all we’ll ever do is be in a heresy-hunting, defensive posture, protecting our own turf. It won’t be productive if you ask me. As I said once before, all these differences can only be worked out ON THE GROUND, in real life communities led by the Holy Spirit in the same way it always has. Perhaps then, out of this fertile ground, these three clarified streams can lead to a sort of Nicaean like development for the post evangelical crowd in North America. This kind of unifying is impossible however without the prior clarifying that is being forced on us by McLaren. I contend this is a good thing, even if some claim Nicaea was a bloody mess.

So, thank-you Brian McLaren.

If there are any comments on all this, I’ll be grateful for feedback, although I can only respond as best I can. I’m busy carrying on a back log of pastoral, professor and personal writing work. So please grant me patience?

Filed under: Uncategorized | 36 Comments

One more “Dallas Willard note” from the Ecclesia Network National Gathering. The Gathering this past week proved to be a special time for the many of us gathered there to learn more how to lead our communities into Mission. Dallas Willard offered challenge after challenge. You can see highlights by going to the Tweet Twub right here. In a Q&A on Wednesday morning Dallas offered some comments on preaching that I suggest should be taken special note of. He said he used to preach like a machine gun, rolling sentence after sentence in an attempt to barrage the congregation with powerful communication. A wise friend said innocently to him one day, “Dallas, why don’t you talk more slowly so people can think about what you’re saying?” Dallas said “hmm I never thought of that.” (People laughed).  He pointed out that once you do this – talk slowly … more matter of factly … in a sense have a conversation with people  – “this means I had to release people into the hands of God.”  Instead of my own performance, I now had to depend upon God. In doing this, preaching changes from a finely tuned engineered performance to allowing the Spirit to work in what we are doing.

I suggest this little snippet from Willard is essential to understanding the role of preaching in the Missional Church. For here in the missional church gathering preaching is not a.) for the purpose of distributing information and self help points on how to improve your Christian life, b.) not an inspirational talk done by a convincing and charismatic speaker. Neither is it  c.)someone speaking as an expert from above – although the preacher will be gifted in teaching/preaching and have studied the Scriptures well.  Instead preaching for the missional church is a preaching among the church, out of the community, interpreting what God is doing among us and calling us living into the reality of that. It is a clarion call to live into the reality that “Jesus is Lord ” and all that that might mean for us in our lives and context. We preach like this relying on the Scriptures unfurling the reality of God at work in the world all under the work of the Holy Spirit. The preacher must speak authentically, he/she must be known in and among the congregation (by at least some people everyday in the congregation). He/she must be involved in the lives of people in everyday life. He /she must proclaim the gospel reality of Jesus Kingdom breaking in, the transforming power of God’s forgiveness, defeat of the powers and his working for the renewal of all things INTO THE SITUATIONS WE ARE LIVING. (I strongly suggest this can’t be done via a video screen).

Some of the ways this takes shape at our church is a.) we speak from among on the ground floor in the middle of the circle, not from a platform above, b.) we speak out of Scripture explaining some things, but the emphasis of the sermon is on the simple proclamation of the reality of the text over our lives – we avoid excessive lexicography, grammar, c.) we emphasize to the preacher “be present” with yourself and your life, take the performance of out of it, yet point to Christ (we wear a cross and black to symbolize this points to Christ, not our own personality), D.) we have a 9 a.m. bible study immediately preceding the worship gathering. This hour of study together as a community guides and shapes directly into the preacher’s preaching for that morning. Preachers are interpretive leaders guiding the people via the Scriptures into seeing what God is doing and calling us into in terms of the life in Christ and His Mission.

Thanks to Dallas Willard and the Ecclesia Net Conference.  Rarely have I ever been to a conference that fed missional leaders like this one. And from now on I shall try to speak more slowly.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 13 Comments

I’m at the Ecclesia Network Gathering in Chevy Chase MD (Washington DC).  I sit on the board here and I highly recommend the Network as a place to land for those seeking a network of support, guidance and energy around all things missional. I’ve been blessed to be around a great gathering of missional church pastors/churchplanters.Dallas Willard is one of the main speakers and his wisdom is permeating the atmosphere. Willard quotes have been flying into the tweetosphere. There’s a live blog here.

Yesterday, at the Q&A, Dallas talked about leading someone into the Kingdom:i.e. missional evangelism. If salvation is essentially being invited into the Kingdom of God inaugurated in Christ’s name (something preached again and again in Jesus name in book of Acts), how do we invite someone in? how do we start? Dallas advised ” we get to know someone well enough to know where the KINGDOM IS AT in their lives.” In other words where is God present in this person to bring redemption, healing, renewal, transformation through him/her submitting to His reign. Is there a brokenness, unreconciliation, an injustice etc. a relationship God’s reign needs to be submited to, opened to? “Get them in motion,” he said, “as quickly as possible. You have to put people in motion. You will notice whenever Jesus encountered someone – he gave them something to do! (Think for instance of the woman at the well, or the cleansed leper…). That’s how we grow – by stepping into the Kingdom of God. Ask people to do something they can’t, or wouldn’t do apart from God’s Kingdom in Christ. He said “Jesus didn’t say I will give you the Holy Spirit and then keep my commandments. He said, keep my commandments and I will send you the Holy Spirit (John 14).” Dallas said, “step into the Kingdom, and the Holy Spirit will be there.” Dallas repeatedly emphasized the theme of Jesus’ promise “I will be with you.”

This notion of “getting people in motion” is a great metaphor.  Of course this takes mentoring, coming alongside and living alongisde those not yet walking in the Kingdom. Way back here (at the end of the post) I suggested 5 starting points for getting people into motion into the kingdom. I didn’t put it that way of course. But I probably will now.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 9 Comments

We’re in the middle of some conflicts at our church. Isn’t everybody? Conflict/differences are part of everyday life.  I am a pastor alongside other pastors trying to lead a church amidst a post Christendom which isn’t entirely here yet. When we have conflicts, we view them as the point at which God works in the community to make his truth incarnate.  The epistemology (assumptions about how we know truth) I follow makes me post-foundationalist post-Christendom incarnational missional Anabaptist.  This means I seek to ground myself/ourselves in the ongoing incarnation of Christ in His community via Scripture, the Table and the “gifts of the Spirit.” Of course we submit to received orthodoxy. Yet this ongoing incarnational process of discerning truth contextually continues and extends orthodoxy. This extending does not happen through a few professional clergy deciding how we should discern the issues disagreed upon from the top down. This extending happens in the concrete lives of real communities discerning real issues. This is how our faith extends into the real lives of people. And so we must enter into disputes carefully discerning, listening to each other, studying Scripture, discerning sin, until we all “together discern the mind of Christ”(1 Cor 2;16). At Life on the Vine, we take seriously, that “whenever two or three gather and agree on a anything in my name, there am I in the midst. What ever is bound on earth is bound in heaven. What ever is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven.” God inhabits conflict as if it were a sacrament – incarnating his truth further into the lives of a people living in the world (Matt 18:20).

This goes against  two kinds of leadership so prominent in American church today. I call them autocratic and democratic. I reject both of these forms of leadership for the church in Mission.

THE AUTOCRATIC APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP (typically) puts authority in one (usually a man) senior pastor figure in the church to solve conflicts. For this approach – truth is always obvious, clear and perspicuous, it just takes an expert to explain it. And so, in the midst of church conflict, the senior pastor’s job as expert is to ascend to Mt Sinai, pray, read his Bible, hear from God and then descend to the church to tell them “this is the way it will be.” Those who agree stay, and (in America) those who disagree leave to start another church. This way of truth shapes people for arrogance and exclusion instead of openness to what God is doing. We get no where in God’s Mission and where he is taking us.

This conception of truth/leadership is sometimes typified by Al Mohler – blogger and president of So Baptist Theo Seminary. For Dr Mohler – truth is absolute. It is revealed. There are some things we know because God told us. Now of course there is “truth” to this, but this fails to take into account the way God reveals truth in history via the incarnation and the ongoing work of the Spirit in the church. It cannot be that simple when the disputable matters of the church are at stake (as opposed to the core orthodox established matters of doctrine). For instance, when Dr. Mohler says here “The Bible presents the knowledge of hell just as it presents the knowledge of sin and judgment: these are things we had better know. God reveals these things to us for our good and for our redemption. In this light, the knowledge of these things is grace to us,” does he get the varied ways these doctrinal matters have worked themselves out differently in various histories? say between the Reformed, Luthern and Wesleyan? That it is not self evident that sin, hell, judgement etc. mean and function the same for all historical expressions of the church. There is history in context at work here. From reading this here, it appears Mohler is resistant to the idea that truth needs to be worked out in a context. He could often be accused of  a version of “Absolute Truth” that is devoid of a contextual hermeneutic (although I think he could ably defend himself).

THE DEMOCRATIC APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP seeks to solve conflicts by a community accepting many (all?) “voices”, tolerating disagreements and letting the conversation continue. There is a core orthodoxy around which we gather, but we must tolerate the many differences around the core. There are two weaknesses to this kind of leadership. FIRST – Real conversation is not fostered because an enforced tolerance minimizes our disagreements (says they are not important) because we have already agreed that we must accept them. Since any real substance in our disagreements has been diminished, we have little to do but talk about these issues (not discern them). It should not then be surprising that people contend these conversations also go nowhere.  The SECOND weakness is that this form of democratic leadership in essence decides where the “line in the sand is”. Someone has to decide what disagreements are central to the community’s commitments and which disagreements are sufficiently benign for us all to tolerate. Someone determines that these tolerable disagreements are simply not important enough to discern. They do not hurt anyone sufficiently (a democratic value if there ever was one) to get into serious discernment over for the future of the gospel. This itself is a form of autocratic leadership. In the end, there is little difference between the autocratic and democratic because some singular leader/leader group is basically making uniteral judgements as to what affirmations and truths we will be lead by, and which disagreements we will tolerate as part of us.

Brian McLaren’s recent statement on homosexuality here falls into this category of democratic leadership. He claims that we must learn to disapprove of homosexuality while at the same time accepting it (I think he means in the church). This only other option is divisiveness in the church.

This does not really help the pastoral situation however. There are many people who see the gay/lesbian peoples as hurting, vulnerable and victumized in their sexuality. We need to invite them in the life of uncovering hurt and seeking healing and renewal that we all desire for our sexuality. Democratic tolerance covers over these issues disabling these kind of cinversations. There are people who see all desire, especially sexual desire, as the place of spiritual formation. For these folk,. not only what we accept but what place we give gay and lesbian life in the church will have profound effect on how we see the shaping of all desire (especially consumerist desire). These people argue, “to accept gay and lesbian life as “OK” within the Christian community is in essence to make a decision to allow this understanding of sexual formation to shape our kids.” In essence then, an approach that appears benign and innocent to Brian, refusing to cut off and divide, is a blatant pronoucement in a Christian community as anything the autocrat would do.

Democratic tolerance shapes the conversation to be one-sided. Perhaps this is what is happening to Brian and the launch of his new book where he is seriously getting taken to task on such matters here and here (HT Bill Kinnon). Read brad/futurist guy’s comments on this blog post. Does Brian then, as much as I like and appreciate him, end up (innocently?) making Mohler-like  pronouncements in the name of “generosity,” “inclusion” and “love.” Is he assuming an epistemology as individualistic and violent as Al Mohler. I give both Al and Brian the benefit of the doubt because of their track records in the ministry of the KIngdom of God. Yet I think they may have forgotten what it means to work out disagreements and  doctrine in a live real incarnate community (a church body) where these things matter and require contextual engagement. Of course not much of this kind of discernment actually goes on much in churches anymore. We need then to push for an incarnational approach to leadership.

THE INCARNATIONAL APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP I propose the incarnational way of leading through coflict where God works in conflict as the means to push us forward into our context for Mission. Here we do not depend on a divinely appointed hierarchical figure to ascend to the mountain and pronounce from above the way it shall be. Neither do we depend on a leader or leaders to arbitrate which issues shall be declared  “tolerable.” Instead we allow the community where God is at work to determine when a disagreement is important enought to discern for the will of God among us. When such a disagreement has occured, the pastors invite those offended or in disagreement to go to the person – one on one. If there is not an agreementhere they bring thr disagreement to a third and/or fourth person. If still no agreement, take it to the church, which at Life on the Vine means the shepherd board, those recognized leaders of the community. If after several sessions, this issue remains unresolved proving it is too important for who we are and the people/problems we are engaging, we call a “Council” of all the people in the church interested in this issue, to pray, listen, to hear those recognized in the study of Scripture, to submit to one another, to die to ourselves and recognize our own sin, and out this discern together for a common agreement – so that we can say to the church ..”It seems good to Holy Spirit and to us ……”(Acts 15:28). In this way, the community of the Spirit where He is Lord determines the issues concretely that need to be discerned, because they perculate organicly to the surface becoming an issue for the whole body. Here orthodoxy cannot be defied only extended into new terrotory – new orthodoxy. Here the gifts are listened to, those who are gifted in wisdom, reading Scripture, teaching etc.. And  with prayer and charity and courage we discern what God is calling us into. And wherever two or more agree on anything in His name, there He is in the midst of us. What is bound here is bound in hevane, loosed here, also in heaven (Matt 18:15-20).

Conflict is crucial to the community in Mission. Because Mission pushes us into new territory, new things we’ve never faced, there will be new conflicts. As we all submit to each other in prayer we resolve to do this or that into the world. Jesus inhabits thee conflict (”there am i” Matt 18:17) Their resolution pushes the community forward into Mission. We who come together to live as Christian incarnational community in the world should therefore welcome conflict as the place where God works to incarnate us into new territory, to discern what Christ looks like here anew. And if we have no conflicts, no differences and no disagreements, we have become stagnent.

All of this requires real relationships and concrete communities living our disagreements, not only talking/writing about them.

Filed under: Missional Leadership, Neo-Anabaptist, Uncategorized | 31 Comments

Leave it to Michael Spencer (aka Internet Monk) to find a label that captures what so many of us have been feeling about church for the past few decades. His label “Mere Churchianity” describes (for me) the malaise of continuing to go through the motions of church when we have lost touch with why we were doing it in the first place. I haven’t read the book yet, it’s not coming out for several months, but I’m preordering it here. Because I can’t imagine with this title and this writer, that this book will not be a compelling account of the issues we face as pastors/theologians in our time. I encourage y’all to join me in pre-ordering.

I don’t know Michael Spencer but I read Michael Spencer/ Internet Monk often. He is one of those bloggers that gives the rest of us a good name. I’ve learned much in my work – both academic and pastoral – from reading him. I’ve written many a post bouncing off some already ground breaking obsevration he’s made over at I Monk. He’s been sick for a few months. Word is he’s struggling with cancer. I’m praying for you dude. We struggle in prayer and God’s grace to preserve you and your family through these times. May God bring you healing and strength. In the meantime, be encouraged that many of us are looking forward to this book!

Filed under: Uncategorized | Post a comment

I take it as a given that a missional church sees and understands the new strange contexts of post Christendom as a mission field. Therefore, when our gathering gets too big for true relational community – we do not try to increase the size of our building or find ways to accommodate more people. We recognize that relationships are essential to the gospel and that when we increase the size of gatherings/buildings, organizational infrastructure to accommodate more and more people, we LOSE THE INHERENT ABILITY TO ORGANICALLY BE INVOLVED IN PEOPLE’S LIVES WHO ARE OUTSIDE THE GOSPEL. We recognize then that when we get over a certain size, all we end up doing is making the goods and services of being a Christian more accessible and convenient for already existing Christians. We have no other option then, when we get too big, to ask fifteen or twenty people to leave and go be missionaries to dechurched places in post Christendom. This used to be called church planting. We often now call it “seeding missional communities.”

This “seeding missional communities” however will look stunningly different than the church planting ways of the past so inherently dependent upon the cultural assumptions of Christendom. The much-derided “Franchise” approach has little application here in these contexts. We cannot depend on an already interested “market.” We cannot enter a place expecting them to “come to us” on our terms. We cannot even expect the way we talk about God, sin and Jesus to make sense apart from a way of life (and a displayed Story) from which such words take on flesh. So we like to think in terms of “sending” groups of people as “missional orders” into a community – bands of people who can take time, and sink in and learn that culture and be among the place in which God has called them to minister Christ. When we discern places for such a missionary endeavor, we ask are these places “under-churched,” “affordable for us as we seek to live missionally and beneath our means.” Can we get a calling for this place even though we have not yet “landed.” Are there signs God is calling us to this place?

5 Issues to Be Discerned in Seeding a New Community

Assuming we have discerned the place God is calling us to, the following 5 issues should be discerned as each group forms. Each one of these issues takes discernment as well as much prayer and seeking God for guidance. I take it for granted that each church planter is seeking God and listening to the gifts in community locally with people who already know them (Although JR has reminded me that I should not assume – instead we need to be intentional about that – Amen JR).

1.) DISCERN THE 3 (4 or 5) LEADERS. We (our church body) must discern the team of leaders who will be responsible for leading the theological integrity of this new community. This will be a team of leaders (as opposed to single superstar entrepreneur) who are on the same page philosophically, who will be bi-vocational, who will compliment one another in their giftings (APEPT), who have proven themselves in character and theological integrity so as to lead a community. Such a multiple bi-vocational leadership pushes the church outward instead of inward. Once assembled they will model THE 3 (4-5), THE 12, THE 120 seeking to build a strong shepherd/elder leadership who then they each shepherd 3-5 people. Together we learn the ways of “revolutionary subordination” – where God inhabits every conflict for the growth and furtherance of this community into the center of what He is doing in the community.

2.) They must then LAND (as opposed to a “Launch”). They will have to get jobs, places to live close enough together, start a small rhythm of life, a worship gathering, a communal meal, teach the children. Luke 10:17 tells us to “go eat there” – have a regular meeting with Jesus to be sent by Him (verse 1) from and return to (verse 17) to be grounded in Incarnate Christ. We enter not from power, but from humility …the goal is to become imbedded in sustainable and engaging ways of life with our surroundings.

3.) EXEGETE THE COMMUNITY (as opposed to doing a market survey) Again following Luke 10, we look for places to bless which usually means looking for the poor. We look for persons of peace (you will need relationships). We seek out the poor where God is working among the “poor in spirit” disenfranchised from the structures of power. Here we can find God at work and the harvest. Here we can learn about the Kingdom. We enter a community not to market, not from power, but meekly to discern where the hurting are.

4. TEACH MISSIONAL RHYTHMS.  (As opposed to attractional events) We learn to inhabit and live among the places God has put us. We learn how to listen, pay attention, and take notice of those in our path as places where God is already working. We set places where we regularly visit same time same place every week. We seek out a time every month/week to be present among the poor (of all kinds). ALL WITHIN THE DAILY RHYTHMS OF LIFE (Luke 10.3 says “on your way,” 10.7 “remain eating and drinking”). We work not to build an evangelistic organization to individuals, but a missional way of life where God is at work. Luke 10:2 – the harvest is plenty; all we need is laborers out there.

5. PREPARE FOR A SUSTAINABLE WAY OF LIFE OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. (as opposed to projected growth and financial sustainability after three years). EXPECT GROWTH TO BE SLOW, BUT OF MIRACULOUS VARIETY. YOU MAY START WITH 10-20 PEOPLE, EXPECT NO SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS. IT TAKES FIVE YEARS TO BUILD A MISSIOANL PRESENCE. BY THE FIFTH TO EIGHT YEAR,  GROWTH WILL HAPPEN.

………………………….
I’m here in Edmonton writing this and have found friends of like mind who have wonderful materials. I recommend the Karen Wilk’s materials here in Edmonton entitled Living Dangerously. Wonderfully written by Karen, you can find out more about them at kwministry@shaw.ca. Also, check out the great materials at Roxburgh Missional Network – particularly the MBIN (moving back into the neighborhood) workbook (find out more at www.roxburghmissionalnet.com). Blessings to Howard Lawrence and Greg Brandenbarg and their work in the neighbohoods of Edmonton. They are part of Forge.ca. Thanks to Hioward, Greg and Karen – I was blessed to have met you this week!

Filed under: Uncategorized | 20 Comments