I am sure house churches never have to deal with this issue, but as old fashioned church planters we're often taught to start out a church plant with a well-crafted mission statement. To which I say "A mission statement?" Can mission be put into a statement? How can you put the Kingdom of God into a mission statement? Well, some might say, any organization needs a direction. But does not such a well-crafted mission statement imply we know what the future will look like? Not to overstate my case here, but to quote one my favorite passages from Yoder:

"If we claim to justify the actions we take by the effects they promise, we shall be led to pride in the abuse of power in those cases when it seems that we can reach our goals by the means of our own disposal. … We are drawn into the twofold pride of thinking that we, more than others, see things as they really are and of claiming the duty and the power to coerce others in order to move history aright. If our faithfulness is to be guided by the kind of man Jesus was it must cease to be guided by the quest to have dominion over the course of events. We cannot sight down the line of our obedience to the attainment of the ends we seek."(Royal Priesthood p.203).

Our church had so many mid course developments I don't know if a mission statement would have helped or hindered the development of our community. So I say scrap mission statements. And BTW, if we do go with mission statements, should not all churches have the same mission statement?

Also, according to church planting 101, after the mission statement, you are supposed to outline the core values of your church and then chart a path with 4 or 5 steps (some maybe call them "bases") that organize the way people get assimilated into the church program. These values distinguish you from other churches. They describe what you are committed to and how you are addressing the context of your local community. In other words, these are marketing niches? I don 't know, I am just asking.

What I fear from this approach is that by setting such a course, the community that comes together becomes merely participants in one person's idea, not the mission of God. The organic alive development of the community into mission as discovered in the discernment of the community together might be squelched. I can tell you the best discernments and moves our church has discerned, have come from someone other than me, the "senior" pastor. And now so many more people have ownership in what God is doing here at "the Vine." Furthermore, with all this mission-values-plan of assimilation stuff, there's a danger that this becomes all too original, new and improved and loses the continuity with the Body of Christ universal.

As our church evolved, we never really sync-ed with the mission statement value stuff. We moved towards "adjectives" - three beautiful adjectives that describe what we are striving to be in continuity with the work of God in Christ. TRANSFORMATIONAL, COMMUNAL, MISSIONAL. I suppose they could be a mission statement, some might say "these are your core values" but I look at them as the character of the Body of Christ wherever His presence is cultivated. They describe how we'll know we are actually part of a Body of Christ. These adjectives are not overly directive. They are not market driven. Yet they possess a theological depth that is compelling enough to give us direction and tell others what we are about. The simple power of three adjectives. These adjectives seem to describe a lot of missional churches I know. In fact I am sure other missional-type churches have used these or similar adjectives as well.

Transformational - worship is not a pep rally or a lecture hall. It is transformation through interaction with God, His Word, His Presence, His Table. There's accessible liturgy at our church. And our triads have Benedictine qualities to them for spiritual formation.(Rom 12;1-2). Communal - We have all family potlucks twice a month. We have missional home groups that meet in several places in the neighborhoods. Community and journeying together is what it means to be the Body (1 Cor 12, Eph 4). Missional - Evangelism is not a program. Missions is not a foreign outreach committee(only). We're learning that every activity in our lives is opportunity for mission. And so we spend time in the retirement home, the soup kitchen, as well as some of the most amazing one on one's with hurting people I've been involved in. And we've had great opportunities to make relationships with overseas efforts for mission. 2 Cor 5:17-19.

And so we put these adjectives on the back of the bulletin. Yes we have bulletins. We're in the suburbs, so we've got to have bulletins. For those who care : this is what is on the back of our bulletins.

Transformational
When we gather for worship on Sundays, or in triads during the week, may our encounter with God in Christ truly shape who we are. Seeking more than an emotional arousal or intellectual critique, let us join those who have gone before us and submit our minds, bodies, and souls to the living Lord.

Communal
Whether at a local house gathering, a church potluck, or the Lord's Table, may God grant us hearts of hospitality, embracing one another in the unity of the Spirit. Let us be an authentic community that journeys together, bearing one another's burdens and speaking truth in love.

Missional
Every day may we be Christ's presence to the hurting, lost, and victimized people of this often-unjust world. Let us welcome the stranger and offer words of life. Joining hands with churches around the globe, we participate in what God is doing everywhere to redeem the world to himself.

OK .. I've probably been a bit flippant on my analysis here. But where is everybody else at out there with mission statements, core values etc..

Blessings

As some of you may know, I occasionally get asked to write for Out of Ur blog, Church and PostModern Culture blog and even Next Wave E-Zine sometimes. Great blogs. I don't always have the time but I finally got a report over to the church and pomo culture blog on the Ancient Evangelical Future Conference from last December. They asked for it ages ago and I apologize to Geoff and Jamie.

The conference was excellent. I had a blast. I posted over at churchandpomo about the two questions I posed to Brian McLaren concerning his presentation (which was excellent) at the Conference. The two questions concerned "Who gets to Narrate the World?" and "Is a Deep Ecclesiology and Generous Orthodoxy Possible Together?" Check out the post if you like over at churchandpomo blog.

Over Christmas time, Willowcreek put on Christmas Eve service(s) that they described as their most ambitious yet. Most noteworthy, according to the newspaper, they used Cirque de Soleil-style acrobats in the presentation of the Christmas story. While some of us were (admittedly) smirking over this - a friend said to me, "they are just trying to be creative in presenting the story of Christ's birth. What could be wrong with that?" At which point I pondered - at what point is the story no longer the story? Answer - when it becomes a spectacle. According to Paul Ricouer, we know it's a good story when we "get into it," when we see ourselves "emploted" into the story. This is the idea behind remembering the story, rehearsing it in worship (and the Eucharist), true anamnesis (1 Cor 11:24). The spectacle however turns us passive no longer able to participate in the story. The question is: did Willowcreek turn the story of the Christ child into a spectacle with the use of acrobats? Did the acrobats becomes so mesmerizing that those who came to see were caught up in the spectral gaze, detached and mesmerized, made totally inert as onlookers no longer able to participate in the story? Because when the story becomes a spectacle, the story is no longer a story. And we have gone from an act of worship to an act of spectatorship, from an act of participation to a spectral gaze.

According to John Milbank (Being Reconciled, p. 31), Augustine described the way Romans would go to the theatre and enjoy suffering and violence acted out on the stage as those caught in the spectral gaze. Augustine said the thrill of the spectral gaze depended upon "an absolute bar against reciprocal participation sealed by a double passivity." (p.31). This spectral gaze made the onlooker doubly passive (according to Milbank) because a.) the scene from the outset was exhibited ONLY to be watched, and b.) the people watching were confined from going there for any other purpose that mere reception, mere spectatorship. They were safe from the violence, were prohibited from participating, and there was not any other purpose to witness this violence in this way that getting a "cheap thrill." (milbank might argue that Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ was such a spectacle). This is markedly different than a worship gathering and a rehearsal of the Christ story where we called to participation. Milbank says this enables a perverse enjoyment of suffering. And so at this point the scene becomes a spectacle.

Now Milbank is using the "spectral gaze" in this part of Being Reconciled to argue for something totally different than I am here. He is trying to show the perverse complicity in violence inherent in pacificist positions by their "passivity." Something I don't agree with Milbank on. Nonetheless, I believe his analysis does help us understand what could be wrong with Christmas Eve services that use Acrobats.

For it is when we attempt to make the Christmas Eve service into a spectacle, when we try to hyper intensify the reality of the Son being born a babe to attract onlookers, THAT WE ACTUALLY REMOVE OURSELVES AND THE ONLOOKERS FROM THAT REALITY. We make the birth of the Son a spectacle to get fascinated by, enjoy as a show, foreclosing the possibility of participating in it. In other words, you cannot evangelize with a spectacle. Isn't that ironic?

We love to intensify reality. But the spectral gaze intensifies the reality turning it into hyper reality one step removed from reality. Participation is pre-empted. According to Baudrillard, this is the last stage of a culture's semiotics when we go to signs bearing no relation to reality whatsoever. It is "pure simulation." Ironically, when we reach this point in our services, they bear no relation to reality any longer. They are simulating Christ performing a simulacrum of the birth of Christ. Ironically, in so doing, we in effect separate people from the reality of Christ instead of drawing them closer. And we cut off all participation.

Some will say, but they have someone speak a message at the end (notice the newspaper article)! And they ask people to make a decision. To which I ask, how can anyone respond authentically once they're caught up in the passivity of the spectral gaze? But ok, I'll take an altar call here to get some form of participation out of the spectral gaze. It ain't the Eucharist but it is something.

Some will say, Dave you're up tight. Let us be creative. To which I reply that I believe art is absolutely essential to worship and the embodiment of the gospel. In a world moved past modernity, we must embody the gospel and the reality of Father, Son Holy Ghost so as to reshape imaginations under the work of the Spirit in worship. But we will have to discern the difference between art as worship from spectacle. Our graphics motion icons in our service are beautiful, but we have to watch carefully. For they must not dwarf the Story. They must invite into the Story.

Perhaps Willowcreek did the acrobats with this kind of discernment. In which case I take back everything I said that might have implicated them. Nonetheless the exercise has been good for me to think all over again why we must avoid the spectacle when it comes to the worship of our God Incarnate.

Before the new year gets going, I thought I'd look back at the past year at this blog by highlighting the 10 most linked/commented on posts from the past year. I have no idea whether this is cool or not. But with the changing of the blog address and design (with Nathan's artistry and help) many of the posts from the previous blog address are not as accessible as they once were via search engines. So maybe this will help with that. For whatever it's worth, here are the TEN MOST COMMENTED-ON/LINKED-TO AND/OR CONTROVERSIAL POSTS OF from the the GreatGiveaway/Reclaiming the Mission blog from 2006. (If you click on to a link, you might have to scroll down in order to find the particular post linked to)

1. Intentional Hospitality Amidst the White-Washed Isolation of the Suburban Malaise: Rantings on Being the Church in the Suburbs January 24, 2006 Hospitality hasn't got any easier, but we've come up with some new tactics.
2. A Warning From Jerome Bettis’ Mother!:On the Use of Technology in Worship January 31, 2006Nothing like tying in the SuperBowl into theology in order to get a few more hits on the blog.
3. The McLaren-Driscoll Exchange on “the Homosexual Question”: On Posing a Different Question February 10, 2006 Though I admire and appreciate Brian McLaren and all he's done for me, I couldn't agree totally with him in this most infamous Out of Ur Post of the year. I couldn't back Driscoll either.
4. "I'm willing to die for it" versus "The Bible is Inerrant": How Best to Speak About the Authority of Scriptures in our Times - THEOLOGICAL ISSUE NO. 1 April 09, 2006 I never did get to the other issues I described in an earlier post, as the key theological issues for the emerging church. This post was just a attempt to redefine the question.
5. Why Fundamentalism and Liberalism Are Two Sides of the Same Coin - Where All Emerging Conversants Must Go April 26, 2006 I remember being surprised how much play this little piece got around blogland for a post on a not so original idea.
6. The "De-Churched" and the Future of Missional Emerging Congregations May 27, 2006 I still think it is the mega-churches that are dechurching people i.e. training people into thinking that what they're doing is church when its not. The worst kind of dechurched.
7. The Myth of Expository Preaching & the Commodification of the Word Thursday June 29 2006 It was surprising to me how people got upset with me on this issue. Someone actually accused me of being a Jihadist against Expository Preaching.
8. Letting Go of Expository Preaching For Preaching That “Funds Imagination” July 22, 2006 So hopefully things got a little nicer at this post.
9. What Jerry Falwell, Zizek and Obesity Can Teach us About Our Evangelical Holiness Codes August 31, 2006 My personal favorite of the year.
10. A Warning List For Those Who Would Join a Missional Church Gathering November 05, 2006 The post that got the most links of any of my blog posts for the year, that's what someone told me at least ... I wrote it after a frustrating week pastoring ... there are many of you out there who know what I mean.

I generally try to blog once a week. I am mostly commenting on reading from the week, weekly lessons from life as a pastor, or theological rants of some sort that happen out of my real life engagments in teaching, pastoring and writing. I hope to do a little more personal stuff this year. To all who read, clicked and linked, and for all the great comments, many thanks for the conversations.

Blessings on the coming new year in Christ.