We are inclined to think that the way to impact the world for Christ is to do something big. Think Big! Dream Big! It’s the American way. In American church life, the churches that have the most influence are the largest churches in attendance on Sunday mornings – 10,000 or more. These are the churches that get the most attention – whether it be the front page of the newspaper, CNN or the denominational conferences. I do not wish to deny the “successes” of these churches. Something has clicked, a “wave has been caught,” the tipping point has tipped and some work for God’s Kingdom has gone forth. But often what happens is people seek to “model” the success at a time when the movement has already peaked. I am not trying to do a sociological analysis of church strategists (I hate the very idea of church strategist). I just wish to offer some observations from my own sight lines. From my point of view, once a church hits what many perceive as “success,” what has already happened is that this same church has lost its ability to critique and engage culture. Specifically, it cannot even see how it has itself become a reflection of the culture. Worse yet, this church now has to maintain itself and in some cases go into survival mode. The large successful churches therefore lose their maneuverability in and among a culture. They lose their ability to be incarnational in the missional sense.

All this to say, as I am prone to do, the church best suited to make this kind of a difference for Christ and His Kingdom both in terms of individual peoples’ lives and culturally for justice, is the smaller incarnational community embedded in the surrounding geographical community. Here there is cultural maneuverability sufficient to engage one’s surrounding cultural issues. Here, most of all, there is relationality. There is the wherewithal of a community to understand the social issues and get traction and do some “culture-making” – culture redeeming.

I believe there is a social logic to this missional way of incarnating Christ culturally as a church in the surrounding community. It is no where better displayed than in Andy Crouch’s description of the 3,the 12 and the 120 in his book Culture-Making. Let me briefly summarize it.

Andy says all “culture-making” is local. Certainly there are many cultural goods that have made a global impact. Think McDonalds, Facebook, even Ford Motor Company at the turn of the last century. Nonetheless, Crouch makes the argument that all of these global culturally transforming organizations began with 3 people, who then had 12 around them , who then had 120 people as the third layer of concentric circles where the impact is spread deeply into nooks and crannies of the surrounding cultural geography. Andy shows how many of the biggest cultural innovations of the century started with the logic of 3 core people committed together to a vision, purpose, idea or understanding of how to engage a problem, need or innovation. They then gathered 12 people who could explain it, understand it and carry it out further. They then gathered 120 more – these people I suggest are a sufficient mass of people who can know the 3 and the 12, build sufficient trust and coordination to coalese around the idea, vision or mission and birth it as a reality among themselves – make it visible in a community large enough so the world can see, taste and understand the revolution being brought forth.

Andy Crouch says:

The essential insight of the 3: 12: 120 is that every cultural innovation, no matter how far reaching its consequences, is based on personal relationships and personal commitment. Culture making is hard. It simply doesn’t happen without the deep investment of absolutely and relatively small groups of people. In culture making, size matters – in reverse. Only a small group can sustain the attention, energy and perseverance to create something that genuinely moves the horizons of possibility – because to create the good requires an ability to suspend, at least for a time, the very horizons within which everyone is operating. Such “suspension of impossibility” is tiring and taxing. The only thing strong enough to sustain it is a community of people… p.243

This above paragraph describes something of what must happen in the founding of a missional community which seeks to make an impact in its immediate surrounding culture for the gospel. This also resonates with my own experience of planting a missional community. It was NOT until we arrived at enough co-inherence between myself and (at least) two other leaders that we could then go further. Then we needed twelve more. Now we must learn how to find trust and share the vision/understanding with one hundred and twenty Christians (or people becoming Christians invited into the Mission) so that together – under the Holy Spirit – a living breathing manifestation of God’s salvation in Christ breaks forth authentically and in real terms AMONG US. Then the church as a force for God’s salvation becomes unstoppable in our surrounding geography, as in Acts 2:42-47 unstoppable. This is the social logic of the 3,12,120.

From there, it might be that, every one of the twelve, if God so gifts, finds and develops their own three-some, from which another twelve are gathered .. and the next one hundred and twenty. We send out, and send out, and send out more and more communities. Of course none of this brilliant exposition by Andy Crouch would mean anything to me if the 3,12,120 was not in fact modeled by Jesus himself in the beginning of His church (as Andy points out), Jesus called his 3, Peter, James and John, and then the 12 and then the 120. This is what we see in essence gathered that day in that room (Acts 1:13-15): the 3, the 12 (er 11), and the 120. And of course God used this to change the world.

Following this 3:12:120 pattern in planting communities requires adjustments to the way we think about church. It will require multiple bi-vocational leadership using the APEPT model (the 3 or it could be 4 or 5) not a single senior entrepreneurial leader. This is where I suggest all missional planters start. Find the 3 (or 4, or 5). From here, we will all be challenged continually to “suspend the impossible” so that God can work in profound and miraculous ways. Cultivating this first among the 12 and then the 120 will take much nurturing and significant community. It will be organic and take time over many years. Growth will not be linear. It will require that we think success differently for it will be cultural success not just numeric success. Above all, we must understand that this has been the way God has in such profound ways changed the world and He can do it again, through starting small, the 3, 12, 120.

I think we have just begun to see what is possible in this way of thinking about the church at Life on the Vine. What about you? Has anyone else seen the logic of the 3,12 and 120 at work in your churches?

When people come to our church from other established (probably bigger) evangelical churches, they often come looking for a communal, real, authentic, missional life with Christ and a church body. They find our liturgical forms of worship refreshing at first. But sometimes, if they don’t GET what’s going on, they become disillusioned. Our sermons do not always exposit word for word what the Bible means and then package some applications to go home with and do and improve your Christian life. They proclaim Truth (the reality of Jesus as Lord) out of the Biblical text and ask us to obey, submit and live under the Lordship of Christ for this day, this week, this year. We do have group Bible study time at 9 a.m. (newly reinstituted teaching for an hour teaching the Scripture that we are preaching), but the service itself is a time of formation before and into the Word of God. It is not a time of learning information for the purpose of attaining a certain competence (don’t get me wrong, there’s an important place for studying and knowing The Bible). Different assumptions about “How People Grow in Christ” undergird how we gather as a people, and the discipleship processes that come forth from that.

There seem to be two different models of growing into Christ at work here. I would argue one is more modern, individualistic and particularly good for people who were raised in evangelicalism and liked it and have a character already formed into Christ (because of good Christian parenting) and therefore are less in need of Christian formation (or at least can get along without it). The other way recognizes the formational issues of growing up in post Christian-dom world. This way is built around a community (the speaking of truth in love- Eph 4: 15), growing together as a community (Eph 4:16) into Christ based upon the working of all of the gifts of Eph 4:11. I must adamantly assert that I don’t think the second way is any less committed to Scripture, the conversion of the lost into Christ’s salvation or the development of each believer in over and out of sin than the first way. The ways of understanding how Scripture, preaching and the Holy Spirit work together in the community and the individual’s sanctification are however different.

Matt Tebbe, one of our pastors, with the help of Geoff Holsclaw, another of our pastors, wrote up the difference like this. (I have edited a few of Matt’s words)

HOW DO CHRISTIANS GROW AND MATURE?

ONE WAY:
1. Strong, charismatic, decisive leadership
− emphasis on one person’s vision, dependent on personality and leadership skill of pastor, creates STRONG group identification among members
2. Lengthy, exhaustive, application-heavy teaching and preaching -
− emphasis on right belief leading to right behavior, problem in spiritual progress diagnosed as “wrong/bad/insufficient beliefs” (i.e. not enough information)
3. Community who will be “in your face” about issues, ideas, opinions, advice
− emphasis on not tolerating sin, speaking truth, issues tend to be black and white and approach others monolithic

Can lead to:
− “like throwing gas on a fire” – can bring fast, initial growth, but over time Christians develop lack of character, discernment, and wisdom to sustain an abiding relationship with the Lord
− Leadership style undercuts development of listening, sensitivity, wisdom, and responsivenes to the Spirit
− Incredible numerical growth and brand loyalty to church
− Mature Christian = one who has answers to important questions, can articulate churches positions on issues, has demonstrated right living in certain areas of focus at church

ANOTHER WAY:
1. Humble, mutually-submitted, empowering leadership
− emphasis on a togetherness of leadership, Spirit’s authority is not deposited in one person in the church, raising up and empowering others alongside leadership
2. Sermons proclaim the Word of God, the truth (the reality as it is under Christ’s Lordship) leading to
a response to the Holy Spirit by congregation in liturgy rather than an application “to-do” list
− emphasis on character formation, responding to Spirit’s conviction rather than Pastoral direction, and the mutual reinforcement of obedience and belief.
3. Community who will engage in dialogue, questions, and listening as a way of engaging with others
− emphasis on listening to what the Spirit is doing in another’s life, discerning what a person is ready to receive, issues tend to be complex and approach to others is contextual

Can lead to:
− “duraflame log” – slow, steady, sustainable growth in maturity and wisdom as a Christian.
− People who learn how to listen to Spirit, think through issues with a worldview shaped by obedience to scripture, and care for others and respect their journey of faith
− Lower numbers and less brand loyalty
− on the downside, can lead to: abdication of pastoral leadership/authority (i.e. too hands off), congregation can interpret lack of directedness as being “soft on sin” or “not structured enough”
− Mature Christian = one who is a practiced listener – to scripture, the Spirit, one another – and responder, has an imagination and conceptual tools increasingly full of the Story of God, knowledge and understanding leads to humility, obedience, and compassion.

Have you experienced either one of these ways to how a Christian grows into Christ? Has Matt been fair in his characterizations, the weaknesses and strengths of each way? Have you noticed the same distinctions? Have you ever been in a community that operates under the second set of assumptions? What are your own experiences of growth in relation to the worship/discipleship practices of your church? Do these distinctions ring true for you?

“Obama has to hold something in reserve. He has to dial down expectations … he has to play it cool … if only to have any hope of surviving.” (quote from here)

The scene from Grant Park on Tuesday evening was mesmerizing, spectral, simply stunning. I sat there looking on (via television) in utter amazement at this “historic” moment. The majesty of the staging, the sheer numbers of people participating made anyone who watched want to be, indeed have to be, part of this movement for change. The diversity in the crowds was eschatological. No one could miss the M L King overtones. Barack Obama’s speech was delivered with the cadence of Martin Luther King, the brilliance of John Kennedy, the gravitas of Abraham Lincoln calling a nation together at Gettysberg. I was moved by the diversity, glad that our country’s aggressive posture towards war would be over, heartened that we might begin listening and conversing with the rest of the world again, blown away by the conciliatory tone, blessed that such a gifted man would be lending intellect and leadership to this country’s problems. To all appearances, Obama looks like the counter-Bush. Today, despite my reticence to vote and support some of Obama’s policies towards abortion, I sincerely rejoice that the Bush era is over.

So what do we do now? I suggest three things to start.

1. HOPE FOR SOME SMALL CHANGES BUT DON’T EXPECT MUCH
I am hoping for some preservatory acts: some changes in government that preserve us from some of the more carnivorous societal injustices of the most recent laissez-faire capitalism gone mad, but that’s about it. Sadly (excuse me while I wince), as symbolic of an event in history as this is for every body, as good as it all makes us feel, this presidential change has little potential to produce anything significant for God’s justice in the world. Obama himself brilliantly proclaimed that nothing has been accomplished with his election. The work lies ahead. He spoke with seriousness on his face revealing just how much he knows that the task ahead is beyond the scope of any one man, that all people must participate. The speech very subtley warned us of a danger – the danger that all of us seeking the justice of God maybe don’t realize – there is very little Obama or the US government can do to bring in God’s justice even if Barack is everything as promised. His face said it all – the mountains of debt, the calamity of the capitalist markets, the economic crisis have made it virtually impossible for Barack to do anything but cooperate with the corporatist forces hoping for a time when the economy can even itself out and accomplish some of the things this country desperately needs: a new health care structure, a new economic structure, and a new international structure that retracts itself from war as a viable policy instrument.

2. PRAY FOR OBAMA
The powers and forces at work on the levels of U.S. government are so overwhelming that they will engulf anyone who dares enter into it. Barack is no different. In fact, in some ways, he comes specifically tailored to be used as a malleable instrument by the existing corporate structures of capital to further its territorilizing over America and beyond. Now that George Bush has exhausted his usefulness, indeed has no usable credibility anymore, corporate economy needs a black man/white man, rich man/who was poor man to be the instrument for furthering the flows of capital. Frankly, I don’t believe Obama has any other choice. I know this all sounds so conspiratorial. It’s not. I’m just reflecting observations already made elsewhere in political theory by theorists like Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri.

Political theorists Negri and Hardt have written famously how “a new form of sovereignty” has emerged at the turn of the millenium. It includes “dominant nation states along with supra-national institutions, major capitalist corporations and other powers.” Despite the inequalities between these various components, they all “must cooperate to create and maintain the current global order.” (preface Multitude). “Today nearly all of humanity is to some degree absorbed within or subordinated to the networks of capitalist exploitation.” (Empire p. 43) As such, the global networks of power organized primarily through global capitalism are the new more subtler form of power governing us all in this new Empire. In short, the State is the subordinate servant to the Global market.

This was all written prior to the economic developments of the last 6 months. Yet how forthtelling. Contrary to those Christians who argue that Obama is initiating a new world order that has apocalyptic implications drawn from the book of Revelation, Hardt and Negri’s work suggests that it is way too late to worry about that. The Global network is already firmly entrenched, too entrenched for pres. elect Obama to do anything about it. Likewise there are people who argue intelligently that the recent “Government bailout of Wall Street” was a capitulation to socialism. And the real reason that this happened was because we allowed the government to intrude into free markets forcing the banks and Wall Street to lend to poor people. Yet even Greenspan himself, the prima donna of free markets and Ayn Rand moral objectivism, declared he overestimated the ability of free markets and the banks to police themselves. He was shocked and horrified that the banks did this. And so, in the aftermath of Hardt and Negri, we must understand the government of the United States has no choice. They have to structure these vehicles to accommodate the carnivorous enslaving forces of capitalism, because to not do it would be catastrophic for the economy. The State is now the servant of the global capitalism and now every body must cooperate or die.

Obama too has little choice. It will be difficult to lead this country in the midst of this crisis without either sinking the US into all out depression or giving in to the interests and powers of corporate capital. This is why we truly must pray for the new president. For perhaps this will be the one good man who can become the instrument for a more just society. Yet I am convinced he can do so only by the power of God that supersedes his own or the US governments. Remember (I’m convinced) George W Bush was a good man at the outset as well.

3. GET ON WITH THE WORK OF THE KINGDOM
The kingdom’s work is always small (Matt 13:31-32), close to the ground (Matt 25:32-40) and subversive to the powers (Eph 6:2). This speaks to the fact that we really cannot expect too much from the new president. It is why I felt compelled to say earlier “Go ahead and vote, just don’t expect too much.” Instead, let us now get back to the primary call on our lives, nurturing communities of God’s justice, salvation, and reconciliation in the world.
The danger of Obama is that everybody wants to be part of something big … but the kingdom is usually small (It’s like a mustard seed). Let us not look to something big like the Obama presidency to bring in Christ’s justice. I fear the young emerging missional Christians have just shot their entire energy outtake for 2008-2009 into getting Obama elected. I fear we sit euphoric (if exhausted) as if to say we did it, its accomplished. And now the daily life engagements for Christ and his salvatiomn/justice do not seem near as exciting. This is the danger of Barack Obama to the emerging/missional churches.

So I respectfully ask, based on the above, that all young emerging/ missional Christians not get their hopes up. The sheer volume of antagonistic e-mails I’ll get for saying that reveals the ideological spell we are all locked into. In the midst of the new political euphoria however, I respectfully ask the emerging/missional church people to get on with being the church, the subversive micropolitics that actually can, under the Lordship of Christ, bring in the Reign of God, subvert the Empire, bring in the Kingdom of God on the ground. Emerging leaders read Hardt and Negri, understand Empire and let’s have a good discussion about it. I loved Tuesday night, yet, if given a choice, I would have preferred Tuesday night’s revival meeting have been in a church- or in a park with the cross at the center, recognizing Jesus as Lord. Blessings to us all as we seek to navigate being and doing God’s justice in the name of Jesus in this new world we have post Wall Street Bailout, post pres. George W Bush, post gas guzzling SUV’s. What do you think the danger of Obama is for the new emerging missional churches of America.