Reclaiming the Mission » 2010

davidfitch on September 29 2010

The Video Venue Farce: Why Video Venue is the Antithesis of Missional

O.K. “farce” may be a little strong, yet the video above illustrates why I think video venue church is disingenuous when it comes to reaching the world with the gospel. This video records a conversation between pastor James McDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel, pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill in Seattle, and pastor Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist church on the positives/negative of video venue/ multi site churches. McDonald and Driscoll are advocates specifically of video venue multi-site. Dever is not. This conversation, I think, substantiates several things I have been saying about the video venue church elsewhere. Here are my previous concerns with video venue form of church along with some observations from this video that substantiate my general thesis: Video Venues are the antithesis of Missional.

1.)Video Venues decontextualizes preaching. I believe preaching is different than teaching. Preaching speaks into the context, interprets Scripture for what God is doing in and among a local congregation and its context. It is the work of the Spirit using the preacher to call people into God’s Kingdom now. (This is why it often is conjoined with prophecy in the NT – read the classic on this here). It is speaking the Word over and into a context. This is one of the functions of the interpretive leader. The preacher however, that is separated by miles cannot do that. By definition, this preacher never knows anybody in the community, cannot by definition speak into people’s lives in this way. Preaching by definition becomes the mere cognitive transfer of information done in an entertaining and/or engaging format.

Now, pastor James gives a nod to the contextualization nature of preaching when he says recordings of preachers’ sermons should not be played after the preacher dies. He says Vernon McGee recordings should be put to bed for this reason. If this is true, what can it mean when Driscoll freely acknowledges he’s an introvert and therefore doesn’t want to know anyone is his congregation, just let the Spirit lead and guide him to say what needs to be said in his sermon. To me this reveals the decontextualized nature of Driscoll’s (and the Neo-Reformed in general) preaching. How then does preaching for Mars Hill in Seattle not become a form of info –distribution by a preacher who is unusually gifted in being engaging. It is preaching decontextualized, detached from real life. It is one step further towards preaching becoming commodified, consumerized, a product distributed to be used by those who come seeking a better Christian life. Once this happens, “the Word” becomes a user-friendly item and it by definition is no longer the Word of the God. And since I firmly believe that the preacher’s task in the community is to be an interpretive leader, one who helps the community see God at work in and among them contextually through Scripture, this means video venue preaching is the very antithesis of missional. Tell me where I’m wrong?

2.) Video venues draw crowds to a celebrity and this attraction works against (as opposed to helps) the formation of church in mission. If the church is the living body of Christ operating out of the gifts of the Spirit ministering the gospel in everyday life among the world, the attraction of people to celebrity is by definition not church. At the very least this personality contest/video impulse works against the drive into Mission.
Yet, in this video conversation, both Driscoll and McDonald extol “draw” on celebrity as one of the advantages of starting churches with video. They seem to think celebrity is something to be used to build churches, spread the gospel. Yet is this what is actually happening? I think not.
In fact what is happening, more often than not, is merely the shifting of consumers into churches wanting more accessible/engaging, entertaining information/teaching. When pastor Driscoll says that this church in Albuquerque went from 200 to 500 in few six months with him videoing, does he think suddenly people who had never heard him wanted to suddenly hear the gospel? Does he think people did not come from other churches. So let’s just be honest here eh? This isn’t evangelism, or building churches this is warehousing Christians who want “better” teaching (whatever that might mean?) This is churches playing musical chairs. When pastor James talks about leveraging his influence to start and build up other churches, doesn’t this really say what video church is about? What does he mean by his influence? Those who know him via Moody radio? Does he really think non-Christians want to go hear him preach? Is this really building up more churches? Or is this musical chairs, people who are obviously other Christians moving from another church to come hear him? Is this church? Is this gospel? No offense, but I’ve heard of several small churches (300 or less) being shut down or taken over in the wake of each video venue Harvest moving in? Is this spreading the gospel? Or more musical chairs? When pastor Driscoll says video is less consumerist because he’s not there? Is this completely bizarre? When he says his church is mission centered not pastor centered is this just plain crazy? To me this is all talk masking how video venue preaching is the very antithesis of missional. Can someone tell me where I am wrong here?

3.) Mission requires more than words. Video venues intensify the dependence upon words. In a way, this video discussion proves a (part of a) thesis that I want to build upon in the weeks ahead; that the Reformed people possess an unhealthy overconfidence in preaching as the means to proclaim the gospel and that this itself feeds into the attractional proclivities of the Neo-Reformed missionals. Somehow video venue can be justified as missional. And what gets overlooked is that the gospel requires contextualized incarnation in post Christendom in order to be interpreted (completely). It requires the embodiment of redemption. It requires contextualization!! When Christendom still exists, where Christian language is still ubiquitous, where the Bible still has inherent authority even among those not living it, the Neo-Reformed strategy continues to work. It is a strategy that plays off of and continues to service the culture of Christendom: the culture of existing Christians and those who know about Christ but have good decisions for Christ and this is perfectly good thing to do. It will not play well however in the mission-fields of post Christendom. For all these reasons, Video Venue church is the antithesis of missional.

I first saw this video on Steve McCoy’s blog, a Neo-Reformed devotee. See this post by Steve and his excellent fair-minded views and the ensuing comments from the Neo-Reformed part of the conversation! Thanks Steve!!

———–

Notes on what’s coming next:
I still aim in about two weeks to begin a promised series of posts engaging the Neo-Reformed Missional efforts which include Tim Keller, Jim Belcher, Acts 29, The Gospel Coalition etc. I’m doing it off of reading this book here.

For those interested in pursuing the Missional conversation, don’t forget the Missional Learning Commons coming up. It’s free (except for 10 bucks to help for children’s care).

Filed under Uncategorized 45 Comments

davidfitch on September 27 2010

The Greg Laurie Crusade and 2 Other Signs Christendom Ain’t Done Yet

Christendom names the social alliance of Christianity with cultural power/institutions. The government opens its Congress with a Christian chaplain praying, stores are closed on Sunday respecting that many employees want to go to church, various Christian forms of sexual morality are either encouraged by society/school systems or actually written into the law. These are some examples of a Christendom society. Because of these various reinforcing structures, the average citizen of said culture understands the Christian Story, gives Christianity an inherent respect (even though he/she may not believe or practice) and looks to go to church when feeling the need for God. For years America has been a nation under such cultural conditions.

Churches in the United States have conducted themselves for years as if we are still living in a Christendom. For many parts of U. S. and Canada however, this culture is vanishing. Much of the U.S. is in transition. NOW THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH CHURCHES MINISTERING IN CHRISTENDOM!! (at least I am not arguing this right now – I’m waiting for this book here). Christendom ain’t done yet! And there are a lot of cultures where these social conditions can be played off of successfully (whatever that means!) and to the furtherance of the Kingdom. Yet I think we should at least acknowledge that this is what we are doing as churches and that these Christendom conditions are rapidly in decline. Where Christendom has disappeared, the church that still operates out of Christendom assumptions ends up largely talking to herself. We end up providing answers to questions nobody’s asking (as Rick Cruse reminds me on my facebook thread).

With this in mind, here’s 3 recent signs in my neighborhood that Christendom ain’t dead yet. The question we need to ask in each case, by engaging in these practices, are we the church largely talking to ourselves? Or is there engagement with those outside the church for the gospel – folks I will call for lack of a better term – secular.

THREE SIGNS CHRISTENDOM AIN’T DEAD YET

1.) Greg Laurie Crusade
The Greg Laurie Crusade happened over the weekend in Chicago suburbs. In what seems like a resurrection of the Billy Graham crusade strategy of the 50’s – 70’s, a reportedly 2 ½ million dollars was poured into advertising, renting of a large stadium, bringing in first class musicians to “attract” a crowd. Several hundred churches backed the crusade with funds, volunteers and vehicles that bussed their people into the stadium. Christians were encouraged to invite a friend. The messages by pastor Laurie where driven towards inviting people to make a decision based on the question “where are you going when you die?” I listened intently to the internet stream.
The obvious question is, would the average secular person be remotely interested in attending another mega church service at a stadium to hear a gospel evangelistic sermon? Would a questioning Muslim come to something labeled a “Crusade”? As good as this was! Just asking? Was this stadium filled with mostly churchgoers? Just asking eh?
Growing up in Canada as a boy, we invited our neighbors to the Billy Graham Crusade in Toronto. They came. They had a mainline church background and had largely drifted away. That Crusade had a positive impact on their lives. It was a day when Billy Graham was a culturally interesting (in some sense a “must see”) “event.” I have no doubt that there were many of these folk who came to the Greg Laurie Crusade. They were maybe ex-Christians, or people who grew up in some form of Christian church who simply had never been challenged to follow Christ in a committed way. There were many people like this I suspect who were positively affected by this Crusade. In this way, the success of the Greg Laurie Crusade is a sign that Christendom ain’t dead yet.

My question is: Are these kind of situations diminishing? Is it worth spending 2 1/2 million dollars? How many “decisions” were actually new ones from people outside the faith? How many were lapsed Christians? Was this in essence a bunch of Christians getting together to feel good about our message? (I heard rounds of applause every time Greg Laurie mentioned eternal life). In other words, was this the church talking to itself and feeling much better about the success of its version of Christianity? Do any of you out there know of non-Christian conversions? Did any of you invite secular person? A Muslim? An atheist? Seriously, no negative take here, just asking.

2.) The Alpha Program

Ok, I’m driving by the local Baptist this week. They are putting up a flashy sign in the front of the church announcing “The Alpha Course Here!” I like the Alpha Program, a program set up basically to operate out of the neighborhood (I like that!), to invite neighbors to ask questions about God (I like that!). It is a program of a set number of weeks, getting people to commit to a journey. It emphasizes the work of the Sprit in our lives (Again I Like that!!). I have seen many curious people on the edges get initiated into the faith via Alpha. It comes from U.K. a post Christendom place in many ways.
And yet I know few people who are secular who come to such an invitation. They would view it with suspicion. The ones who would come have backgrounds in Christianity and have come to a point in their lives where they are seeking intensely a connection to God in Christ. This is cool. But again, my question is: Is this a strategy dependent upon Christendom? Yes or No? tell me, you folks out there. Are you successful on your block getting secular people to come over for an “Alpha Course”? Or would you be more successful inviting someone over to your backyard for a barbeque? BTW that wouldn’t even work for several of my secularist friends. To me, the Alpha program is a sign that Christendom ain’t dead yet. It has been good for the church operating on the edges of Christendom. But will it succeed in the new cultures of post Christendom? Or will it become another example of the church talking to herself?

3.) One on One Tract Evangelism in The Park

Recently I’m sitting in the local park with some friends who are either post Christian secular or post Muslim secular. I see a group of young twenty-somethings praying in the corner of the park. They then break (like a huddle in a football game)and spread out over the park. I knew what was next so I went and sat on a bench where two older unsuspecting people were sitting to take in what was happening. One of the “young evangelists” approached the people where I was sitting and asked, “Do you know where you are going when you die? We’re all going to die right? So it’s an important question. Would you agree?” (They were handing out a million dollar bill with Obama’s face on it with the million-dollar question on it). I then proceeded to listen as this zealous young evangelist tried to convince this man to join him in what amounted to “the sinners’ prayer.” The man being evangelized, it turned out, was a disillusioned ex-presbyterian who was gentle, kind and willing to listen and debate. He was asked at least 5 times, “would you let me pray with you right now …?”
I returned to my friends about twenty minutes later only to hear one of them run up to us and say, “I was here last weekend. We’ve got to get out of here now. These people are rude and pushy.” I inquired some more and we had a bit of a conversation about how their approach is unfortunate. As we left, I looked over the park and I saw a mass exodus of people leaving the park area.
This experience leads me to conclude that a.) Christendom ain’t dead yet. There was an older ex-presbyterian who was willing to engage in serious conversation. b.) Time may be running out on this form of evangelism because there are less of these people, already familiar with the terms of the claims of Christianity, sufficient to make sense of this version of the gospel. Furthermore, it is a version of salvation so reductionist that it is questionable whether it communicates the right things to people uninitiated into the assumptions necessary to make sense of this version of the gospel. To me the question is, is this form of evangelism vastly becoming another example of the church talking to itself?

I, and others, have argued for a revamping of the way we think about evangelism, the gospel and witness. You can start by looking at these posts here, here and here. There’s more elsewhere on the blog. For now, I am interested in your reflections on these three experiences over the weekend. Are these signs that Christendom ain’t dead yet? Are these examples of the church talking to herself?

______________________

Notes on what’s coming next:
I aim in the next two weeks to begin a promised series of posts engaging the Neo-Reformed Missional efforts which include Tim Keller, Jim Belcher, Acts 29, The Gospel Coalition etc. I’m doing it off of reading this book here. Thanks Gordie for the heads up.

For those interested in Missional, Don’t forget the Missional Learning Commons coming up. It’s free (except for 10 bucks to help for children’s care).

Filed under Evangelism,Post-Attractional,Post-Christendom,Uncategorized 15 Comments

davidfitch on September 25 2010

NOTHING QUITE FEEDS MY SOUL LIKE THIS!! : THE 2010 MISSIONAL LEARNING COMMONS NONCONFERENCE

The best times I have ever had at conferences have been when I just hung out with other pastors/leaders discussing “stuff.” The “stuff” could be movies, music, and the challenges of ministry and/or the valleys and how we’re getting through them. I gain perspective. I gain encouragement. It’s food for the journey. The conference speakers at times have been impactful. Yet often, they are “big names” from large churches that speak out of a persona that I just can’t relate to. They carry assumptions about church and leadership I flatly can’t buy into.

All of the above is especially true for “mission shaped” churches. We resist technique. We often seek to be small and contextual. And yet we need encouragement, and we need to feed off what God’s doing.

With these things in mind, I started doing this thing called “the Missional Learning Commons” about 4 years ago. We invited missional pastors/leaders/practitioners (as well as those seeking another way into ministry along these lines) to come together and hang out for a day. We paid no speakers. We listened to each other. We left plenty of time for “hanging out.” If you are a missional leader/pastor/ someone in ministry seeking “another way,” I invite you to join us this coming Oct 29,30 for our 4th annual Missional Learning Commons.

We’ve changed things. Rozko, Holsclaw and Sternke showed up at our Hyde Park gathering 13 weeks ago and they took charge which means this nonconference will get only better. They suggested we go to Oct 29,30 instead of the first week of January which is bad for weather in the Midwest. (Weather hurt our gathering last year). They moved it to Northern Seminary, a more central place for the Midwest and besides we Northern gave us the conference center for free (Besides there’s great places to meet for this kind of thing on the eats coast like ecclesia network’s gathering and Biblical Seminary). They also changed the format quite a bit. You’ll have to check out the new format on the web page. I’m excited with the topics – Missional Leadership/ Families within Mission/ and Missional Discipleship (what we’re doing to disciple new/old believers into Christ and His Mission). One great added feature is there will be care for children this year. We hope to encourage more women leaders to come and join in (because frankly, often, for better or worse, they often cannot come because of children). Whereas this was free in the past, we’re charging 10 bucks only to contribute to the costs of making that possible. And one more added benefit, within walking distance of Northern, THERE ARE LITERALLY 30-40 PLACES TO HANG OUT, GRAB A BEVERAGE, and AND JUST TALK WITH FELLOW ATTENDEES. I personally am committed to staying up into the wee hours hanging out, chatting and listening to what’s going on in people’s lives. To me, nothing quite feeds my soul like times like these!

These are challenging times. God’s calling into being 100’s of missional communities to be a missionary presence in their local contexts in the Midwest. So let’s gather and be together in a way that enriches our lives through what God is going in and among us. Wont’ you consider joining us if this fits you?

You can find out more about it here. You can sign up and pay the ten bucks. This will assist our planning. Thanks for considering and may God bless this time together in our lives.

Filed under Missional,Missional Discipleship,Missional Leadership,Missional learning commons,Uncategorized 6 Comments

davidfitch on September 20 2010

ONE SIMPLE ORIENTING QUESTION “What is God saying? How will I respond?”: Missional Discipleship

THE MALAISE OF GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS

Typically in N America, when a church grows bigger, and its worship gathering gets established, and some systems get set into motion for small groups, the church goes into the phase of “going through the motions.” This is at least the temptation. It happens to the best of us, even (dare I say it) mission-shaped churches. Our church worked for years to lay the groundwork for a missional practice at Life on the Vine. We established some systems for what we call “missional orders” and triads (spiritual formation groups). Our worship gathering developed over the years as a liturgy for formation of God’s people into His life and mission. Yet the last few years I sensed we were working for the machine – to keep it going. Many people were noticeably coming among us but gained little direction for life and mission. People would be converted into life with Christ and then wander away. “Mission” was not expanding, it was not becoming part of our lives, it was more “something we talked about,” something in our vision statement or a program we did once a month. Some among the leadership at our church think I assess things a little too negatively (let’s blow this thing up and start all over again!!) so I have to be careful with my generalizations. There were and ARE a lot of good things happening in many places at “the Vine.” Nonetheless, a consensus has been brewing among us for some time that our discipleship practices have been sorely lacking. People were not being discipled adequately into life with God and His Mission.

ONE SINGLE ORIENTING QUESTION

Last May, I attended and spoke at the aggelos church planting training for ecclesia network. I heard Bob Hyatt talk about some Mike Breen stuff on discipleship. His basic contention, as laid out in this post (a presentation of the Breen stuff by Bob Hyatt) is that God is at work bringing in the Kingdom. God’s reign in Christ is “at hand” breaking into our lives regularly but we as individuals ignore (Mark 1:14-15). We are not trained to listen, see God at work, walk with God and respond. Yet this is the basic move of living into God’s life in Christ and His Mission. Hyatt (via Breen) proposed a circle of discernment where we learn to listen, observe, discuss and then engage, be accountable and grow from these moments. This whole process, Hyatt said, started around learning how to ask this single short question: “what is God saying? and how will we respond?”

I have since discussed this, prayed about his, and talked much with our leadership at the Vine. It became apparent to me (through several incredible little episodes and then reinforced by other people in leadership having similar episodes) that this one simple question can be a starting point for discipleship into what we at the Vine describe as “living in Christ together for God’s Mission in the World.” It is not that this one question explains everything. Rather, it is an orienting question from which practically anyone, at any stage of belief, can begin to seek God and enter into His Kingdom work in their lives personally and what He is doing in the world. This one question initiates one into the activity of the Spirit as opposed to merely teaching about it conceptually. That’s right, can I say this again, ONE SIMPLE ORIENTING QUESTION, “What is God saying? How Will You Respond?”

So we at the Vine have begun a process this September of calling our people into God’s inbreaking Kingdom. The entrance into God’s Kingdom always begins in faith, opening our lives to God’s salvation begun in Christ’s work of atonement. IT IS NECESSARILY A RECEPTION, TRUST AND DEPENDENCE UPON THE HOLY SPIRIT (I had to emphasize that because it is an assumption that sometimes goes unnoticed). It is furthermore a continual following of Christ into the Kingdom, the world of His Lordship where He is working for new creation, reconciliation and righteousness in our lives and in the world (2 Cor 5:16-21). “In Christ, God is reconciling the world to Himself.”

Could this one simple orienting question help us as a church open ourselves and our culture to an inbreaking of God’s work in His Spirit and a whole new missional life together in the world? Could this one single question enliven our Sunday mornings with a vibrancy once we get that this gathering is the training ground for hearing God’s voice daily in everyday life? Could this one single question enable us to develop a discipleship culture we’ve been beating our heads against the wall to get going?
WHY I LIKE STARTING WITH THIS SIMPLE ORIENTING QUESTION

I don’t know if I can answer those questions definitively, but here’s some reasons why I like starting with this one single orientating question as the means for initiating a wave of discipleship in our church.

1.) IT IS AN ORIENTING QUESTION It takes our existing practices (missional orders, triad groups, worship gathering, etc.) and drives their resolution away from our own personal problems/narcissism into God’s working in the concrete realities of our daily lives. It orients us to obey God in faith in our current situation. Too often small groups and missional orders (where we gather to pray for and engage the neighborhood) bog down in our own struggles. We certainly need to stop, listen and process these struggles carefully. Yet when we learn to discern “what is God saying in this? How should I obey/respond?” the orientation of the whole time is changed. This question asks where God is at work in these struggles (which the Bible is continually revealing) and how will we respond in faith by moving into His work, His Lordship, His Mission.

2.) IT GIVES EVERYONE A PLACE TO START As opposed to concentrated Bible study and the feeling that I need to learn a lot before I begin life with Christ in His Mission, this one simple question presses even the newest believer to begin their life in God’s Kingdom right now in their existing lives/circumstances no matter how screwed up or challenging. By asking what is God saying, asking, doing and how we can respond, participate, walk into obedience, the new believer learns in practice, not purely cognitively. Yet the oldest believer, the disenchanted, the broken marriage, the single person stuck in that singledom malaise, can just as powerfully also be pushed into the Kingdom and God’s life in the Spirit now.

3.) IT PUSHES EVERYTHING INTO THE CONCRETE (Ok, I’m just repeating myself, but this is perhaps the most important aspect of this question).

4.) IT FORCES US TO GO DEEPER INTO SCRIPTURE, THE SPIRIT, JESUS AND WHO GOD IS Many of the discernments that will arise out of this one single orienting question will require little new theological territory. I hear God saying to me “speak peace” to that hurting person. Is that the Spirit? Is that of God? Yes, obviously. Other situations however will inevitably require deeper teaching and understanding of God’s ways that must come from leadership. But the point is, everyone will be motivated to learn, pray and discern not out of the concept “we should be doing this” but because this is actually happening in our concrete lives together.

5.) IT PUSHES US INTO FAITH AND ACTION IN THE WORLD OF GOD’S MISSION Everytime someone asks this question, it leads to a response into the world. It not only asks us questions about our personal life issues, this question also continually asks us to listen to God’s voice/work around us, discern what He is doing in that homeless person’s life at the train station, that person in the coffee house who sits alone is despair I keep seeing every morning etc. And then we are pushed to believe and trust God’s work and call into ministering His presence there.

6.) IT IS REPRODUCIBLE Again, this simple orienting question is teachable so that most people who have been on the path of following Christ for a while can easily begin to disciple a new person by discerning this question. This is a good way to spread discipleship into the community.

SOME CAUTIONS!!

1.) THIS REQUIRES COMMUNITY AND CONTEXT Frankly, anyone on any given day, especially a well-honed self-deceived Christian can derail this. As we have learned over and over again, this kind of “listening for God’ is often prone to sin and deception, and therefore requires the dynamic of the body of Christ for the truth to be discerned. The question itself “what is God saying?” is always addressed to the individual and the community at the same time. Never one without the other. It is necessary therefore to have in place the communal practices of worship, teaching, leadership, and discipleship as the context from within which we can discern some of life’s most confusing times. The communal processes of Matt 18 must be firmly ensconced in such a culture for this single orienting question not to into an individualistic “orgy” of ecstatic experiences. We must have a missional enScripturated culture to breed discernment. Together we have/learn the mind of Christ! (1 Cor 2.16). To me, this is where I differ from the emphasis in Henry Blackaby’s work. To me he tends to emphasize the individual hearing the voice of God our of personal sopiritual practices. I would suggest he works from an undeveloped (Southern Baptist) communal ecclesiology. To a much lesser degree, I feel Dallas Willard can sometimes err in the same way. Nonetheless, I recommend Dallas Willard’s book Hearing God as a good starting point to cultivate this kind of missional discipleship into your church.
2.) THIS REQUIRES THEOLOGY It goes without saying that God’s voice is not, in fact rarely ever is, audible. “The sheep know His voice,” but they don’t speak or comprehend English. (John 10:27). And so we must learn how to discern the ways of God at work in our midst and in our neighborhoods. For me, we need to understand the categories of a.) (new)creation, b.) reconciliation, c.) righteousness (1 Cor 5:16-21) as descriptors of what God is up to. In addition, the idea that God always moves us toward a.) peace with God (shalom), b.) reconciliation among us and the world and c.) into His Mission in the world are additional categories. The question “what is God saying? And how will I respond?” are really three questions: “What is God saying to you in this? What is He doing? How is He working? And how will you respond?” These three questions expand the one question and enable us to the discern and respond to the multiform ways God is at work and alive in our communities and surrounding communities by His Spirit.

OK, this is my first attempt to describe the ferment going on with us at the leadership level art Life on the Vine. What do you think? Dangers? Misfires? Problems? Have I gone too charismatic? have I lost my theological bearings? Why? why not? What are your experiences of how this works at your places of Mission?

——————————

UPDATE There are those in the twittersphere who are badgering me (@johnwithum) suggesting I learned my arithmetic in Canada. They say this question is not one question but two. So to clarify, and to defend my Canadian educational heritage (grades 2-10), I maintain that these supposed 2 questions are so inextricably linked, they cannot be asked apart, that they inessence constitute one question. That’s my story and I’m stickin with it.

Filed under Missional Discipleship 18 Comments

davidfitch on September 16 2010

I’ve been Gone: The Faculty Retreat At Northern Seminary

Folks, I am behind in posting this week. “My soul doth ache.” Cause I’m in the middle of some stuff going on in church/world/seminary that I was hoping to blog on this week. It is my therapy afterall. Blogging helps me process eh? And in the process I hope to help provoke others. To understand what I mean check out this SCARY interview by my friend Martin Robinson on why I blog, how I got started.

The reason why I am behind in the rhythms of my week is because I am at a Faculty Retreat for Northern Seminary. Ah, the dreaded faculty retreat. But as measured by my tweets, this was a retreat well worth the time. Highlights included:

a.) discussing how seminary education is important yet cannot be separated from practice (tweet Sept 15- At the beginning of Northern Seminary’s faculty retreat – discussing how Seminary educ cannot be separate fr on-ground-ministry – YES)

b.) learning about my teaching style ( tweet Sept 15 – Prof Cosgrove says my teaching style is a “prickly Socrates” No! “mad scientist who blows things up+ carefully puts them together again”),

c.) spending time jabbering with other professors on the back porch on the Stone manor of the Kern family (tweet Sept 15 – Talkin church-mission on Chicago’s south, southwest side w/ profs Hamstra, Freeman, Price, 2 Afri-Americans, 1 (Dutch) Reformed and me. Rich!!!), and

d.) and the president of Northern promising some group affections (tweet Sept 16 - President of Northern just promised me a “hug-a-professor @ Northern” day. I need this … )

So the Faculty Retreat was good and rich. We look forward to a great learning community developing this year at Northern. One of the things we’re doing is starting a D.Min program in Missional Church Ministry/Leadership this year. Craig Van Gelder and Alan Roxburgh have “signed” to come alongside me and teach this 3 1/2 program. My goal was to bring some of the best of minds on missional theology, ecclesiology, cultural engagement and leadership together to intersect, teach but also be challenged and develop further what these ideas might mean on the ground for practicing pastors and ministry leaders. This D.Min is one of the few that provides for such a concentration. You can get info about it here . SPECIAL THANKS!! to Len Hjalmarson who posted about the program at his blog NextReformation, Todd Littleton who did the same at his wonderful blog, and Jamie Arpin Ricci here at his blog Living Alternative . Also Brad Brisco, Rick Meigs and Brad Sargent (who wrote a lloooooong one in protypical futuristguy style). Thanks for getting the word out!! And may God bless these efforts for the furtherance of His Mission in the world.

Filed under Uncategorized 2 Comments

davidfitch on September 8 2010

Sanctuary or Living Room? Senior Pastor or “Community Organizer”?: What You Do The First Year Shapes Your Congregation for Decades

It is common in church planting for N. American churches to rush in a.) naming a main leader and b.) starting a public service (what has often been called the launch). For instance: the Acts 29 Network – a training network for planting churches – puts an unusual importance on a.) choosing a strong male leader to plant the church, and b.) the launch of a service where “the gospel” is preached clearly, contextually and authoritatively. The impression here is that the preaching itself, led by a strong male leader, is sufficient to draw the lost into the gospel.

Although there is much to be thankful for in what God is doing with Acts 29, for me, this is an approach heavily dependent on the cultural conditions of Christendom. The preaching requires people already habitualized to go to church and hear a sermon. It requires people who understand the language. It organizes the church structure toward the center – where the single strong leader is – instead of outward where lost people are. It will work where there are wandering peoples who have a Christian past and/or have discontent with existing forms of church (i.e. Roman Catholic or traditional evangelical) who are easily drawn to something new and impressive. This is not, however, a Missional strategy because in many ways it sets the new community up to be a centralized attractional community. Its dynamic works against invading the rhythms of a context, living the gospel in ways that invade the secular spaces of the world that is living oblivious to God and His work in Christ for the world. If we would be missionaries, we need to think differently about congregational formation.

Our church is in the beginning stages of seeding two new communities. We’re helping with two others. Over the weekend we gathered in Hyde Park (for the Missional Midwest Roundtable of EcclesiaNetwork) with several leaders of missional communities. I led a discussion on the goals, purposes and dangers of the first year of congregational formation in what we used to call church plants: the gathering of a community amidst a new territory for mission. I said there should be three goals for the first year of a church plant- a seeding of a missional community:
1.)   Establish a small community of fellowship in the neighborhood who can pray together for the Kingdom. This community will develop as friends, dialoguing, listening, praying – learning to listen for God’s voice, observing where He is working so as to respond and participate in what He is doing to reconcile, heal, create anew and birth righteousness.
2.)   Get to know the neighborhood. Exegete it so as to know how to pray, minister, adopt rhythms, hang out, and be Christ’s presence.
3.)   Facilitate hospitality. Become a place to facilitate hospitality in the neighborhood as well as helping people move to the neigborhood. I urge a contant calling of people into the KIngdom. When these people don’t live in the neighborhood, I encourage the community to help these people of the kingdom find jobs, find a place to live at reasonable cost, know how to live in this community.

If these are the goals of the first year (or two?), I said (at the Hyde Park meeting) we should then consider two questions:

A.) Do we need a pastor or a community organizer? My contention is naming someone a “pastor” – dare I say “Senior Pastor” – starts to order the community’s life around this one person’s centralized leadership. It sets up the community for expectations that this one person shall provide for certain needs, services and the making of decisions. The community’s life becomes a centralized orbit around this one person as opposed to a dispersed activity (of God) living in and among the neighborhood. This habit will be almost impossible to overcome in the years ahead. I suggest putting off naming someone “the pastor.” Instead name him/her the “community organizer.” There will be a time and a place to name pastors (I purposely put this in the plural). But at the beginning stages a single pastor could really jam up the workings of a missional community’s involvement in the community and participation in the work.
B.) Do we meet in a sanctuary or a living room? My contention is that meeting in a sanctuary (i.e. a meeting place with rows and a pulpit) is bad for meeting the goals of the first year as stated above. Meeting in rows, with a pulpit up front creates a passivized audience but it also creates a certain expectation as to what church should be. This expectation will be almost impossible to overcome in the years that lie ahead. Instead we need to develop relationships. We need a space to voice questions and dialogue. We need to hear stories of what God is doing and express hardships and ask “what is God saying?” This is why I suggest the first year’s gathering should have the feel of a living room as opposed to a service in a sanctuary. There will be a time and place to start the rhythm of more formalized preaching/worship. But this itself should be an extension of the fellowship that is developed during this one crucial year.

In both cases, there will be a time to both ordain pastors and formalize worship (see this post here). However, what I learned at Life on the Vine is that moving too early on these two fronts (which we did) will not only force the issue, but ingrain bad habits in a community that shall harm it for years to come.

At the Midwest Missional Roundtable, four other church planters discussed their struggles with these ideas. What do you think? What are the pluses and minuses of the Acts 29 approach versus the approach proposed here? What are the pluses/minuses of “senior pastor” versus “community organizer”? What are the pluses/minuses of “sanctuary” versus “living room”?

Filed under Acts 29,Church Planting,Incarnational,Missional,Missional Leadership,Neo-Reformed 27 Comments

davidfitch on September 2 2010

Me Vs. Craig Carter on Same Sex Relations: How My Position Differs from the Traditional Evangelical Approach

During the last six months, the blog posts on the LGBTQ, other sexual issues and mission have been by and large well received. I have had many good conversations off blog and on blog. I started out the whole series of posts by saying, “Is it possible to “be Missional” among the gay/lesbian communities without a clear affirmative stance towards GLBT relations?… Many would flat out say “no.”” I said “I find myself at odds with many of the underlying assumptions that drive these conclusions.” I had seen several instances where Ed Stetzer and others were accused of being “non-missional” because they did not affirm gay/lesbian relations. I had also seen several instances where the lone engagement by the Neo-Reformed on these issues was to preach against something and believe that was sufficient to engage the issue in terms of mission. I was content with neither approaches. To me, what I called the post Emergent consensus approach to these questions as well as the traditional evangelical approach – and its offshoot – the New-Reformed were both inadequate.

Having said that, I was surprised that I got little push back from my post-Emergent coalescence friends. I expected push back from this side because I revealed my conviction that to be transformational in these issues of sexuality, one had to work from a place of redeemed sexuality which revealed that, for me, same sex relations (as well as other sorts of sexual relations) are non-normative for the Christian life. Instead I got the biggest push back from an evangelical – theologian Craig Carter at Tyndale University College in Toronto – who suggests I am sliding down the slippery slope to protestant liberalism. He wrote a full post on it here.

I think it might be helpful for clarifying my own position if I respond to Craig’s post item by item. I think it could clarify how and why traditional evangelical engagemnt on these issues is inadequate for the missional task.Here goes:

______________________
Craig says: “Fitch accepts the story that the pro-homosexual activists and their liberal Protestant fellow-travelers tell” regarding evangelicalism’s stance towards the LGBTQ peoples. Craig says that I agree with those who accuse evangelicalism as judgemental, lacking in compassion and understanding. Craig says “When Fitch writes this sort of stuff he sounds like he learned everything he knows about Evangelicals from reading books by John Spong and James Barr and by watching Kieth Olbermann on TV.”

Me: Craig is right. I think the approach of evangelicalism is flawed. And I think this is revealed in the ways our attitudes and approach have been typecast – for better or worse – as judgemental, lacking in compassion and duplicitous. In just the last decade, witness these NY Times best seller books, Mel White – Religion Gone Bad, Chris Hedges – American Fascists, Dan Gilgoff – The Jesus Machine, Sam Harris – Letter to a Christian Nation, Robert Lanham -Sinner’s Guide to the Evangelical Right, Randall Balmer – Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America, Christopher Hitchens – God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. All these book caricature evangelicals and include the charge of duplicitous judgementalism on gay relations as part of the evidence. True this is a caricature – many times by angry atheists. But if that is not enough then look at LifeWay’s Research on what people think. Read InternetMonk’s great insights on evangelcials. The bottom line is that the huge public opinion on evangelicals must be looked at. When so many people are saying the same things eventually we have to look at ourselves and ask, why do so many people think we are this way? Even if this is a media conspiracy, you have to at least ask why? I think this judgmentalist characteristic is something inherent in our evangelical approach to theology which for me in some ways is illustrated by Craig himself. (I have a book coming out of all this in January - The End of Evangelicalism?) What do you think?

Craig asks: whether “Fitch really thinks that Reformed and Evangelical churches do not acknowledge and embody #1 – that We All Come Broken.” He asks whether I really think this is a new approach.

Me: I know that evangelicalism articulates a commitment “that we are all sinners.” However I think evangelicalism as a church generally DOES NOT inhabit this truth as a concrete posture in the world from which to engage the world. This is more than a problem of individuals in the church. This is a cultural issue inherent in the way we presume Christendom assumptions about our relation to culture. It is a theological problem. It is inherent to the way we articulate and practice salvation as I hope to show in my upcoming book The End of Evangelicalism?

Craig says: It is #2 (No Public Statements) that really sets off alarm bells. We are not to proclaim that sexual sin is sin? Or are we? This is rather unclear. Fitch clearly says that he does not accept homosexual behavior as compatible with redeemed Christian life . . . so why does he say we should make no such statements in public? He apparently thinks that somehow playing down our position on sexual morality until the outsider has come inside the Church will make it easier for the non-Christian to accept our view once we finally disclose it.

In relation to my call for not making public statements on GLBTQ, Craig thinks this “ is just weird because the first thing I thought of when I heard this was Robert Schuller and his approach to emphasizing the positive as his explanation for why he never preached on sin. The second thing I thought of was the seeker-sensitive approach to “re-branding” the church in a way that is less offensive to the secular person. And this is proposed as the way to be “Anabaptist” and “radical”? It is enough to make one’s head spin.”

Me: These statements, to me, are a sign that Craig has become a thoroughly Christendom thinker, a shocking development given his excellent early work on Yoder in his academic career. He assumes that public statements a.) communicate what we believe about sexuality, b.) and somehow witness the gospel. Instead, I argue, in a post Chrsitendom world, amidst multiple sexualities of various cultures and communities, we really communicate NOTHING about who we are and what we believe God is doing among us redemptively in sexuality by making public statements that we are against “such and such.” We instead just distance ourselves over against anyone who does not already agree with us. Putting a sign out, protesting, and identifying ourselves as anti-gay, or pro gay for that matter does the very thing Craig accuses me of. It makes us into a place that attracts only the ones who agree already. It sets us up as a market niche pro-or anti gay church. It separates us from missional engagement with any number of sexual issues. And it does not communicate what cannot be communicated to those who don’t get what our sexual commitments are really about. Of course, internel to the community’s development, understanding who we are and why, and the thick languages of Christian sexuality, is all part of being a community of integrity. Within the communoity, we articulate these commitments, yet we hold these commitments incarnationally, we live them, and we witness to them, and invite people in who are seeking. This is part of being a minority post Christendom world. For those in Christendom, I say go ahead, put up a sign, protest and attract a crowd of people who believe the exact same things you do already. But don’t expect much mission.

Craig says: “The Neo-Reformed position (I criticize) actually is the position of the entire Christian tradition until the past few decades.”

Me: Uh? According to who? I know Craig spends a lot of time in patristic studies, as have I. I would find Craig’s position here to be highly disputed by not just a minority, but a majority of patristic scholars. I think he probably means some broader evangelical commitments in which case I still have to dispute him on some issues.

Craig claims: that I am trying to “go down the middle,” a “compromise position between two positions- liberal and evangelical.”

Me: I couldn’t disagree more. In fact the idea of a centrist way or an Hegelian third way makes me want to puke. In fact I don’t think there is a middle way between the two approaches I find satisfactory. I think both traditional evangelical (or Neo-Reformed) and the postEmergent positions are the same in their dependence ultimately on modern/Christendom constructs of epistemology and both assume a Christendom posture towards culture. I believe we need to leave these constructs behind and engage the world incarnationally, with the fullness of the wisdom of what we live in Christ in His history as the church and Scriptures. This kind of engagement happens when active living missionary communities inhabit places witnessing to the gospel in humble incarnate ways. You would think Craig, someone who once studied the great Anabaptists, would get this?

Craig claims: that I take “the the whole idea of sexual “orientations” as a given without being critical of the idea. That somehow I am not critical ( enough?) of the idea of a fixed orientation.

Me: Read this post here where I pose the question Can anyone enter the redemption of the new creation in Christ apart from submitting all desire to Christ for His purposes? Read the comments. You decide. Enough said.

Craig thinks: that “Fitch takes the issue of homosexuality far too seriously.” That I am “singling out of homosexuality from a vast array of other sexual sins as if there was something different about it that made it an exception to be troubling.”

Me: Hmmmm, read this post here. Read my lengthy descriptions throughouit these posts describing how LGBTQ must be put into the entire sphere of sexual brokenness the church faces among every person in its gathering. There are sometimes when I wonder what Craig was reading here? What am I missing?

Craig says: that “for a long time (over 20 years) I (Craig) thought it was unproblematic to accept women’s ordination and maintain the traditional position on homosexuality, but now I have changed my mind. I think that there is a good reason why these two issues have been linked right from the start of second wave feminism and the sexual revolution in the 1960s.”

Me: I think the two issues are linked due to the Western habit of thinking out of the political structures of Western liberalism of individual rights, autonomous authority etc. Once we escape that logic, which I think neither complementarians or egalitarians do, this problem goes away.

Craig says “I suggest that we take a long, hard look at John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.” I agree, it’s a great text, and

Me: I regularly draw on Roman Catholic theology. See this post here where contraception and procreation are talked about. Notice some of the comments.

Craig says: in his comment to me in his post that he’s most concerned for “those struggling with homosexual temptation who need pastors who love them without compromising the teaching of Scripture and encourage them to stand fast.”

Me: I think that Craig does not “get” that indeed I am trying to provide a place for that kind of sanctification. For me, Craig represents the ensconced Christendom habits of evangelicalism by the way he engages culture from a posture of power, presumed hegemony of language, and that we need not engage people relationally and try to understand the issues that go so much deeper than saying “You are wrong and must change your behavior.” I know he wouldn’t be this way in person. But his approach doesn’t deal with any nuances that are sadly missing in our traditional evangelcical account of cultural engagement. I have muy theories as to why this is a glaring blindspot for many evangelicals. That will have to be a post for another time. For now, I suggest that the passing of Christendom in many parts of the world demand we take an incarnational position in the world. This is what I have been trying to construct in our relation to sexual issues, sexual brokeness in the world. More than holding a Bible out in front of someone and declaring a few statements and then help that person “white knuckle” it, grit their teeth, and “hold fast,” I suggest sexual redemption comes from a true spiritual and bodily formation. Anyone who reads this post here should be able to get that eh?

All in all, I respect Craig Carter. In his career, he’s done a lot of work, work I have drawn upon. I love the school where he teaches and the world of Toronto and that part of Ontario. But I think Craig’s post on me was just not careful enough. I think it does clarify however some of issues we evangelicals face who have a heart for the victums, the hurting and the lost among the LGBTQ peoples among us. What do think of the differences between Craig’s position and mine? In what way does Craig represent the traditional evangelical stance on same-sex relations? Its positives? Its flaws? In light of the above, where does his criticism still hold? What am I missing?

Thanks Craig for interacting!

Filed under Uncategorized,Women/GLBTQ 11 Comments