The Shaping of a People for Mission: The Ecclesia Network National Gathering

People can talk all day about missional strategy, external focused versus internal focused church, etc. etc. but if we do not have the means to shape a people dispositionally into God’s mission, missional church becomes another dead missiological theory. We need the means to shape a people who can see, hear, respond and participate in God’s work together in the world. This in essence is spiritual formation, the ways of discipleship we must cultivate in missional communities

To discuss all this, I recommend the Ecclesia network national gathering coming this February. We have Todd Hunter coming. He’s currently a Bishop within the western region of the Anglican Mission in America. Todd has years of experience in the area of mission & spiritual formation and has written some excellent books on the subject. He’s dynamic. We also have MaryKate Morse, professor of leadership and spiritual formation at George Fox University with us. She brings a wealth of knowledge and experience in equipping leaders in the area of spiritual formation. We have other practicioners speaking and leading discussions. I’ve been to alot of conferences in my time. None has been more refreshing than this one. I am not kidding. If you have it in your budget, and can make the time, I recommend it. Check it out here. I’ll be there and hope to see many good friends and co-laborers.

————–

UPDATE: In addition to the plenary sessions, Ecclesia announced the following workshops for the gathering. This line-up and listing of topics virtually covers the whole gamut of the spiritual formation of a missional community. I’m excited. To those interested in shaping/leading a missional community, this hits the nail on the head. Join us won’t you?

Re-Envisioning …

  • Preaching & Teaching as Spiritual Formation – guided by David Fitch
  • Leadership as Spiritual Formation – guided by Marykate Morse
  • Worship & Liturgy as Spiritual Formation – guided by Todd Hunter
  • Mid-Sized Communities as Spiritual Formation – guided by JR Woodward
  • Small Groups as Spiritual Formation – guided by Doug Paul
  • Justice as Spiritual Formation – guided by Corey Widmer & Don Coleman

1 Comment

“Youth Groups Destroy Children’s Lives”

Ok, so I was quoted in the recent book Hipster Christianity as saying these words “Youth Groups Destroy Children’s Lives.” Putting aside the issues I have with the book itself, I admit I was quoted accurately by the book’s author Bret McCracken.  I often use the pedagogical tactic that starts out by saying something provocative and then, after I’ve gotten myself into some trouble, and acquired some people’s attention,  I try to explain myself. It’s a bad rhetorical habit. Nonetheless, it works. This time it seems to have attracted some attention so let me take advantage of it and explain what I meant.

I think youth groups often do things that work against the formation of our youth into life with Christ and His Mission. They also soak up huge time and resources in ways that are a detriment to the community life of the church. I think it would be good for parents seeking churches to think through these issues.

Prototype youth groups are built on the worst of modernist assumptions concerning the way human beings develop as cultural beings. They play into the worse impulses of parents who don’t get what is happening right before their very eyes when their children start to take on the moral formation of the ubiquitous culture at large. (Parents want young hip experts to save their kids – UH THAT DON’T WORK!!). They think the answer is to somehow get their children to a place where the youth culture attracts them and somehow makes Christianity attractive to their age group. All these things, I argue, work against the child growing up into a vital and real relationship with the living God and what He has done in Christ for the world.

I offer the following three comments – all three of which have been said many times by people much smarter than me on these issues. (I now prepare myself for the onslaught of backlash I am sure to get for this post).

1.) YOUTH GROUPS FOSTER PEER ORIENTATION. Youth groups segregate the youth from the adults creating programing geered towards them as a separate culture. This creates a gap between the youth and the adults culturally. This then leads the youth to look to their peers for orientation into life. This I contend works against the discipleship of youth into Christ. I contend this peer orientation is disasterous for the lives of our children.

Of course our culture at large already does this. And our parents generally eat it up. It’s a fact that, due to the economic and cultural changes of modern society, children/teenagers have been segregated in school classrooms, and targeted as a separate niche consumer market by culture industries. As a result, they look increasingly to their peers for a sense of right and wrong, for values, identity, codes of behavior. They have less connection with adults either in or outside immediate family (you need both) as role models for life. This undermines healthy development and  fosters hostile and sexualized youth culture. Children lose their true individuality, become overly conformist, desensitized and alienated. Being “cool” matters more to them than anything else. This is American culture! In the words of child psychologist Gordon Neufeld (a book I’d recommend), peer orientation undercuts the necessary parental connection in that parental nurturance cannot get through, is always insecure, cannot bring the child to rest, and is unable to be fulfilled (closeness unmet). As such peer orientation crushes individual development.

Youth groups that play to this peer group dynamic create the playground for all of the above developmental issues to explode. This leads to the next observation.

2.) YOUTH GROUPS UNDERCUT WHOLISTIC COMMUNITY FROM WHICH A CHILD CAN LEARN FAITH IN CHRIST AS A WAY OF LIFE/RELATIONSHIP, NOT JUST INFORMATION SLICKLY DELIVERED.

As Neil Cole has put it so well here (click on “What about kids in Organic Church?”), children learn about the living God by being in living relationships within a community where God is present. Once Jesus becomes infotainment, once it becomes a program, detached from real relationships, it loses its reality. It takes on the character of a learning experience in competition with other learning experiences. That’s a competition I’m just not interested in. In the midst of all these learning programs, children are consistently learning their allegiances from real life interactions with adults they respect. They sense insincerity and/or lack of integrity immediately. The life in Christ becomes attractive through the irresistable love of Christ that is shared visibly in and around our life together. If children are not immersed in this world, chances are they will find church boring and irrelevant. They will not withstand the discipline necessary to be shaped into something more than immediate gratifications. They will not have the wherewithal to give it time and learn what “Jesus is Lord” means as that reality by which we live our lives into His Kingdom.

3.) YOUTH GROUPS TOO OFTEN TRY TO ATTRACT YOUTH PLAYING TO THEIR WORST INTERESTS.

It’s a mistake to try to “attract” youth to discipleship with either social occasions that play on their sexual insecurities or music entertainment that plays on their desire to be “cool.” There will be times I am sure to attend the occasional rock concert or have the occasional social time together. But what the church should do for its youth most of all is foster spaces for meeting God where they can be trained to listen for God and commune with Him in silence, in prayer. Mark Yaconelli does a great job explaining this basic thing. I have seen this basic concept transform youth groups overnight in churches of some of my students. I also think the other best thing we can do for youth is organize mission trips to places in need around the world where youth come together to sacrifice and make a difference for the kingdom. This kind of mission trip (as opposed to a resort-like vacation) is a spiritual practice we must regularly encourage and fund in our churches. Again, I have singularly seen this practice transform the lives of youth in churches I have observed or worked with. Generally speaking, we need to be involved in mission in our everyday lives and take our children with us as we minister in our everyday lives (the other day I suggested to someone take their children to the hospital with them in praying for the sick – this was not a good idea because evidently our children bring germs that adults don’t … oh well).

In closing, I believe the youth ministry of a church is vitally important. But we must discern carefully what we are doing. Whether we have three youth or fifty, we need youth leaders to do things to foster authentic adult relationships with the youth. Let us make the community aware that we ARE A COMMUNITY and we have to treat our youth as among us and indeed take responsibility to love them, pray for them,  watch over them, initiate them and model Christ before them and with them. Let us foster safe spaces for them to ask all their questions and learn how to listen for God in their lives. Let us do mission trips and bring them with us in all the ways we participate in Christ’s Mission in the world. ! At Life on the Vine, these are the things we’re ever working on.

That’s my two sense, no doubt there are many who could add wiser counsel here. Let er rip!! Comments please.

92 Comments

The End of Evangelicalism?: My New Book

I finally have another book coming out this February. It’s the culmination of my efforts to write a political theology for the church of my heritage: evangelicalism in N America. I admit this book is a bit intense – theologically and otherwise (be forewarned). Nonetheless, I think it gets at something extremely simple and intuitive. It asks how does the way we articulate our beliefs (doctrine) and then practice them shape us evangelicals as a people in the world? Has the way evangelicals articulated and practiced their belief in Scripture, Salvation in Christ and the Church in the world shaped us in certain ways to be inhospitable to God’s Mission in the world?

I try to get us evangelicals to think about more than whether our doctrine is orthodox (indeed I assume it is). I try to get us to think about how our belief and practice shape our lives together as a people of God in the world. The ultimate question is – are the “kinds of people we have become” congruent with the gospel we preach?

I borrow some simple ideas from political philosopher Slavoj Žižek (his earlier work) to help us see that a politics in the world can either be shaped out of antagonism (we define ourselves by who/what we are against) or it can be shaped out of who we are in our relationship with God. (OK I just simplified it way down for Žižek purists out there) For Žižek of course, the latter is not possible. Nonetheless, he describes viscerally how politics works when it is formed around an emptiness, a core birthed out of antagonisms. For Žižek, this is how ideology operates.  For me the question is, has evangelicalism taken on the shape of such an ideology in the world? Have we somehow lost our way and become a politics of emptiness/antagonism? If so, how do we restore ourselves to a politic of fullness in Christ for God’s Mission in the world.

I use plenty of cultural examples from evangelical life in America to reveal the inner contradictions of our life together before the world. These “revealings” suggest that our politics has gone off the track and taken on the character of an empty ideology. It explains why we have come to this place where it seems we have made many enemies in the cultures of the West. As a result, is our “ideology” collapsing? I think not. Yet I argue herein lies a space for renewal. In the final chapter I offer some directions for a renewal of theology and practice for a politics that meets the challenges of the oncoming post Christendom N America – what I call an “evangelical missional political theology.” For those of you interested in the future of evangelicalism, I think this book will offer some new things for the diagnosis. Hopefully you’ll be on the lookout for the book this coming January!!

14 Comments

The Psycho-Social Hurdles We must Get Over: Pastors in Post Christendom (Me and Gary Again)

In an interview recorded by Bill and Imbi Kinnon, Gary Nelson (president of Tyndale University College Toronto)  and I discuss some of the psycho social hurdles that pastors must get past to lead missionally. When I say lead missionally, I am assuming a distinction between leading a church that is internally focused versus a church that is externally focused. The former’s focus is on already existing Christians. The latter’s focus is on those yet to come into full relationship with God in Christ.  Of course we must as church leaders nurture the community’s life in Christ. This should lead into (and be part and parcel of) engaging what God is doing in the surrounding places we inhabit in everyday life. I strongly argue that the external is not possible without the internal. Nonetheless, within the confines of Christendom (Christian culture), there is always the dynamic that can take over a church which sucks its entire focus into nurturing Christians. This is where immediate success is visible,  accolades abound, and the temptation to brand and compete plays on some of our most common (American) impulses. The pastor must struggle against these dynamics to lead missionally, to lead the church into the neighborhoods. There are psycho social hurdles here  that play on the pastor’s own sense of self, identity and security.

To summarize here’s the three psycho-social hurdles:

a.) It’s hard to give up the safety of the top down finely tuned organization that has a steady stream of Christians (customers) who are habitualized into coming to church to receive certain goods and services. This works. It is safe. The task is to keep every body happy and satisfied. There is a subtle inertia here that keeps the pastor from asking questions, upsetting the applecart, leading the church into risky ventures which demand a different kind of commitment and imagination. This inhibits the congregation from developing an imagination beyond the four walls of the church.

b.) It’s hard to give up the sense of self-identity we get as pastor of a successful church. We are ever tempted to do things to increase numbers and (to put it prejoratively) acquire the customer loyalty of more already existing Christians  The pastor must overcome the subtle inertia there that keeps our attention focused on things that will be visibly more successful and enhance our personal identity in the process. This inhibits the congregation from being pushed out into the neighborhhoods doing things which do not produce the immediate numbers!

c.) It’s hard to give up the authority that comes in the top down organizations. There is a subtle inertia here that tempts us pastors to live in this authority because it gets things done quickly and gives us a sense of accomplishment and power. Yet this dynamic passivizes the congregation into a disposition where they always look to the pastor for the “ok.” This inhibits the congregation from dispersing in to the neighborhoods with multiple leaders carrying authority into the various contexts of mission.

If you are a pastor, have you experienced these psycho-social hurdles? How? If are a Christian, how have you noticed these social dynamics at play in your church gathering? What other psycho-social hurdles have you experienced, seen at work in local churches?

Pastors in Post-Christendom from Bill Kinnon on Vimeo.

16 Comments

Is the New Calvinism a New Fundamentalism?

Fundamentalism is characterized by:

a.) Insularity. There’s a mentality of insiders over against those who don’t believe.

b.)Distrust towards culture as a place where God is at work.

c.) An “us against them” mentality. Because of the previous two characteristics, fundamentalists typically reject open dialogue. Engagement with culture takes the shape of winning arguments and confrontation. As the insularity builds, there is less and less wiggle room to associate with other Christians who disagree. As a result, a certain form of arrogance tends to infect fundamentalism.

These are the marks of classic fundamentalism. yes? For all the obvious reasons, these characteristics tend to set Christians over against our neighbors. Its dynamic works against a missionally engaged Christianity.

Recently, Scot McKnight subtly suggested that the New-Calvinism might be a New Fundamentalism? I can see why because I see some of the above characteristics as seeping into it. Even more important to me, the internal logic of Reformed protestant thought as transferred to American soil, will just naturally lead to a defensive posture in culture (I know, I have to flesh this out in another post). After looking at the video inserted below, I see some early signs that Neo- Calvinism or the Neo-Reformed movement is on its way to becoming a fundamentalism, even in its edgier forms. It’s a video with many inner contradictions at work, so its not clear. Nonetheless, I observed 4 things from the video. I put these observations in the form of a question because I’m really asking if what I’m seeing is accurate at this point. Your input is greatly appreciated.

1.) They think Reformed Theology provides the best fortress? Is this insular thinking? Mohler says the resurgence in new-Calvinism has emerged from a raft of young people trying to swim against the tide of secularism. He says they are in desperate need of “a structure of thought that is more comprehensive than merely a deck of cards with all the right doctrines.” (the quote is from CT article Oct 2010 which is similar to what he says in the video) They need resources. They need to be able to answer questions like “how did I get saved and all these others didn’t?” These words reveal that Mohler sees “the structure of thought” as the means of being able to defend the coherence of one’s own beliefs. As opposed to engaging the world with a compelling Story, and inviting the world in, this “structure of thought” helps me defend why I am a Christian. There is nothing wrong with defending your faith. But contrary to 1 Pet 3:15 (the idea of defense/ “give an account” in response to questions from those in the world as witness)  the motivation appears to be insular, defensive for the sake of one’s own self confidence. What say u? Have I read Mohler wrong?

2.) They think Reformed Theology is the true Evangelicalism? Is there an “us against them” mentality in this video? Despite Mohler et. al. talking about eclecticsm, and joining across denominational lines, DeYoung says evangelicals were predominantly Calvinist/Reformed in their origins. Is he crazy? To me it is stunning, that he can say this because so much of evangelicalism was birthed in the holiness movements, pentecostal movements (of Wesleyan origin. Maybe they think Wesley was a Calvinist?). Has anyone over there ever read my teacher Don Dayton? To me, this suggests a little bit of “we’re the true evangelicals.”To me this smacks of “us against them” mentality typical of fundamentalism? As a holiness driven anabaptist, am I being oversensitive?

3.) They think Reformed Theology as the only Option? Is this the beginning sign of a fundamentalist false hubris/arrogance? Mohler says in the face of secularism etc.  “What options are there? besides the depths of Reformation Calvinism”? This again stuns me. It smacks of insularity and the “us against them” mentality discussed above. What about the holiness movements (which stress sanctification)? What about neo Anglicanism that has the liturgical resources to form people spiritually and bodily in the face of consumerism? What about the Anabapatist heritage (of which I think is peculiarly suited to engage the cultures of post-Christendom)? All of these I admit to being deeply indebted to. I find here immense resources for overcoming the insularity of Reformed theology’s defensive posture and its heavy reliance on a Christendom foundation that no longer exists in many parts of our contexts (Southern Baptists excluded).

4.) They believe Society is Secular Therefore it is All Bad and must be Fought? is this a reflex distrust against culture typical of fundamentalism? Mohler’s repeated repeated characterization of the culture as “secularism” is curious especially since he seems to be so interested in cultural artifacts according to the Oct CT article. Yet, again there seems to be an antagonism here against culture. This goes against the typical Kuyperian dutch brand of Calvinism which sees societal structures as inherently created good. (This is why I am more than curious at what moves Tim Keller to align himself with these Neo-Reformed- insights anyone?). I can agree with Mohler on some of his views of government, that we should not invest alot of hope in it for redemptive purpose. Nonetheless, God is at work in culture. It needs to be discerned, not just written off.  Mohler appears to see culture as monolithic so that we have to become “culture warriors.” Some may say Driscoll’s edginess, willingness to swear, wear spiked hair and tattoos is cultural engagement. I think not. Or perhaps the willingness to update worship music with the latest in grunge, indie or whatever is cultural engagement. Again I think not. It belies a naive view of cultural formation that lines up with the belief that truth is truth, and all we have to do is “confess” it in words and the rest will take care of itself. To me, these are symptoms of a beginning fundamentalist posture towards culture: we have the answers, we distrust everything about everything that is not us.” AM I wrong? Yes? no?

Is Neo-Reformed/Neo-Calvinism heading towards becoming the next fundamentalism? Comments, Suggestions please!

DeYoung, Duncan, Mohler: What’s New About the New Calvinism from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

59 Comments

4 Building Blocks for a Missional Ecclesiology (Leading a Church Into Mission): #2 The Incarnational Engagement W/ Culture

Theology Alert: This post is a bit more theological/ abstract than the typical post at this blog.

For all of you not too busy with the elections today (in the U.S.), I’d like to continue thinking through the 4 building blocks of a missional ecclesiology. As I said in post #1 of this series, I have been working with a rubric for understanding the cultural shifts and theological assumptions that shape a church’s formation into Mission (and now Geoff Holsclaw and I are working together to make a book out of all this). I put forth 4 fundamental “building blocks” for shaping a church into Mission. They are theological/cultural ideas many of us are already well familiar with.  They are: 1.) The Church as part of Missio Dei, 2.) The Church’s Incarnational Engagement in the world , 3.) The Church as Witness, and 4.) The Church in Post Christendom.  I’m always revising and engaging further the implications of these “building blocks” as I teach and re-teach them. Last post we explored building block #1 missio Dei. This post I engage the idea of the Incarnation and how this impacts the way we engage culture as His church. Here we go:

The Incarnational Engagement of Culture

The doctrine of the incarnation teaches us that God, the divine creator, entered human life to inhabit the cultured worlds of His creation. God became man in Christ. He con-descended to inhabit our world so as to bring redemption. The transcendent became immanent.  The Creator encountered His creation by entering it and living among the world as “one of.”  This fundamental understanding of God in Christ determines how we engage culture as Christians. Whenever we proclaim the gospel, we “crossover” and engage culture. We must inhabit, become one among the culture so as to embody the gospel (enflesh His salvation)) in the terms of the existing culture. Out of this enfleshment we speak in word and deed the gospel, we minister the gospel wholly as part of our inhabitation.

The notion of incarnation then is a fundamental building block to missional ecclesiology. It teaches us how to follow in the way of Christ into culture. By entering culture incarnationally, we honor the fact that we are no longer a part of a pre-existing monlithic culture that possess the language to understand Christian message. We honor the fact that we do not come into the world from a presumption of power and respect. We enter humbly as Christ’s servants to the culture. We do not expect people to come to us, we go to them and be one “among” them, “with” them.

The Church as Christ’s Body – A Trinitarian Extension of God’s Mission into the World

I want to propose however that the Incarnation is more than a contextual model for ministry. It is more than a way of following Jesus among the disenfranchised.  It is a way of engaging culture as a people. The incarnation is that means by which God entered the world to be among us. God came in the sending of the Son, and in Christ, God (re-)birthed a people by the sending of His Spirit as a continuation of Himself (John 20:21-23). In this “sending of His people,” God extends His Trinitarian work into a people who engage the world. Christ’s presence, His rule is made known by the Spirit among a people. This happens in real life as we gather around the Eucharist (where His presence is made manifest and shapes us into a reconciled and renewed people). This happens in real life when we hear (in the Spirit) the Word proclaimed and respond in the Spirit as a people. This happens when we share fellowship(1 Cor 12), meet the poor (Matt 25), receive the authority in each other’s “gifts”(Eph 4) and when we gather to discern conflict (“there am I in the midst of you) (Matt 18). In all these ways, by the Spirit, God is “with us” and in us and we become his hands and feet in the world. God forms a people for Mission in the world.

It is out of this formation of a people that a multifarious local engagement with culture is made possible! As opposed to simply the church against culture or the church assimilated with culture, the incarnational community authentically engages culture in a way where God in Christ by the Spirit meets culture in a redeeming transforming work that can take different shapes. Here, out of this dynamic, we listen, engage and then discern things/activities in the world we should join in with (food pantries), things that can be completed in Christ (bringing the healing of Christ to modern medicine), things that can be renewed in Christ (marriage), or the things we must reject as in rebellion against God (pornography, corporate injustice). It is not simply the singular implementation of a strategy of either “the church against all culture” or “the church assimilating all culture.” It is a dynamic social incarnational process.

To take an example, with the “same sex relations” cultural issue of our day, we as a people do not simply unilaterally reject “same sex relations” with no prior interaction (against culture). It’s not that simple. Neither do we simply assimilate and affirm “same sex relations” (assimilate culture). It’s just not that simple. We engage on the ground in relational listening and dialogue, living the way of the cross and resurrection in terms of sexuality and its redemption in Christ. We listen, dialogue, live, and invite (not from a place of power but from humility) into the transforming way of the cross and resurrection we have been caught up in ourselves. In this process, a “converting of the church” (Guder) takes shape again and again, that looks different in each context. We bring sexual redemption in all its dimensions to the culture (lest anyone misunderstand me here, you can read this series of posts). The Kingdom of God, where God is already taking the whole world, takes shape among us as an embodied witness.

The incarnation is thereby more than a model to follow, it is a mode of being in the world that makes possible the forming of “his Body” in the world as a participant in where God is already taking the world. This pushes “incarnational” beyond the ways most often talked about in Missional literature. There are some easily anticipated objections. Does this put too much emphasis on the church as the site of Christ’s presence? His rule breaking in? Too much emphasis on the practices of Eucharist, preaching and community? How can this be humble?

What do you think?

(If you’re interested in pursuing these kind of theological/cultural issues in a concentrated course of study see here).

—————

Allow me to thank all those responsible for putting together the Missional Learning Commons this past weekend including J R Rozko, Ben Sternke and Geoff Holsclaw. It was real good and I think we’ve settled on the weekend before Halloween (or should I say All Saint’s Eve) as the annual date (so take note of it eh?). Thanks to all who traveled and came to this gathering. I was blessed with many good times with you all.

2 Comments

Webfonts HTML & CSS provided by FontsForWeb.com - free fonts download. See this Wordpress fonts(webfonts) plugin here