Reclaiming the Mission » 2011

davidfitch on May 25 2011

Questioning The Great Emergence – What Emergents Don’t Understand About Us Anabaptists

Phyllis’ Grand Emergence

Last week I was in Toronto and had a great time with Phyllis Tickle. Great lady! Witty, effusive, full of facts and figures. Phyllis proposed her thesis concerning the Great Emergence. There is a massive cultural shift going on in the West. In response, the church is forced to clear out its attic (it happens once every 500 years). Amidst this rummage sale of sorts, churches and traditions are emerging to form a new version of church. A new core is coming into place taking the church into the next 500 years.

Sorry but I don’t see it.

Emergence or Divergence?

I admit that I’m naturally skeptical on meta-conclusions drawn from even the best historian’s study of Western history. But my take on Phyllis has more to do with what I observe in the West. Her thesis assumes that Christianity is still vital in the West. In fact, for Phyllis, it is vital enough to sustain meta-conversations across denominations and arrive at a new coalescence together. I see a Christianity whose survival is in doubt in the West. These church conversations therefore look more like Christians talking to themselves while acting as if we can influence a world that doesn’t care about what we have to say anymore. Phyllis sees a Christianity that comes together (eventually) through conversations. I see a Christianity that is splintering. As a result Christians look antagonistic to the world. Consequently, I don’t see a Great Emergence in our future. I see something that looks more like a Grand Disappearance exacerbated by this unappealing internal Divergence.

Conversation or Incarnation?

This view of things drives the Anabaptist in me to push conversations into the concrete life of incarnational communities. Anabaptist Christians are comfortable with the status of a minority. For us therefore, it’s a matter of gathering what is left of the faithful to inhabit contexts and live what we know to be true humbly and peaceably. We are called to incarnate Christ in a way of life that submits to Jesus as Lord and then watch what God will do. I think Phyllis thinks the future will come with grand conversations that lead to an eventual convergence. Anabaptists don’t find predicting the future helpful. Instead, we think we will get to the future through living the Kingdom faithfully, communally and incarnationally and letting God do His work. Conversations should be resolved in the concrete circumstances of incarnational life. Phyllis is from an established church (Episcopal) in the south (where there are a lot of Christians). Most of us Neo-Anabaptists have lost confidence in the established church. And a lot of us are from the north.

What Emergent Folk Don’t Understand Us Neo-Anabaptist Missionals

This all gets to the reason why I think some Emergent folk don’t understand us Anabaptists. Emergents push for conversation that is inclusive. We push for inclusive conversation that moves towards resolution on the ground under Christ’s Lordship in community. Like Phyllis, Emergents believe that somehow through talking we will all converge someday. They have faith that the established church will form anew (we Anabaptists smell Christendom here). We push for local incarnation, the working out of our faith and practice and mission in local communities who live under the Lordship of Christ and His incoming kingdom. Here we not only converse, we practice conflict resolution in mutual submission to His Lordship, we encounter His presence and receive and give out of the Eucharist, we minister to the poor by being present among them offering what we have, we participate in community, submitting to each others’ gifts. We do all these things in a way that theology is worked out on the ground.

I am sure Emergent’s do all of this! Yet for us, this is the soil from which true theology shall be done. This is the soil for the renewal of the church. We therefore resist isolating issues from the church community’s life in the world. We believe you work out issues like same sex relations, pluralism, gospel etc., IN MISSION. We believe you work these issues out one community at a time and report what we have learned to the larger Body. We work these issues out to resolution because they will not go away and demand the attention of our communities who are dealing with these issues right now.

“Disputable Matters”

In Emergent conversation, “disputable matters” (Rom 14) are to be held open for discussion in perpetual conversation. The looming question for us Anabpatists is who gets the power to call something “a disputable matter”? Who gets the authority to say “this issue should be left open versus a belief/and or practice that must be dealt with for the sake of God’s justice/righteousness in the community and world? For the Anabaptist, this is the job of the community as the Holy Spirit works from the ground up. When an issue arises, we continue to work together via Matt 18:15-20 until it is resolved (this could take months or even years). It is the local community which determines whether this issue can be resolved between two people or must be resolved for the whole community in its context.

Why I am Misunderstood Often In Emergent Circles.

Recently, in response to the continuing factions within the post evangelical landscape (as exemplified in the Rob Bell episode), I proposed on FaceBook that we need to work for a third forum to have theological discussions that avoid the two existing default options for framings theological cultural discussions (Emergent and Neo-Reformed). I suggested such a third forum would make space for the missional incarnational way. In response, I got the following articulate responses from my friend Mike Clawson …

He said this …

“I am increasingly getting the impression that a lot of the Neo-Anabaptist/Radical Orthodoxy folks out there don’t really want emergent types like Brian or Rob or me as a part of that coalition. Maybe they don’t get that our hesitancy to give solid answers and root ourselves in one particular theological tradition is itself a deliberate theological response. Or maybe they just don’t like that response (not surprisingly – few people are comfortable with letting ambiguity, gray areas, and diversity of opinions remain unsettled for too long). Either way, once again I feel like folks like myself are being pushed out of the camp – only this time not just by the Neo-Reformed crowd. Hopefully I’m wrong.”

the he said this …

“what I’m suggesting is that that community doesn’t have to be limited to just one particular tradition. We can exist within multiple communities and within ever widening spheres of community – some as broad as the human race, and some as narrow as a local church (or even just a small group within it). And all of those communities can have a role in shaping and forming us and our perception of truth. I guess I’m making an argument in favor of pluralism and the plurality of truth. I cannot limit myself to only one community of discourse (though I will not divorce myself from those communities either) because God’s reality is always so much bigger than just that one narrow realm of vision.”

These two responses illustrate for me the differences between Anabaptist missional and Emergent as discussed above! Notice, they want to hold the conversation open and inclusive. No defined traditions. We can be above traditions they suggest. For the Neo-Anabaptist however, these questions must be answered on the ground within traditions. With what else shall we think? When Mike Classen says “exist within multiple communities,” “broad as the human race” – us Anabaptists read this as the tradition of American liberalism. We’re ok with that as long as everybody acknowledges that we’re all working within some tradition. It seems that Mike Clawson inherently trust open conversations will someday lead us/them somewhere. No need to foreclose? Yet many of these issues are justice issues that need attention now. For the pastors within a local community we must seek God for what to do now. This is why Matt 18 is so important. The community in Scripture submitted to the Lordship of Christ in the gifts can work this stuff out. From that vantage point then we can speak to the wider church and theology is never separated from practice.

I contend there is a different logic here – inclusive yet incarnational – inclusive yet local and particular, dialogical yet working within some defined traditions. This way believes “incarnational life will drives us towards resolution.” This is why I think Emergents understand me as being exclusive.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, have I got the gist of Emergent right? I have been generally frustrated by conversations from that arena that seem to go nowhere. I am frustrated when we are constantly asked to keep conversations open on disputed matters? For some of us these disputed matters are issues of justice and require immediate response. Some of us pastors must nurture the flock into Mission through these disputed matters. Is it possible that the ones who can hold conversations open on key issues can do so because there’s nothing at stake on the ground for the ones making these conversations?

BTW If I’ve made any of my good Emergent friends angry with this post, I am sorry. But this is blog land. And this is what good blogs do. I’m just reporting stuff I have learned in community. And besides, us Anabaptists are used to people getting mad at us, even when we refuse to hit people .

Filed under Uncategorized 62 Comments

davidfitch on May 17 2011

The Important Task of Cultivating Missional Rhythms in a Community

I’m heading off to Toronto this week to be at the Presentensions Event. Before I go I thought I’d post this piece (with slight revisions). It has been a popular blog post over the years. I’d like to hear from anyone who has been involved in such cultivating and what you have learned! Comment if you can. Peace!

————————————————————————-

Over the years now, I’ve come to understand the important task of nurturing communities into missional rhythms. Especially in the early stages of a community’s formation, we must resist the community’s desire “to do something!!” and instead cultivate missional rhythms among our people’s lives together for God’s mission. I think leaders need to walk along with and among people being a “missional therapist” helping people imagine God at work in and around their daily lives. Along the way, they lead by consistently (and kindly) rejecting some old habits and directing the imagination towards other possibilities. This is the never-ending work of cultivating missional habits of imagination among a people. Here’s my list of what to reject (slowly put to death in a congregation) and what to direct (nudge people forward) a congregation’s imagination toward. I’ve learned a lot of these things from missional thinkers/practitioners but have found all these things to be surprisingly simple and possible in my own life.

1.) Kindly Reject doing Outreach Events. Instead direct imagination towards ways of connecting with people where they are. Outreach events take up much time, planning and enormous “congregational capital” (if I may put it that way). In post Christendom outreach events rarely “work.” And you simply cannot compete with the local Park District or Megachurch event planning neutral site events. Instead, with little effort or cost, direct the people’s imagination towards seeing the ways you can connect with people in their everyday situations by going to the same place at the same time every week. Stoke imagination for the way ordinary life is the stage of God’s working. Visit the same places at the same time every week (this is easy for me because I am pathetically boring and love doing the same thing everyday). This has revolutionized my missional life with not a single ounce of extra-expended energy spent on my part. I believe the same could be true for every member of our church Body. Thanks to Alan Hirsch for teaching me about this.

2.) Kindly Reject evangelism as a one time hit on a target with a preconceived outcome. Kindle imagination toward seeing mission as part of regular daily, weekly and monthly life rhythms where out or regular life God works to use your life to impact people for the gospel in unforeseen ways. There is no precision strike technique, instead we need to train our eyes to pay attention to our life rhythms and be ready to minister out of everyday life, where God is already working to bring people to Christ.

3.) Kindly reject building multiple use buildings as if by building a gymnasium on the church campus we can bring people into the orbit of the church. Instead stoke imagination for what can happen when we go inhabit the gyms already in the neighborhoods. We should build less third spaces, and inhabit more the ones already there.

4.) Kindly reject one-on-one evangelism and the techniques associated with such apologetic persuasion. Instead direct imagination for inhabiting places in two’s or three’s or more. Hospitals, PADS Centers, the school systems, the park districts and places of hurt and pain too numerous to mention are all places where there are forces at work that can take under any one isolated saint. But two or three Christians together become an undeniable force for the kingdom under the Lordship of Christ.

5.) Kindly reject the Sunday morning gathering as an evangelistic event for it cannot be that in the new post Christendom cultures. Instead fire up imagination for the formation that comes from a communal encounter with the living God in Jesus Christ. As we hover around the altar, in silence, in prayers of submission, in affirmation, in confession, in healing prayers, in the hearing of the Word, and the Table, as we sing in praise and thanksgiving at what He has done, and then as we are sent out by God in the Benedictory challenge, we are shaped for His Life in Mission. It is simple, organic, takes a lot less planning than a mega show, and alot less money. And if any non-believers do happen to come, they won’t confuse this with a Tony Robbins event.

6.) Kindly reject coercive persuasion and argument in our witness. Instead stoke the imagination of your people for seeking “one person of peace” (Luke 10) among the lost of their neighborhoods. Look for that one who, though never having heard the gospel, is dispositionally ready (been readied by God) to receive. (Thanks to Mike Breen for this idea).

7.) Kindly reject presumptuous postures of power as we live our lives among those who do not yet know Christ. Instead direct the imagination towards the way Christ always enters the human situation in humility. So don’t come to your neighbors as the one with the answer, but as the one searching for the answers that always point you towards Christ. Come to your neighbors humbly and in need. Instead of offering them a meal, find ways to participate in a meal with them. If you’re in the suburbs ask them if you can borrow their lawnmower.

8.) Kindly Reject Surveying the neighborhood – Direct the imagination toward exegeting the neighborhood. Surveying looks at the neighborhood as a place to market our church, find out what they are looking for and appeal to it so that they are attracted to the idea of coming to church. Exegeting a neighborhood requires inhabiting the neighborhood, seeing the neighborhood as a place for redemption, discovering where the hurting are and the unjust structures are. See the possibilities for ministering the gospel to those who are lost and through the gospel (over time) seeing that very culture transformed.

9.) Kindly Reject problem solving – instead direct the imagination towards “appreciative inquiry.” We often approach church and the world through problem solving. What is wrong with our programs? What needs are we not meeting? How can we solve this problem in the nieghborhood? What are we not doing right? This is negative, mechanical and lifeless. Instead, let’s direct our community’s imagination to noticing where God is working among us and around us, to recognize it, praise God for it and participate in it through the gifts we have been given. Thanks to Mark Lau Branson for this insight.

These are just a few of the ways we can lead our congregations to make our whole way of life a participation in God’s mission. There are many more I am sure. What others do you have?

Filed under Evangelism,Incarnational,Missional,Missional Leadership,Uncategorized 36 Comments

davidfitch on May 11 2011

Why Neo-Reformed Theology Won’t Jive With Mission: I Plead My Case

I’m hanging out at the ecclesia network’s church planter training week. Last night, we all enjoyed some fellowship at a local establishment – and a fight broke out – ok not really. But a real good discussion happened as I tried to explain to a few “Presbyterian” friends why I think Neo-Reformed theology can’t lead us into mission amidst the post Christendom cultures of the West. After we all professed our love and esteem for Tim Keller (and I’m serious here), I argued that Reformed theology, extracted out of Medeival Europe and transplanted to the frontiers of N America, (almost automatically) becomes individualistic. Without the monolith of European Roman Catholicism to reform, the Reformation’s principles – the so-called sola’s – cannot provide a foundation for the Christian life. As hard as “they” might try, such a people formed around the “sola’s” will eventually devolve (once separated from its European culture) into an internalized, transactional individual faith. OK, that’s my case. But let me try to expand with questions

The Reformation Reformed a Church that Was Already There

The Reformation’s claims for a.) Sola Scripture (Scripture alone), b.) Sola Fide (it is by faith we are saved – by no other means), c.) Sola Christus (in Christ alone, we need no other mediator including THE CHURCH!!) were assertions made over against a corrupt church. They provided a corrective to something that was already there. In relation to a.) the church’s interpretive authority needed the call to submit to Scripture. In relation to b.) the church’s excessive penitential demands upon its people (which had made salvation about works) needed the call to recognize salvation was a work of God in Christ by trust in Him, not the church. And in relation to c.) the church itself had become a corrupt controller of al things having to do with salvation including the Eucharist and absolution. The church needed to be chastened from being the controller of God’s blessings in Christ to being the servant thereof. So in simplest terms, the Reformation reinserted the authority of Scripture over (and in) the church, the role of faith in one’s participation in God’s salvation in Christ, and that the church is God’s servant not controller.

But, within medieval Europe, these “Sola’s” did not wipe away a.) the church’s interpretative role in understanding Scripture, b.) the importance of the sacraments and disciplines (the eucharist, confession, serving the poor, etc.) to lead the individual into holiness, or c.) the church as a social reality by which the witness of Christ is carried on into the world. These “sola’s were meant to reform these practices not wipe them away.

Without Something to Reform, Reformed Theology Devolves into Individualist Christianity

Many years later however, transplanted into the United States, Reformed theology has nothing to reform. The “sola’s” are left standing alone as the foundation for a Christian life together. This worked for many years as long as the cultural consensus came along with the Reformed communities from Europe. But once the Reformed culture began to lose its hegemony within a given context (whether it be the Dutch in Grand Rapids, Swiss or Scottish Presbyterian cultures of the north etc.), the church’s life will devolve into individualism. We get a.) individualist interpretation of Scripture where I – “the individual” becomes the authority for what Scripture means, b.) decisionism – where salvation becomes an individualist transaction all about me where by faith I get pardon for sin and eternal life, and c.) the church becomes the invisible church, a collection of individuals to whom the church must now appeal to.

To me this is what happened as Reformed theology devolved into its current Souther Baptist formulations so prevalent in certain parts of the so-called Neo-Reformed New Calvinist movements. Do you agree? Do you see this in the current manifestations of Neo-Reformed New Calvinism?

What This Means for Mission

This is important for me because I contend such an individualism works against the church taking up a communal, incarnational particpation in God’s Mission in the world. In relation to a.) such individualism too often makes the church an ideologizing entity which uses Scripture as prooftexts to rally people around one position over against another. We turn into a defensive and/or antagonistic people. We do this because we no longer see the church’s role in guiding interpretation. As a result we lose our ability to come together as a people in submission to one another to discern interpretation of texts for new issues we face in the culture. In relation to b.) salvation becomes an individual transaction for me instead of something God is doing in the world to make all things right in which I participate through conversion. We make Jesus private. We lose Mission. And in relation to c.) church becomes eventually something that we must offer as appealing to individuals. We set ourselves up for attractional and/or consumer church. We lose the ability to be shaped by church into a way of life in God’s Mission in the world. In short then, I contend that Reformed theology has much to offer and learn from. But it is eventually ill suited to shape a people in Mission within Christendom. It remains ecclesiologically functional within Christendom type cultures (like Dallas Texas, Nashville Tenn and Grand Rapids MI). This is why I’m an Anabaptist with Catholic appreciations.

BUT THIS ISN’T REFORMED THEOLOGY!

OK, so I’m asking: is this a fair analysis of Reformed theology hitting the shores of N America? I’m obviously not the first one to argue in this way. Reinhard Hutter made a similar case in Suffering Divine Things. Stanley Hauerwas recently quoted Bonhoeffer (here) saying that “American Protestantism is Protestantism without the Reformation.” Bonheoffer alludes to the conditions I’m discussing here. But there are many, like Richard Mouw and Jamie Smith who would contend that I have described something that is not Reformed theology. Indeed they argue that the Neo-Reformed theologies are not Reformed at all, they are something else – usually described as Neo Puritan Pietism or something like that. I contend, that yes, the Neo-Puritan Neo-Reformed theologies of folk like Piper, Mohler and Driscoll might not be classically Reformed theology. But still, this is what happens when we separate Reformed theology from its reforming task within Christendom. Are we not seeing many of these individualist tendencies within the Neo-Reformed movement for these reasons?

OK, I have plead my case. I’m expecting and welcoming push back. Shoot, I’m willing to convert. I just need to know where I’m wrong. What say you?

Filed under Ecclesiology,Neo-Anabaptist,Neo-Reformed 74 Comments

davidfitch on May 3 2011

5 Excuses Seminarians make for NOT Getting A (“Real”) Job

OK, so don’t take me too seriously on the title here (the “Real” part) because I do believe full time ministry is a worthy and awesome vocation. But times are changing. Many seminarians aren’t interested in ministry within the structures of large established churches. And denominations no longer have the money it takes to fund a full time salaried pastor to plant a “competing” church in a locale. The only option for many is to lead a missionary venture into a place in need of the gospel. This sounds good right? The problem is that this approach demands (most of the time) that the church planter get a job and be bi-vocational. And this is a hurdle for most people coming out of seminary (not that seminarians are the only people who can do this).

Bi-vocationalism is attractive to many seminarians. For them, the vocational full time pastor job in a church can separate you from Mission. You work and hang out with mostly Christian people all day (and night). Today, there are more and more seminary students who find the structures of the larger churches incompatible with their vision for on-the-ground mission and ministry. The culture is not a churched culture anymore and this form of church is not reaching that culture. The role of the established pastor seems to be like caretaking existing Christians. More and more seminarians therefore come out of seminary feeling like THEY JUST DON’T FIT.

As a result, more and more seminary grads are looking to an alternative option to ministry – the option to take up residence in a neighborhood and “inhabit” it for ministry. We seek a neighborhood nearby where the need for the gospel is especially evident. We seek God and His call to move there and take up residence. We get normal jobs, live life together, get to know our neighbors, hang out in the coffee shops, the laundry-mats, the McDonalds (wink wink), the bars, the local school meetings, the civic association, the places where hurting people are. Learn to be intentional in the way you organize your life, so that nothing is a burden, just a rhythm. Gather a people into the rhythms of God (worship, fellowship, conflict discernment, serving the poor, prayer for the sick, eating meals of fellowship, etc. etc.). We learn how to come alongside the poor, vulnerable, broken, hurting. We learn how to minister, pray with, supply support to, encourage and even disciple and be discipled by the poor in the process. We lead by coming alongside other leaders who also move in and together we use all our leadership skills, and spiritual gifts as well as preaching and teaching to lead this community. Each of us puts in 10-15 hours of work (the equivalent of on full time senior pastor). We do all this as part of a regular sustainable rhythm of life for years and watch God transform people and neighborhoods in Christ. NONE OF THIS IS A PROGRAM!

OF COURSE THERE IS ONE HURDLE FOR MOST SEMINARIANS TO THIS PLAN – YOU HAVE TO GO GET A JOB.

Seminarians, and I am primarily talking to seminarians here, for some reasons have a mental block about getting a job. Here are five bad excuses for NOT getting a job and some comments regarding each excuse.

1.) EXCUSE NO. 1 – I CAN’T GET A JOB. I’M NOT TRAINED FOR ANYTHING. For some reason 3 years in a seminary seems to make graduates unemployable except in anything but professional church work. My comment is, and I worked in the marketplace for years, is that seminarians are well schooled in reading, writing, thinking, reading texts critically, appropriating text material, speaking well in front of people. In addition, they should have an acquired spiritual formation that lends itself to kindness, generosity and patience with people. There skills are in demand and much appreciated in our service economy.

2.) EXCUSE NO. 2 - I CAN’T TAKE A JOB FOR 6.50 AN HOUR AND SURVIVE. But the fact is that anyone who starts in any field has to start at the entry level. And it is here where you learn about being poor. It is here where you also gain the entry point to build relationships, learn a skill, and prove yourself as a person with all of the above skills. As far as surviving, missional community planters I know often move in with other people at the beginning. They live 2 or 3 families in a house. Pay much less or even no rent. This allows for the time to get established and take that entry-level job that connects one to living rhythms in the neighborhood.

3.) EXCUSE NO. 3 – I WILL BE SPENDING TOO MUCH TIME ON A JOB THAT IS NOT GERMANE TO MINISTRY. Seminarians think that spending many years in something not ministry related will stunt development of ministry skills. This is mind blowing to me. I suggest that working in the marketplace in whatever capacity is transforming and every pastor should do it in some way. It is also incredible how having a well-honed skill in your back pocket gives enormous freedom in ministry even when more full time ministry is forced upon you. You are no longer locked into the insecurity of having to keep a church going (because you know you can get a job) that can constrain you from acting prophetically.

4.) EXCUSE NO. 4 - IT WOULD BE BETTER TO RAISE SUPPORT FROM CHRISTIANS AND THEN HAVE MORE TIME IN MINISTRY. My comment here is that fund raising is great if you have a ready network of support that you can call on. Go for it!! This will free you up to take time and get a job BTW. The problem with fund raising however is that it is often a full time job. It takes a year making 1000 phone calls, making 200 visits. This is the equivalent man-hours of starting a self-sustaining business. Fund raising of course takes hours to keep up those contacts year in and year out. You are basically spending your time with Christians. Fund raising, therefore, in a sense, takes you out of the neighborhood and into the Christian ghetto. It is also Christendom based. It depends on already committed Christians who are a shrinking commodity in the developed West.

5.) EXCUSE NO. 5 – I SPENT 3 YEARS (OR MORE) AND A LOT OF MONEY ON A SEMINARY EDUCATION. NOW THIS WAS A WASTE OF TIME! No it wasn’t. It hopefully prepared you for ministry. Some of the best missional communities I know have been founded by seminary graduates. They are using their education to the fullest in ways never imagined. And if you’ve got loans, that’s unfortunate. But, I suggest, most of the people following the course of bi-vocational ministry make more money (eventually) than in ministry and pay back their loans faster. On taking out loans for seminary, I suggest the right kind of praxis oriented seminary education (that encompasses Biblical studies, theological studies, cultural studies, church practice studies, leadership studies) is important for bi-vocational missional leaders. But I would suggest you do it slowly and in ways that don’t stretch the finances. At Northern we’re working on an M.A. CM in Missional Studies that can be accomplished one night a week for five years at a very low cost monthly.

OK I know this isn’t for everybody. I’ve seen this work mostly with twenty-thirty somethings. But the times a re changing. For what it’s worth, I’ve lived all this myself and seen it take shape in many different ways in missional commuinities. What are your biggest hurdles? Do you know of any other excuses? Is this totally out of the question for you? Blessings on the journey!!

Filed under Church Planting,Missional Leadership 44 Comments

davidfitch on May 2 2011

A Shout Out to The Inhabit Conference Crowd: Two Quotes For The Journey

I was at the Inhabit Conference in Seattle this past week as a participant and a speaker. This conference delivered on alot of levels. Content, inspiration, imagination and conspiring with good friends (or least people who became good friends). We were challenged and inspired to inhabit our local places with the life of the gospel in Jesus Christ. Practice, presence, space. I recommend to all who couldn’t be there be sure to listen to the sessions that interest you via the web site audio feeds which are soon to be made available. Be sure to listen to some Micah Bournes poetry here (his poem “church is” was a highlight for me of the conference) and here. Check out the twitter feed from the conference via the hash tag #inhabitconf . And for all you co-conspirators for inhabiting “place” with the gospel, I throw out there two quotes for the journey:

The Reverse Jabez Prayer as Told by Ben Katt – On of the Organizers of Inhabit

“Lord would you shrink my territory so I actually care about the people/place we minister in.”

A Quote From Gerhard Lohfink from his Does God Need the Church (p. 27)

“It can only be that God begins in a small way, at one single place in the world. There must be a place, visible, tangible, where the salvation of the world can begin: that is, where the world becomes what it is supposed to be according to God’s plan. Beginning at that place, the new thing can spread abroad, but not through persuasion, not through indoctrination, not through violence. Everyone must have the opportunity to come and see. All must have the chance to behold and test this new thing. Then, if they want to, they can allow themselves to be drawn into the history of salvation that God is creating. Only in that way can their freedom be preserved. What drives them to the new thing cannot be force, not even moral pressure, but only the fascination of a world that is changed.”

Blessings on the journey.

Filed under Uncategorized 2 Comments