on August 31 2011

God’s Journey into the Far Country and Our Participation in It: My Last Post on the Incarnation

Warning: Academic theological discussion ahead. Read at own risk :) This post is my final post on the doctrine of the incarnation. It is dependent upon the prior two posts on the incarnation available by  just scrolling down.

Karl Barth, in his mammoth Church Dogmatics Vol IV 1 and 2, describes the Father’s sending of the Son into the world with the words “The Way of the Son Into the Far Country.” Barth characterizes the “sending” of the Son as going the way of “the prodigal son” of Jesus’ parable of the same name. The prodigal son traveled off into “the far country” (Luke 15:13) where he travels into the depths of debauchery and sin. In Jesus, the Son takes the same journey taking on the sin and the calamity of the prodigal son himself. And yet the Son of God carries out this journey not in disobedience to the Father but in total obedience. This crossing over into the far country is radical, risky, excessive and prodigal. It is the very nature of the incarnation. And Barth recounts it all in par 59 and 64 of Vol IV. Using “prodigal” in this way, I contend the two prior positions on the incarnation fail to hold onto the prodigal nature of the sending of the Son by the Father. For sure, I applaud each position for what each one accomplishes. Yet in each case the position is not prodigal enough.

And so in the case of position 1 – the Incarnation, as singular event – the incarnation reveals the majesty and all sufficiency of Christ as fully God, one with the Trinity. But it fails to account for the prodigal nature of the incarnation: that in the sending of the Son, God has not just “dipped his toe in the water,” He (the transcendent God) has entered fully into history, to dwell among us, in culture, to altar the course of history, to work redemption in and through history.

In the case of position 2, the Incarnation, as the way into God’s Kingdom, the position describes how in Jesus Christ we see what it is to be fully human. And yet this position too fails to account for the prodigal nature of the incarnation because, again, in Christ the almighty transcendent God (Borg is basically a panentheist) scandalously crosses all boundaries to enter human history, be vulnerable, become one of us, get involved and work for His Mission in the world.

We need therefore a third position (I might call it a fourth position implying we must get beyond these modernist categories – a “third way” often tries to mediate instead of go beyond) to embrace the prodigal nature of the Triune Sending of the Son into the Far Country.  Here goes my take on a position no. 3.

Position 3.) The Incarnation Continues Christ’s Presence Into The World – The Invitation to Join in the Journey Into the Far Country

In position 3, the incarnation refers to the coming of the Son into world to be with/among us in Jesus Christ, his life, death, and resurrection. Yet, the incarnation does not end there. Christ’s presence is continued into the world via a people as the participants in the Triune God’s Mission in the world. The incarnation therefore is more than the divine Son worshiped, or the way of Jesus of Nazareth exemplified or even the God ordained model of engaging our world with the gospel. It is the bringing of Christ’s very presence as Lord into the world.  Via being “his body” in the world, the church brings Christ’s presence into the world and joins in with the Triune God’s movement in the world for His mission.

The Great Commission text of Matt 28 :18 illustrates the nature of this extension of Christ’s presence beyond the historical life of Jesus on earth. Here, Jesus says “all authority in heaven and earth has been given unto me” alluding to His cosmic rule over all creation begun at the ascension. Jesus is now Lord.  Yet he also says “and lo, I am with you even unto the end of the age” aluding to the “with-ness” presence of the incarnation continuing with the church unto the end of the age. The two movements work together to bring God’s Kingdom in. Christ is ruling over the whole earth bring in the Kingdom (1 Cor 15:25). Yet He is “with” His church making His presence manifest. This two fold movement is  a continuation of the work of the Triune God in the world to bring about the redemption of the world. It says that the church, in a unique way participates (is caught up) in the Triune God’s work in history via the Son through the Spirit.

The incarnation is therefore an invitation into the journey into the far country. The church, as His body, is the joining in with the Sent One into the world on the Mission God has set into motion.

How does this happen? A few comments.

There are practices that have been given to the church from Christ via the apostles wherein Christ’s presence is made manifest in the world by the Holy Spirit. In each case Christ’s Lordship, the Kingdom is made manifest/breaks in. In each case this two fold work is evident. Practices like i.) Conflict resolution/discernment where He promises to be there “in the midst of them” yet also reveals that this is an act of Christ’s rule from on high – “whatever you bound on earth shall be bound in heaven.” Matt 18:15-20 ii.) The Ministry of the Fivefold Giftings Eph 4 where Christ gives gifts from his ascended rule (8-10) and in so doing His very authority becomes fully present in His church (the fullness of Christ v 13). iii.) Serving the poor (Matt 25) where Christ says in the context of His rule (vs31) that He has been present in the hungry and the naked (v35-36). iv.) The inhabiting of a context and proclaiming the gospel (Luke 10) where the missionary both proclaims the Kingdom (vs 9) and in so doing brings the very presence of Christ into the midst (vs. 16). v.) the Eucharist where historically the church has understood Christ’s presence (Luke 24:30-31) but also understood this as the Lord’s supper where He reigns (and judges 1 Cor 11:23-33).

Everyone of these practices is not only carried out by the church but also into the world. We practice reconciliation in the church to extend this same reconciliation into the world. We eat together in Eucharist and to extend this hospitality in the meals we share inthe world. We serve the poor in our life together as church so as to recognize and serve the poor in the neighborhood. We proclaim the good news in the gathering in order to proclaim it into every area of life we inhabit in the world. Each time we do, Christ’s presence is manifest bringing into visibility the Kingdom of God in our midst in the world.

All of this is why Paul calls the church “the body of Christ” the ultimate symbolic expression of what it means to be and extend the presence of Christ physically into the world.   As we inhabit the world under His Lordship, we become through the Spirit His enfleshed body, joining together with what He is doing in the world as the Sent One of the Father. We are joining in with His work unto the end of the age. This is the radical and prodigal nature of the incarnation.

This presence is never territorial because this presence is incarnational. In that the incarnation is by its nature a giving up of power, a vulnerable, humble, non-violent, in service to entrance into every context (Phil 2:3-16), there can be no territorial-ness to this way of engaging culture. Any hint of taking a position of power and/or superiority is a denial of the incarnation and the presence of Christ will not be there.

This Presence is not just individualist, it shapes the very social contexts in which we live. And so as we bring hospitality, the gospel, reconciliation, healing into our neighborhoods, there is a social as well as personal transformation that takes place. There is a realignment of economics and social relations that is the direct implications of the eating the Lord’s Supper together. In Mark 10 this claim is made explicitly by Christ as he talks about the wealthy entering the Kingdom. According to this text,  there will be a total rearrangement of the way we live in terms of family, our money and even the place where we live. For following Jesus means “leaving everything.” But in so doing this is not a complete removal from life and culture, it is a reordering out of it in Christ. And so Jesus says “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for my sake and the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold in this age – houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fieklds, with persecutions – and in the age to come eternal life.” (Mark 10:28-30). To then follow Christ, to bring his presence into a place, is disruptive and reordering. The existing culture is not disgarded nor disregarded. It is transformed via our inhabitance in a incarnational humble vulnerable way. It is not colonialist, because each time the “body” inhabits a place, the church as His body itself is transformed, “converted” in the words of Darrell Guder, into another manifestation of redeemed culture. It never looks the same twice.

Position 3 finds expression when Leslie Newbigin says “… there is a society (the church) in which the life of the crucifed and risen Jesus lives on and his mission continues, not only as proclamation of the kingdom but as the presence of the kingdom in the form of (His) death and resurrection.” Open Secret p.52, or Hans VonBalthasar says the church is “Christ’s body, an extension, a communication, a partaking in the personality of Christ.” (Explorations in Theology II 145), or by me  when I say  “The church as Christ’s social body always lives among the world and what God is doing. It is the extension of the Incarnate Christ sent by the father to join in with what He is already doing by the Spirit. As such the church is inextricably part of the Triune mission already ongoing.” (End of Evangelicalism p. 170)

Witness and Revolution Made Possible

There’s a revolution here in position No. 3 (what Yoder called the Original Revolution). It is the way of humbly inhabiting our neighborhoods with the power of the gospel that shapes us into His rule right here, right now right where we live and invites the world along for the ride. It’s underground. It’s subversive of the powers. It is allowing God through us to bring the very presence of Christ into our neigborhoods. When we do, we join in with Christ in the journey into the Far Country.

And so I’ve seen simple but amazing things happen when Christians enter the world in these ways. When doing reconciliation between a member of our church and his landlord, when someone has proclaimed the gospel into someone’s life a third place, when people open up the hospitality of Jesus in their homes, when exercising their spiritual gifts in context, when serving the poor with Christ’s presence. Unfortunately, I suspect these experiences are too rare because we are caught up in the business of life. We simply can’t imagine that Jesus actually comes wherever we enter these simple but prodigal practices.

Comments? Does this way of understanding the incarnation make sense? It’s got a Catholic (sacramental) edge to it? Is that problematic? What dangers do you see in this articulation of the incarnation? I listed 5 of these practices from Scripture but I believe there are more. Any suggestions?

_______

*ADD ON Ecclesiological Implications

The ecclesiological implications of this 3rd view of the incarnation are enormous. For instance, the 1st view of the incarnation is very much at home within evangelicalism and especially mega-church evangelicalism. The 2nd is most at home in N American protestant liberalism.  These are both expressions of the modernist Christendom form of church. The 3rd view of incarnation however is largely undercut by Christendom. The two most obvious examples of Christendom church, the medieval version of Roman Catholicism and the American modern evangelical mega-church, prove this point. In Medieval Catholicism the practices I speak of are institutionalized as sacraments (eucharist, reconciliation, proclamation of the gospel,  and ordination – read Yoder’s Fullness of Christ for an account of how the church morphed from the 5 fold ministry). They turn inward and become the property of hierarchy. They no longer shape a people into Christ’s presence for the world – God’s Mission. Likewise today’s evangelical megachurch undercuts these practices. Reconciliation/conflict management is done from top down and the process of communal discernment is arbitered away. The Eucharist is largely packaged to individuals in large crowds and the practice of mutual sharing, discerning the body is largely undone. The 5-fold ministry is truncated by a single CEO mega personality. Even the serving of the poor is turned often into a program to be done one night a week (taking out the relational presence).

In my opinion therefore, this third view of the incarnation requires vibrant communities of people to inhabit local places/neighborhoods and relationally engage their contexts with all the practices of the presence of the Jesus Christ.

Filed under Incarnational,Missional,Missional Ecclesiology 23 Comments

on August 29 2011

The Incarnation: Some Clarifications on An Abused Term: Post #2 Marcus Borg and Brian McLaren

Warning: Academic theological discussion ahead. Read at own risk :)

—————————————————–

In my last post, I complained that the doctrine of  the incarnation had gotten a bad rap lately. For me, talk of “the incarnation” has become confused. Yet I think it is an important doctrine – especially for the missional church movement. And so last week I began a series of three posts on the incarnation to hopefully clear up some confusions and put forth a proposal. Post Number One in this series described the doctrine of the incarnation, the debate surrounding it within missional circles, and then the first of three positions ( as I see it) on the incarnation. I labeled the first position the “incarnation as singular event.” I pegged this position as the one ascribed to by John Starke at the Gospel Coalition (I think John’s position is representative of the Gospel Coalition as a whole) and people like Halden Doerge. Ironically, I see the “the Gospel Coalition” and Halden in the same camp although admittedly coming from different theological starting points.

Today, I’d like to describe a second position on the incarnation. It is equally as popular and finds its strongest advocates among the Emergent crowd along with people like Marcus Borg and Brian McLaren. It understands the incarnation primarily as God providing “the Way into the Father’s Kingdom.”

2.) The Incarnation as the Way Into the Father’s Kingdom

People like  Marcus Borg and Brian McLaren alert us (rightfully I think) to the problem within position 1.): the Incarnation as Singular Event. They say that such a position has the effect of making Jesus irrelevant for the daily challenges we face in our society. The Incarnation as Singular Event tends to focus intensely on the “event” of salvation in the individual as initiated in an already accomplished and completed work of Christ in the past. This has the effect of dis-enculturating the work of Christ, extracting salvation out of culture. So, paraphrasing the words of Brian McLaren, this view of Jesus says that “He is not the one who saves from poverty, captivity, blindness, or oppression” even though Jesus uses these very words to describe His mission (Luke 4:18-21). (NKoC  2010 p.128). This is a Jesus detached from the suffering world and the pains of our daily existence.

And so, as has become so popular these past twenty-five years (actually more like 100 years), people like Borg and McLaren (and many others) push us toward the gospels (as opposed to Paul) and the life of Jesus as the clue to understanding the incarnation, the mission of the Son and who He is. Here we see that Jesus is the revealer of God “not only in his teaching … but in his very way of being.”(Borg Jesus a New Vision 191). Jesus is a model for discipleship. Jesus modeled what it was like to live life in the Spirit, in the very center of God’s love for the world. He led us into life with the Father in His Kingdom and taught us how to always be engaging culture as God’s instrument to bring transformation for God’s purposes in the world. There is a new Kingdom of God at work here and Jesus teaches us how to live in it and asks us to go teach others to do the same (McLaren Secret Message p.75).

People like Borg. McLaren, and the Emergent church in general do a marvelous job of capturing this aspect of what God has done in Jesus Christ for the world. We see how God has entered into our world via full humanity, and has shown us the way to truly live in relationship with God and His coming Kingdom. As a human, Jesus shows us that God’s salvation embraces the whole of the world for a transformation that begins now (not just a future). We see in Christ how to live in the Spirit and be used to accomplish miraculous things God has done in and through Jesus (John 16:22).

This view of the incarnation puts the focus on discipleship. It puts the emphasis of following Jesus because to follow Him “is to be like him, to take seriously what he took seriously.” (pg 17 Jesus a New Vision Borg).  Jesus lived life to the fullest in God’s Kingdom by the power of the Holy Spirit and shows us how to do the same. In Him, we become his disciples for the transformation of the world.

My Assessment

And so I applaud and agree this view of the incarnation. It focuses on the humanity of Christ and thereby enables us to see the way God has offered all of us “a way” to enter into His life. It draws us into full and earnest discipleship. People like Brian McLaren, Mark Scandrette and Marcus Borg have opened up (in their popular writings) the fullness of the incarnation in ways rarely accessible in the past to Christians in N America.

Nonetheless, in my view, this position tends to not go far enough because it fails to present the disruptive and radical nature of the incarnation as God’s incursion into the world for the salvation of the world.  In Christ, a victory has been decisively won for the world and that victory, via Jesus Christ, has entered into the world. We go therefore into the world as servants ushering in a unique victory, a new order in Christ. His rule and transforming work has invaded the world. This position, in my view, errs towards seeing Jesus as a Way into God’s Kingdom apart from Jesus also being the means.

And so, sometimes, when I hear some teachings about “the way of Jesus” within Emergent circles I worry we are putting forth a way of life that can turn into moralism or legalism. “This is what disciples of Jesus do!” Yet we are not being invited into the dynamic rule of Jesus as Lord and His victory over the powers. I agree much with the Emergent authors that this is a rich way of love and justice in God’s Kingdom. Yet devoid of the inbreaking power of Christ’s rule via the Spirit, will this not devolve into another moralistic ideal?  Jesus is not only “the way,” He’s the victor, the King, the One who is bringing in His Kingdom through a people who submit to and affirm in life and practice that “Jesus is Lord.” So, as I see it, there’s a backing off off here that creates a less radical, less prodigal gospel. What say you? Have I got this right? Does Borg do this? Does even Brian McLaren border on this error?

I suggest that the “Incarnation as the Way into the Father’s Kingdom” position too often domesticates the incarnation into a way to be followed as opposed to a new order that has begun. This rule is intrusive and radical because God in Christ, as fully God, comes into the world humbly to disrupt the world and bring forth His Kingdom. This often ends up fudging  on the divinity of Christ. Perhaps this is why their proposals cannot be radical enough for me to describe the dynamic of the incarnation for our lives today.

For sure Borg tells us that this Jesus invites us into the supernatural, that God truly is at work in the world. Borg decries the enlightenment for striping our world of the Spirit and God’s work in the world. He invites us into the fullness of God’s Kingdom and what God is doing to transform the world. He draws us into the experience of a relationship with God through the Holy Spirit that draws us into His work in the world.  All this is great!! Yet, Borg in the end wants to deny the divinity of the Son (See for example Jesus a New Vision, p. 191). By doing this, I contend, his portrayal of Jesus doesn’t match the prodigal nature of the radical incursion that is God coming to us in the Son in Jesus Christ. His version of Christianity is not radical enough.

What say you? Have I been too harsh on Borg? Have I wrongly associated Brian McL in the same camp as Borg?

_________________________________

In the next post, I propose a third approach to the incarnation that goes beyond both the the Incarnation as Singular Event and the Incarnation as the Way into the Father’s Kingdom.

Filed under Incarnational,Missional Ecclesiology,Missional Theology 13 Comments

on August 23 2011

The Incarnation: Some Clarifications on an Abused Term – Post#1

Warning: Academic theological discussion ahead. Read at own risk :)

—————————————————–

The word “Incarnation” means “take on flesh.” The word itself is not used in the NT but rather is a doctrine of the church that describes for us that God has become human in Christ and the implications of that for our lives as Christians. The task of this doctrine has always been to not only describe how Jesus is both God and human (the metaphysics) but also to explore the implications of this reality for salvation, the church and the consummation of all history. The incarnation is one of the most central doctrines in all of church history.

Recently the doctrine of the incarnation has been the subject of some blog fire. Over here in this post we have John Starke of the Gospel Coalition upset with the way some “missional practicioners” (like Alan Hirsch) use the doctrine to describe the ways and means of contextualizing the gospel. Over here in this post, Halden Doerge complains about the way I use the doctrine to defend the idea of “inhabiting place”, what he perceives to be, a territorial practice of church. Of course, I find myself in agreement with much of what these folk say- including and especially Alan Hirsch. Yet, in each case I believe that both the NT and the history of the church demand we push the doctrine further than any of these three individuals are willing to do. In short, Jon Starke, Halden Doerge and even Alan Hirsch are not radical enough. From where I sit, they do not take the incarnation seriously enough to carry out the full implications of it into our life, salvation and cultural engagement.

Admittedly, this is a bold statement, so allow me explain by trying to diagram their positions in terms of 2 positions: Position 1. Incarnation as Singular Event, and Position 2, Incarnation as the Way Into God’s Kingdom. Then I want to argue for a 3rd Position which applauds the first 2 positions but takes them further by arguing for Incarnation as Extending Christ’s Presence in and for the World. Today, I’ll start with position 1.

1.)The Incarnation as Singular Event. Starke wants to confine the doctrine of the incarnation to the one time hypostatic union in Jesus Christ. For him, it is this past event of God the Son entering the world and becoming human 2000 years ago that we can properly refer to as incarnation. Starke contends that we must be careful in extending the incarnation into history via the church’s work. For that matter, one must be careful to not improperly extend the incarnation as a principle to be applied to the church’s engagement with culture and context.

To expand on this view a little bit, we might say that this view of the incarnation is punctiliar. God breaks into history at a point in history. God, the Son, invades creation in Jesus Christ and then ascends back to heaven having completed His work for the whole world. The church in the present looks to this event in the past and proclaims it’s salvific significance to all individuals who might by faith enter into what God has done (and/or receive its merits).

This version of incarnation is common among evangelicals. It is heavily confident in the preaching of the church to proclaim the good news across time and place. There is a stream of this thinking in the early dialectic Barthians. There is also a related version of this thinking in the “new apocalypticists” who emphasize that God in Christ was an apocalyptic “event” in discontinuity with all history bringing salvation over against all previous cultural forces at work. Christ comes anew each time he brings His salvation and therefore cannot be extended from within current social structures, places or habitats. Christ comes over against all structures instead of by entering into them. In some ways, the post-Bultmanians of the 70’s, the existentialists following in the wake of Kierkegaard, as well as apocalyptic NT scholars like J. Louis Martyn fall into this category.  Nathan Kerr, drawing from various other sources, can fall into this stream at times, and of course it often seems that Halden Doerge falls into this camp

My Assessment

I agree with certain aspects of this view of the incarnation. For instance I applaud the attempt to protect the uniqueness of the one time incarnation in Christ in terms of his divinity as well as his humanity and the work he accomplished during his death and resurrection. I affirm that.

However, I fear that in an attempt to protect the uniqueness and divinity of Christ these folk haven’t taken the incarnation to its full intent as revealed in Scripture, history and the church. For God came into human life in Christ to bring new creation, reconciliation, and righteousness (2 Cor 5 17ff..) These are social realities (altho this includes the personal as well). And yet this view of incarnation tends to over-individualize salvation (something the Reformation often tends to do in its later post-medieval developments). For these folk, Jesus comes to us in the proclaimed message to individuals. There is a confidence in preaching as universal language. We do not need a social contextualized en-culturated manifestation of the salvation God has birthed in the world in order to witness to who Christ is and what he has done. But, I firmly believe, that what has been set loose in the incarnation is profoundly social/en-culturated in its manifestation.

I disagree with those that say what God has done in Christ is discontinuous (in the extreme apocalyptic sense) with history and culture. I think this defies the incarnation. The reality is that God does something new or discontinuous, but this also has continuity with who God is, what He has done in the past (in OT) and his work in and among the socialness of human life. Christ comes into history in ways continuous with the ongoing history of God with Israel. In the incarnation, He comes and works within a social reality to manifest His redemption for the whole world. This invasion into history, culture and human life sets off a string of continuous “events” which continue the presence of Christ into the world socially. The church in inherently is and must be “incarnational.”

And so I profoundly disagree with those who limit the incarnation to the past “event” of Jesus Christ alone. God in Christ has entered fully into history. It is not singularly punctiliar (which borderlines on a Nestorian Christological error), Rather, in weakness and vulnerability, Christ revealed God in the hiddeness of the incarnation. He inaugurated the Kingdom and Christ’s presence was extended into the world via the birthing of a people to participate in the new Reign He is bringing for the whole world. This “church” was given the very presence of Christ by the Spirit to witness to the coming Kingdom inaugurated in and through the work of Christ by God the Father through the Spirit. Via this participation “in Christ,” the church is caught up in, and participates in the Triune work of God for the whole world.

So in a very real way, the incarnation did not end with Jesus ascension. Its effects are extended into history until he returns. We, through participation “in Christ” actualize His real presence, his dynamic rule into space and time, contexts, local places we I habit for the Kingdom. This is not territorial  (as Halden accuses me of) because, just as God the Son did not enter human history through domination, so Christ’s presence will be and can only be made manifest in us as we vulnerably, humbly give up all power to Him and serve the world. Of course, WE MUST BE CAREFUL to MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE INCARNATION so that Jesus’ presence in us does not become colonialist. Nonetheless, just as God came in Christ for the very reason of revealing Himself in ways which would not dominate, so we too are called to enter the world “incarnationally” under the same modus.

For me then, in closing, Starke, Doerge and even Hirsch do not take the incarnation radically enough. The incarnation is not God coming in for a one time landing, to do the things He needs to do and then jettison back out. Instead, the transcendent God has entered into history in a new way in Jesus Christ, and does not leave us, but rather extends His very presence into the world via His people in the world. The implications of this are enormous for the church’s witness, for the church’s participation in the mission of the Triune God. I will deal with all this in my third post on incarnation!

Til then, what do you think. What are the inadequacies of  current views on the “incarnation”?

Filed under Incarnational,Missional,Missional Ecclesiology,Missional Theology 22 Comments

on August 18 2011

Me and Alex McManus Take 2: Here’s a “Both/And” I Can Live With!

The indefatigable Alex McManus responded to a recent post of mine (in which I responded to him) while I was out of the country last week. In his post, Alex disagrees with (among other things) my assessment of the “big and positive footprint” approach to entering a context to plant a church. I was contending, over against the “big footprint,” for a humble inhabitation of a context as the necessary pre-amble for planting a church. McManus responds:

“It is OK for something really good like the gospel of the kingdom to enter a context and make waves, to spread like wild fire, go to supernova. I also think that your proposal to go in quietly, vulnerably, delicately is also worth doing … often necessary. I think it is OK for people whose intent it is to announce the kingdom in a community to do so either way, according to the spirit that has been given them, and the dictates of the contexts they enter.”

In other words, Alex argues that it should not be an “either/or” but rather should be a “both/and.” There will be some, according to Alex, who because of the kinds of leaders they are, will enter into a context in a big way making a big and positive footprint. On the other hand, others, who don’t have that leadership gifting, will enter quietly vulnerability. Alex says we need both kinds of approaches to church plants.

Upon reflection I think I agree with the notion we need both kinds of church plants. But Alex, you still missed my point. My point is that these two approaches – option 1 (entering humbly) versus option 2 (big footprint) –  are really doing two different things contextually, and which option we do HAS NOTHING TO DO with how we’re gifted. (In fact you might need to be more entrepreneurial in the option I than option 2.). IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH OUR CALLING. Let me explain:

1.) With option 1, we enter a context humbly, vulnerably, listening first and then responding. We follow in the way of the incarnation ({Phil 2:5-11). We go as lambs  with no power or money (Luke 10:3-4). We do not set up our worship services and then expect people to come to our services and the many things we can give them. We do not assume we already know what their needs are. We inhabit a place first as servants to live, listen and learn. This is how we go to people who are outside the gospel who do not know our language, who do not respect our position inherently as professional pastors (without even knowing us). This is how we engage a community outside of the gospel for mission.

2.) With option 2 we enter a context  by announcing (launching) a large worship service. Here we offer every kind of Christian goods and service (children’s ministries, single adult ministries,  Alcoholics/Divorce recovery groups etc. etc. ). We announce we’re coming with postcards and advertising. We offer services to the community to meet needs on a massive scale. We make a “large and positive footprint.” This is how we go to already Christianized peoples (in some way) who need to be called into the gospel anew. These people are already familiar with the gospel (raised Catholic, or Lutheran or traditional Bible church in their childhood and left). They may even recognize the habit of going to church from their parents. They need to get past the perceived  cultural irrelevance of their church experiences of the past. This approach still works for these people. They will come. This is attractional in its very nature (don’t see how you can get past this) and this WILL attract the Christianized masses who still have lingering memory of their Christian cultural upbringing.  The people above (in option 1) however, will generally not be attracted to this (and please, I know there will always be examples of the few coming from totally non-churched backgrounds  in the mega churches. I speaking about the majority of people who flock to big positive foot print churches.)

So I agree with Alex McManus, there is a place for both approaches. It isn’t an either/or it’s a both/and. Yet both are valid but for different reasons! Option 1 will be post Christendom missional engagement of a context. Option 2 will be a Christendom engagement of already Christianized masses. This has nothing to do with gifting (in fact Option 1 takes as much if not more entrepreneurial gifting). It has everything to do with calling. This is a “both/and” that I can live with.

But let’s be clear. The market for option 2 is shrinking. There are less and less of the culturally Christianized left in N America and Europe. And so when we plant with option 2 in these contexts we end up competing against one another. In “market terms,” we end up competing for the leftovers of Christendom. For these reasons, in a post from two months ago, I suggested denominations in N America (and Europe) start funding Option 1 versus Option 2. I suggested we stop funding church planting and fund missionaries.

What say you? Do you buy this “both/and”?

To my bro Alex, thanks for provoking.
You’re a good man and I love you too.

Blessings on what you’re doing for the Kingdom!!

Filed under Church Planting,Missional,Missional Leadership,Post-Attractional,Post-Christendom 44 Comments

on August 11 2011

Howard Shultz – CEO of Starbucks – Withdraws from Willowcreek Summit: LET IT BE!

There’s a famous song by John Lennon that summarizes my reaction to the withdrawal by Howard Schultz – CEO of Starbucks – from the Willowcreek Leadership Summit. (See CT article here). It is “Let it Be.” I love this song. I find myself humming it all the time when I need to return to some serenity in my life. To me it’s an ascent to the Lordship of Christ – Let it be Let it be.  John Lennon, I’m sure would be horrified.

I have long chastised us evangelicals for our anti-gay rhetoric – for our public campaigns against LGBTQ sexual relations. We should cease and desist from our culture war campaigns. It makes no sense. Instead I advocate “Let it Be”. Let God work out the redemption of our society via communities of faithfulness sorting out what sexual faithfulness looks like on the grounf under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Let God’s salvation forged through the cross and the resurrection take shape in our sexual lives in real communities. And quit trying to control the sexual lives of others in their respective communities. In other words “Let it Be.”

Of course the other side of this challenge is the hostile militant actions of LGBTQ groups against Christian groups. In a way we Christians are getting what we deserve. We are getting a militant reaction to our own militancy. And so when Howard Shultz is forced to withdraw from speaking at the Willowcreek Leadership Summit because “The church has long practiced dangerous conversion therapy to ‘cure’ people of their sexual orientation,” it speaks to the antagonism engendered by the culture tactics of evangelicals over the past thirty years. And so again, I also plead with the gay/lesbian communities, “Let it Be.” Let each community self determine out of its own convictions how to lead a life worthy of those convictions.  Let the results then speak for themselves.

To me the episode at Willowcreek this week illustrates 3 things about this direction we need to go: the direction of “Let it Be.”

a.)   This episode illustrates that : neither side really knows what the other means when it talks sexual relations or sexual formation. And so when Asher Huey dubbs Willowcreek’s attempts at gay/lesbian spiritual formation as “conversion therapy” he is inciting all sorts of ideological angst. Indeed, any attempt at any kind of sexual formation (including the sexual formation necessary for heterosexual/lesbian/gay folk to live out monogamous sexual life) could be dubbed “conversion therapy.” Does Huey even understand that for us evangelicals, “conversion” is part and parcel of our own identity in Christ? But this all illustrates how this conversation gets ideologized instead of worked out on the ground by real people asking real questions and seeking real redemption in our sexual lives. It’s the same non-sense when we start dubbing our churches “welcoming and affirming” or “welcoming and not affirming.” We do not know what we are affirming, nevermind what other communities that claim the LGBTQ label think we are affirming. So let’s put an end to this ideologizing, put a moratorium on policing each other, and allow our sexuality to be worked out as part of our way of life in local commiunities. In other words “let it be.”

b.)  This episode illustrates that: we need to acknowledge there is nurture and formation in whatever sexual stance we are seeking to live out in our culture. Whether it be LGBTQ, American heterosexuality, Christian sexuality, whatever, there is a nurture involved. Even if we affirm 100% that sexual orientation is genetic, no one can seriously deny that our communal culture shapes our sexuality, what it means to have sex, how our bodies shape and move with that (genetically given) desire, how we relate to gender. When we work with heterosexual therapies to re-shape destructive sexual habits in marriage, when gay/lesbians argue for monogamy as a chaste practice (see Eugene Rogers on this for instance), when we prohibit pornography for under 18 year olds, etc. etc, we are all recognizing that sexuality is formed in some way shape and form. Each community should therefore be allowed to foster the spiritual formation of sexual life within its own beliefs and practices. Again, we shouldn’t try to police each other with accusations of “conversion therapy” or the stuff that conservative Christians sling at LGBTQ communities. LET IT BE. Can we then please allow our respective communitiues, including Willowcreek, to have its spiritual formation practices around sexuality. If so-called “conversion therapy” is abusive it shall bring forth an abusive way of life. It will become apparent in time. Likewise, the pluses and minuses of LGBTQ sexuality will bring forth its fruit. And for the “Christian LGBTQ” communities likewise. The beauty, truth and compellingness of each community shall be revealed in its way of life.. Til then, can let us live alongside each other in peace, let God’s hand work in the world, and “let it Be”!

c.)   The episode illustrates: The church should give up trying to call the shots on this country’s morality. Instead, we should as communities of faithfulness seek to nurture a redeemed sexuality in our respective communities. This will be the witness we seek. It will speak for itself.  N. America (the U S and Canada) is not a Christian Nation. The U.S., more so than any other country, is a country built on the so-called “freedom” of each individual to satisfy him/herself “as long as you don’t hurt anyone else (whatever that might mean). With this being the predominant mode of moral reasoning and ethos, it is fruitless to try to influence the country’s morality on these terms. It will always turn into a coercive (and therefore unChristlike) exercise. Instead, let us live faithfully spending our times working out what a sexual way of life is that is faithful to the salvation we have received in Jesus Christ. Then let us live peacefully alongside other communities, in love and care for them. allowing each community to nuture shape its own sexuality in line with its deepest convictions. Our lives will bear witness to the redemption God is calling the world to. We will learn from others as well. And God will do what God will do to redeem the whole world. It will surprise us. So Let it be!

d.)  The episode illustrates (similar to c.)): We should resist trying to control what other communities say and do in the practice of their respective sexualities. Every time we speak a judgment, it sounds like an insult. When we try to control the other in ideological debates, we reveal the insecurity in our own way of life, our own vision and practice of sexuality as worked out in our lives together. This goes for evangelicals. It goes for the LGBTQ, it goes for whoever whenever. Churches (including denominations) need to discern together their our sexual practices and vision for life under Scripture, the Holy Spirit and the gifts in community. We need to do this peacefully, in submission to one another in reverance for the Lordship of Christ. (there’s a 1000 pages to be written on this). We need to do this listening and in dialogue with those who challenge what we are doing. This too, is another part of “Let it Be.”

I am disappointed in Shultz’s decision to withdraw from Willowcreek Summit. To me it speaks to the need for a “Let it Be” stance in our culture.  Perhaps Willowcreek can be the lead voice in calling for such a position. By so doing, we say Jesus is Lord of the world, and that as we work out what that means in terms of God’s call on our sexual lives, the resulting redeemed way of life will be compelling enough to speak for itself to the world of what God is doing in the area of sexuality.

————–

What do you think? Can you be an advocate of the stance of “Let it Be”?  Travelling to Canada for the next few days, so don’t know how much internet I’ll have. But I want to hear the conversation.

 

Filed under Women/GLBTQ 23 Comments

on August 8 2011

Stop Funding Church Plants 2: Three Clues Alex McManus Doesn’t Get What I Was Talking About (And I’m OK With That)

A month ago I wrote a post entitled “Stop Funding Church Plants and Start Funding Missionaries: A Plea to Denominations” which got some blog attention and an article written about it over at CT. I basically proposed that denominations rethink the way they fund church planting. Admittedly the idea was simple and probably already being done by many many people. The idea: Traditional church plants put themselves into the uneasy position of having to compete for already existing Christians due to certain numbers/financial expectations. For sure people get converted and the poor are served. Yet they end up largely reaching people who still consider going to church a reasonable thing to do on Sunday. These new churches upgrade Christian goods and services (worship experience, services to divorced, technology, etc.) around dynamic entrepreneurial leaders. All fine and good. Yet they largely don’t reach the growing post Christianized populations. (BTW I’m not saying there aren’t examples of people reached outside the Christian faith in these churches, but if the leaders are honest, it is a small minority.) So, after rehearsing this argument again, I proposed we need to encourage and nurture groups of three leader/leader couples to inhabit neighborhoods that lack a communal gospel presence. Put money here to help leaders get situated within contexts that lack gospel expression. This doesn’t happen naturally. It takes effort and support (some but not alot of money). Here, through inhabiting contexts we enter these places humbly, listening and engaging the places of hurt, need and spiritual poverty with the full orbed gospel.  I see this approach to/entrance into culture diametrically different from the approaches typically engaged by Western church – often typified by its mega churches.

Alex McManus, head of the International M Network, comments on my post here and here. I think Alex is generous with me. And I basically agree with almost everything he says. He argues for instance that leaders should be bi-vocational (saying we shouldn’t pay people for being Christians). He talks about successful entrepreneurs as being catalyst leaders. He argues passionately about “not needing to fund any missionaries because every one should be a missionary.” All these things I’ve lived and supported. So Alex and I agree on a lot of stuff, but largely I think he missed my point. After reading his posts, I strongly suspect that Alex (as well as many mega church/traditional church planters) doesn’t get that I am proposing a form of missional engagement that is different from what mega minded church “architects” see as mission.

There’s at least three clues to this in his posts.

1.)“A huge and positive footprint” In MacManus’s first post he talks about Kensington Community Church’s K2 church plant in Salt Lake City. He says “K2 hit the ground with a huge and positive footprint and established a significant mission point in a city.” I see the “big footprint” as typical of mega church ways. To me this smacks of taking up a power position in a context. We go into a context, offer all goods and services and tell people what they need. This smacks of colonialist mission. What I was proposing in “Stop Funding Church Plants” was that we (ala Luke ch. 10) enter a context meekly, humbly, vulnerably, dare I say incarnationally. To go in with a large footprint basically attracts people who already agree with us or who find what we have to offer attractive because of its power. Both I suggest work against the mission of the gospel to those who find themselves lost and totally outside the gospel. I am sure within Alex’s work there are plenty of churches doing otherwise. Nonetheless, the fact that this approach is acceptable to Alex reveals to me why he doesn’t see the need for a new church planting strategy.

2.)“A high impact entrepreneurial leader.” Again in his first post McManus is prone to extolling the virtues of high-impact entrepreneurial leaders. He is adamant that “Launching large, high-impact churches led by entrepreneurial leaders will end immediately following the death of the last born, high-impact entrepreneurial leader.” Yet I suggest the history of such “American” type leaders is that they are best at galvanizing and organizing people to create large organizations. Such leaders lead to an attractional church built around the charisma of this single leader’s gifts. Again, this works well when marketing to existing Christians and/or those with Christian memory who can be attracted to Jesus through an atractive persona. Yet I suggest (and have suggested for years) this works against mission. It approaches culture on the power terms of a power figure. It forms hierarchy. Instead, I argue that we need teams of leaders to inhabit a community and cultivate mission in the fivefold giftings (Apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher organizer, evangelist). We must do this humbly and be among the context. The other works against mission

3.) Mega attractional churches that do small groups in neighboroods are already doing what Fitch proposes. In McManus’s second post he says “I think that the author’s idea of deploying such teams is not only possible, I think it’s already happening. Where ever you have a believing home, there you have a center for world mission. The rim of fire, the cutting edge, of the Christ following mission then is located in the living room of those homes in those places where Christ is not known.” I would like to believe this is happening in mega churches but from my many observations, it ain’t. (Remember Wilowcreeks attempt at this?). Mega churches aimed at attracting can’t work against that orbit by decentralizing its people into homes. It is interesting that the two churches Alex mentioned in his posts are both large mega churches who use video venues as the means to extend their church ministries into various contexts (to be fair, Kensington plants other kinds of churches as well). It is my experience that the mega machine, the drive to attend church under the mesmerzation of the audience under a premier motivational speaker, detracts if not de capitates the leadership formation necessary to do what I am talking about in the neighborhoods. Generally speaking (did you hear me say “generally speaking”?) mega church takes you away from the neighborhood, trains people to think of ministry as production not relationships. It does not train leadership into local contexts in mutual submission to Christ leading together (out of their giftings) in the neighborhood.

So, in summary, I appreciate Alex McManus, the churches he mentions, the ministry of his brother Erwin. I love them all. Nonetheless, I think Alex didn’t get my point and I’m OK with that. No harm done!! I think what he does and the mega churches do is important. It reaches “the markets” of Christians, formerly Christianized populations for the gospel.” What I’m advocating for however is a ministry of a different kind. I am advocating for a kind of missionary presence that can reach the 60% of this country outside of those categories. It requires a different culture. A different approach that cannot be nurtured alongside mega operations simply because the ethos, the leadership, the social dynamics work against it.

Am I off here? Is McManus right? Can what I’m suggesting can be done by mega churches and mega conferences? I’m just asking? You tell me?

________________________

CORRECTION: Erwin has rightly corrected me that both Kensington Community Church and Mosaic are large multi-site churches which do not use video venue screens to transmit the sermon via one single preacher. They use live preaching in each venue. I apologize for the error.

Filed under Church Planting,Incarnational,Missional,Missional Leadership,Uncategorized 40 Comments

on August 3 2011

Pastoring as Mutual Submission: On Putting the Power Relationship Back into the Hands of God

Kurt Fredrickson and Cameron Lee of Fuller Theological Seminary are coming out with a new book on Cascade Books in a few months. It is entitled What Pastors Wish Their Congregation Knew (Good title eh?). Kurt asked me along with several other pastors to write a letter in response to the book. All of these letters will be published at the end of the book. I enlisted Matt Tebbe, a former co-pastor with me and Geoff Holsclaw at Life on the Vine Christian Community, to write it with me. We exchanged a few ideas and below is what we came up with. I thought the finished piece reveals well what went on between us all in the development of a multiple pastorship in mutual submission at Life on the Vine. I think it helps flesh out alot of what I’ve been writing for years on this blog about multiple bi-vocational pastoring. Matt did alot of the “good” writing on this piece. You can tell :) . I hope it helps others who are also seeking to pastor out of “mutual submission one to another.” Your comments and questions are welcomed as always.

———————————————–

Letter by David Fitch and Matt Tebbe – co-pastors together with Geoff Holsclaw at Life on the Vine Christian Community – to the readers of What Pastors Wish Their Congregation Knew.

We (Matt Tebbe and David Fitch) have pastored together and feel like we have learned first hand many of the things Cameron Lee and Kurt Fredrickson write about in What Pastors Wish Their Congregation Knew. We co-pastored the Life on the Vine Christian Community in Chicago’s northwest suburbs together with Geoff Holsclaw. Matt was the preacher and the pastor. Dave preached and pastored too, but was more often the apostle – gatherer – prophet. Geoff was the teacher-administrator. From our different perspectives, we learned first hand the importance of nurturing healthy relationships as pastors. As Kurt and Cameron articulate well (in ch. 8), this means handling conflict incarnationally: i.e. taking a posture of being among, with, and in submission to those we live the gospel with. We learned this first, however, through cultivating our relationships as pastors with each other. Only in working out our own co-pastor relationship did this truth work its way into the many relationships with and among the congregation of Life on the Vine.

For a church to be healthy, the pastors must be healthy. Often (not necessarily) church structure can calcify unhealthy emotional systems of pastors – especially senior pastors. The senior pastor in particular can set the “temperature” of the congregation; as the main leader, the congregation (and associate pastors) will submit to his or her decisions and way of handling difficulties and conflict. But this means that the emotional health of a congregation is tied to one man or woman; they are subjected to his or her character deficiencies, weaknesses, and blindspots. His or her reactions to conflict, ways of discerning, sensitivities and approaches to handling crisis become how the church operates in those capacities.

When we first started co-pastoring together we brought to our relationship a complex arrangement of ideas, visions, agendas, hopes. Throw in another co-pastor as well (Geoff Holsclaw) and it was a recipe for a power struggle. Two dominant leadership options were available to us:  Geoff and I (Matt) could submit to Dave as the lead and founding pastor of Life on the Vine. We could give him input but he would make final decisions. Or – we could have a democracy – There were three of us and each of us could have an equal vote – or – discreet areas of ministry where we took each other’s input but ultimately we had the final say. We all knew, based on previous church experience and a growing sense of self-awareness, that there existed in us a capacity for self-deception, egocentric leadership, and our own unhealthy emotional responses setting the temperature of our church. So – with Dave’s encouragement and careful leading – we decided it was better for our church to enter into a relationship of mutual submission as co-leaders as the means to invest in the health of our congregation. This was the most difficult and most fruitful relationship I (Matt) ever entered into. There were two characterological postures we learned in this relational commitment: 1.) Trust of the Spirit vs. Self-willfulness of me as pastor and 2.) Conflict as sanctification vs. something to me minimized, managed, or leveraged for “health” of church.

Trust vs. Self-willfulness

Because of our experiences and spiritual giftings, Dave and I would often see the same situation in two completely different (and sometimes in competing) ways. Training leaders, leading meetings, scheduling and planning church events, how to handle conflict – all of these created tension and brought into focus our divergent personalities. The relational matrix of mutual submission between us as pastors became the means God used to “strengthen our congregational immune system” (ch. 8).

Dallas Willard is oft quoted as saying, “What God gets out of me isn’t what I do, it’s the person I become.” We would say that what God got out of us as pastors was the people we became – in mutual submission to his work in each other. The same goes for the entire congregation at life on the Vine. As we lived into the reality of mutual submission in co-pastoring we found it to be best for our congregation and for our spiritual formation as pastors. But how could we tend to the kind of persons we were as pastors and not become self-preoccupied, egomaniacal narcissists? The answer, we discovered, was trust – submitting ourselves to each other in love and vulnerability. We learned to trust that the Spirit speaks and works not just in each person individually but in His church. We learned to test our agendas, preferences, opinions and sensitivities based on giftings to the Holy Spirit. Through the discipline of mutual submission we found ourselves becoming the kinds of people who increasingly trusted the Holy Spirit and each other. This vulnerability and trust became the posture and attitude out of which we sought to lead our congregation into health and wholeness.

Conflict as Sanctification vs. something to be minimized, managed or leveraged.

“In the end, what makes for a healthy church is not just how we respond to the conflicts that erupt, but the kind of relationships we cultivate before an eruption happens.” (Cameron and Lee, ch. eight ) Conflict – among the three of us and by extension in our congregation – went from something we sought to manage or minimize to an opportunity to grow, learn, submit, love, die, and rise to new life. Conflict became ground zero for the seed to find fertile soil in our pastoral relationships – and then with that imagination – in the life of our church.

We have learned that conflict is the means by which God moves a congregation deeper into His mission. In order for conflict to be used by God however, we as pastors cannot control it. Instead we as pastors must become vulnerable, carrying a posture of submission always as a model to one another following Matt chapter 18. In so doing, we allow conflict to ferment in the Spirit. If the conflict is about us (which as pastors it will be many many times) we must listen and submit. We must reflect back what we have heard, and then give our observations and then submit by saying “is this how you see it?” We might describe how we see the way forward, how we see Scripture on this or what we hear the Spirit saying. But we will always then submit these affirmations to the one we sit with. What do you see? In your prayer what are you hearing God say to us? In this place of mutual submission a coming together happens. Jesus becomes present and a binding and loosing” is shaped where we discern together where to go from here? (Matt 18:15-20). It is the very Kingdom of God breaking in.

When we as pastors find ourselves participating in such relationships, the burden of managing conflict is taken from us.  The power relationship is put into the hands of God. The act of submission places one into God’s power, what the Spirit is doing… and asking everyone else to test it. This is at the very heart of what we have learned together about pastoring in Christ’s authority not our own, what Kurt and Cameron call “healthy relationships.”

May God bless this book in guiding many pastors, leaders and disciples of all kinds to this place of putting the power relationship into the hands of God. In so doing, God’s power will be unleashed in His church.

Filed under Missional Leadership 12 Comments

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