reclaiming the mission

More on Obama, Zizek, Wright and the church in America

2008-05-13T09:40:00.001-07:00

Always willing to stir up a little more trouble for myself, I posted over at church-and-pomo blog concerning Zizek, Barak Obama, Jeremiah Wright and the American church. For those of you interested in such things, you can find the post here.

The Emerging/Missional Church - "They don't have converts" Why Mark Driscoll Misses the point

2008-05-07T20:46:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Brother Maynard, I caught this vintage Mark Driscoll remark(as transcribed here.)

"And all the nonsense of emerging, and Emergent, and new monastic communities, and, you know, all of these various kinds of ridiculous conversations - I'll tell you as one on the inside, they don't have converts. The silly little myth, the naked emperor is this: they will tell you it's all about being in culture to reach lost people, and they're not."

I get this kind of remark often in places where I speak. It usually goes something like this: "We love the missional theology. But does it work? How many converts have you had in your missional church? Is it (like it's some kind of strategy) reaching the people you're talking about?" And so it goes, the modernist drive to measure success raises its ugly head. Yet this does not offend me because these are important questions. For I believe if we are not seeing people transformed by the gospel then "missional" in the end means very little.

So my response to Driscoll would go something like this:

1.) I agree. There is a stunning lack of sustainable communities in the movements addressed by Driscoll and I think this is disturbing. The reasons for this are different though depending on who you're talking about: emerging churches versus missional churches.
2.) Regarding missional churches, it is difficult to survive as a sustainable missional church (versus your standard Driscollesque mega church). Missional church ecclesiology is organic and incarnational. It does not fit easily with denominational expectations. This creates economic pressures for the missional leaders. I believe it takes 5- 10 years to nourish a missional community into a true functioning existence. This doesn't fit with established denominational models of church planting (especially evangelical). This creates added pressures and less support for missonal church plants. Missional church plants therefore generally start out with alot of energy but often die by the end of year three. The planters have big dreams but soon burn out when the financial pressures and the long time it takes to see the work established gets to them. This is why we need support systems and ways of preparing missional leaders for these extraordinary circumstances. Al Roxburgh and Mark Bibby are working on this with their organization (Allelon).
3.) Regarding emerging churches/Emergent Village, I don't believe they intend to plant church communities that would lead to converts. Instead at least Emergent, (and a lot of emerging folk depending on which stream you're talking about) promote conversations (cohorts?). They seek to foster critique and seek "reform" within Christianity. I am not denying that there are vibrant emerging churches out there in the many different streams (our church has been accused of being an emerging church). But this is not their thrust. I also don't see Emergent/emerging possessing a soteriology and church/culture commitments that would emphasize the idea of conversion (although I have heard Brian McLaren talk openly and freely about conversions within the belonging-believing conversation).
4.) Having said all this, the number of conversions for missional church communities could still match the mega churches on the basis of percentages (if we were counting). This is Brother Maynard's point. I think that the missional communities that do persist may have a higher conversion rate than the Drsicollesque mega church. Missional churches are so much smaller. 6 conversions from a group of 25 over ten years would match (or exceed) the percentage growth of a typical mega church. I think it would be interesting to measure how much dollars per conversion are spent in missional churches versus mega churches five to ten years from now when conversions start manifesting themselves in missional churches. I know I am not supposed to think this way, but I still smile when I think that indeed missional churches could be more cost effective when it comes to conversions because we resist spending money on buildings, programs and the show.
5.) We must also recognize that "missionary conversions" take longer than mega church conversions. They are also more difficult to measure for often "conversion" happens as a process within a community (I could give you several examples within our own church). I argue that a conversion of a post-Christendom "pagan," who has had little to no exposure to the language and story of Christ in Scripture, requires five years of relational immersion before a decision would even make sense. If you do not have this immersion/context, any decision that is made is prone to be a consumerist one. It in essence is a consumerist decision. It is made based on the perceived immediate benefit. It lasts as long as this perceived benefit remains important. It does not lead to discipleship.
I believe it takes five years to provide such a context for someone totally foreign to the gospel. I suggest therefore that true missionary conversions, which I suggest missional churches are after, take much longer periods of time than the kind of conversions that are most often generated through mega church. For I believe that the mega church is largely appealing their message to people who once grew up as a child in old forms of church and know the Story but quit going to church. These now "unchurched people" require the old messages to somehow be made more relevant. These unchurched need to be be "revived" or called back into a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. There's nothing wrong with this, it's just different and we should recognize that. We should also recognize there is less and less of these kind of unchurched people left to make church more relevant to.
The bottom line is then, if we would reach the lost souls of post Christendom, the church in N America must go missional, incarnational, organic. We must become intertwined with those we seek to reach. Yet this will take time and appear to be highly inefficient in the terms we have become used to in the church growth/mega church world.

This is why I believe that Mark Driscoll has missed the point. I think he speaks too boldly about the lack of conversions in missional and neo monastic communities. I think a helpful thing to do would be for Mark to take a survey of his own church and ask how many converts at Mars Hill heard about Jesus for the first time through Mars Hill? How many came from other church experiences? How many are ex Catholics who learned the entire Christian catechism and then walked away only to become Christians at Mars Hill. I know Seattle is considered post Christendom territory. I also know that Driscoll considers being Catholic the equivalent of being damned to hell. Could it then be that the majority of converts at Mars Hill are what remains of the Christendom generations: more like the mega church type of conversion I described above? Not to say this is not all valid work for the Kingdom. Yet it is different work. For, at least theoretically, these are people being converted from a different base than those we pursue in the missional church. Missional missiology is aimed at those lost in societies of post Christendom. And this kind of mission takes longer. To me Driscoll misses this point.

What do you think?

"I feel like I'm a project to you"

2008-04-27T19:51:00.000-07:00

Recently, Matt, one of our pastors at "the Vine," told me "people don't want to be pastored anymore." He said that often, when he tries to reach out and minister to younger people who are hurting and struggling, he gets the unexpected rebuff. It's like they are saying "I feel like I'm a project to you." Interestingly, Matt reports that when he reaches out to the older group, he is welcomed.

There could be many reasons for this. Most obviously this could simply mean Matt's pastoral manner isn't very good. The older ones are just more polite. But I don't think so. I think this attitude reflects the further onset of the conditions of post Christendom. Here's three observations.

• Gone are the days when the pastor, with his/her credentials is assumed to have professional authority and expertise to speak into the spiritual/emotional problems of people. This trust must be earned relationally in community. Older folks are still used to the idea that a pastor should care for and shepherd the hurting during their struggles, whether they be financial or physical etc. The younger ones however now view it with suspicion?

• The newest generations want someone to be their friend, not their professional pastor.

• The post-mega-church generation simply cannot seem imagine that the pastor they see up front is someone who actually knows the people in the community. They see the pastor as a figurehead, a media figure, who leads through image and a hierarchical corporate position. They cannot fathom that this person would actually be in their home and talking about their real lives. This has hastened the end of the pastor as "pastoral care" professional.

If the above is true, then:

This hastens the day when the church must become an actual community, not a professionalized society. The church must be a community of friends, the pastor one among many, walking and mentoring and leading among, not above as some sort of professional. The dramatic shift into post Christendom pushes Christendom models of professional pastoring aside for a "leadership among" that can lead the struggling by walking alongside.
Relational pastoring necessitates de-centralized leadership in our churches. A pastor can know relationally at most twelve to twenty people. Our churches then either have to be this small so that everyone is the pastor's friend, or become more decentralized in leadership. Leaders must mentor leaders and give away pastoral authority. And we need places where the spiritual disciplines can be practiced in small groups, where confessing sin, penance, discernment takes place among friends.
The visiting of our sick becomes an exercise of the whole community not the professional domain of the pastor. I still advocate that all of our pastors must visit the sick in the hospitals. We must model it to others as well as engage in ministry to our friends. I also see the hospitals as places of incarnational ministry. The hospitals are the place where the poor(in spirit) and dying reside. There is nothing more incarnational than ministering Christ's presense in our austere business-like hospitals of the West.

What do you think? Is the era of the pastoral care professional over among the younger generations? What does this means for professional counseling?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Just to let those know who missed it, Andrew Jones and I are featured in this month's issue of Next-Wave.It's great to see that two people in McLaren's corner can still engage his work critically, yet charitably in a pro-emergent e-zine. Check it out!

Missional Church and Liturgy?

2008-04-22T20:02:00.000-07:00

As I have traveled and led discussions on missional church, I usually get the most resistance when I talk about the liturgical gathering as a place of formation for mission. Often people will say, "What does liturgy have to do with incarnational forms of church." My contention is that missional people do not fall out of trees. They must be formed into relationship to God, the Story we are being invited to participate in, the Missio Dei which always precedes us, yet we must have our vision (imaginations) shaped in order to see it - i.e. God at work in the world. If we are ever to be missional, our desires, our vision, our very selves must be reordered out of the ways we have been trained in consumerist America into the Missio dei. To me, good liturgy does this! Liturgy that is Scriptural, historical, theological, accessible and organic (part of everyday life) does some of the work of forming people into Missio Dei.

Matt Tebbe, one of the pastors at the Vine wrote the article below (for a web-zine he didn't give me the link to) about the worship gathering at the Vine. Many ask me what our church looks at the Sunday morning gathering, and why? I think Matt captures some of what takes place as we gather. He didn't cover everything. The way we preach at the Vine is important. The way we gather at the beginning is unique. The way our community sends people out for mission every Sunday is huge. He didn't cover these things. He did not cover how we have spent hours discussing the problem of even this gathering becoming attractional. Sometimes, it seems liturgy has become the new hip cool way to meet my spiritual needs (and we leave it at that). I hope to blog about what we're doing in this regard in future posts. Having said all of that, I think Matt (in this article) catches the vision of what an organic simple liturgical worship gathering can do in the forming of people for mission. I offer it (with his permission) for those who are seeking an alternative to 'the pep rally" or the "lecture hall" worship services so many of us evangelicals are used to. I offer it for more suggestions and hearing what other missional folk do in their worship gathering. Both Matt and I are open for questions and suggestions on this post. Here goes

"Liturgy: The Frustrating and Fashioning of Worship" by Matt Tebbe

"It took me a few weeks to figure out why I was drawn to your church," said Cheryl. Her husband had come to our church only once; in a brief conversation, he revealed to me why "we weren't going to grow much bigger." "You could easily double in size," he said, "if you got rid of all that chanting." (He was referring to our call and response section in our liturgy). So when Cheryl kept coming to Life on the Vine without her husband, I was curious why. "I realized that your liturgy teaches me how to worship. I never really thought about it much before, but every week I am learning how to listen and respond to God."

Cheryl's comment has stuck with me - "your liturgy teaches me how to worship." Our church, Life on the Vine Christian Community, is a small, liturgical, missional church in the NW suburbs of Chicago. Over the last 3 years as my wife and I have been committed to the Body at Life on the Vine, I've come to see how each element of our liturgy has a dual function: a "frustrating" role of deconstructing and exposing the ways we've been formed by our world to worship and a "fashioning" role of reordering and teaching us how to worship as the Spirit-birthed community created for mission.

In the Round
We sit in a circle with a table at the center of the room. Worship is communal - the people of God responding to the Triune God - and our seating arrangement physically represents this truth. On the table in the center of our worship sits two candles representing the presence of the Holy Spirit, a Trinity candle, and the cross of Christ. After the fourth reading (the gospel), our Bible is set open on the table during the rest of our service. We believe that sitting in rows of chairs all facing the same direction, and elevating preachers and worship leaders above the congregation teaches and signifies what we honor and value in our worship. In contrast at LOV, the sermon is preached to the side of the altar (i.e. "from" the community, not "in front of" the community), musical worship is led by a band in the back of the room, as people speak or sing in worship they are centered on the table and aware of the body of Christ gathered. No one person ever assumes the center position in our worship space other than the Triune God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Sitting in the round is a discipline of worship that frustrates our individualistic, private relationship with the Triune God and orders us as a community around the Word of God, the cross of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit. We are fashioned into a Spirit-birthed community created for mission.

Silence
We begin our worship together with a short (1-2 sentences) reading from scripture or a meditation chosen for the particular theme of the day. It is read and then time is given in silence for our congregation to be open to the Spirit. Worship isn't our open mic time with God, but rather we learn to wait - to listen in silence to the voice of God. It's a clearing, an opening, a ceasing that brings our attention and focus to the God who would call us to worship. Silence is a discipline of worship that frustrates our busy, anxious, self-centered impulse to come before the Lord with a mouthful of words. We are fashioned into still, listening, responsive people to the beckoning voice of God.

Reading
We don't project scripture on screens. We don't even give a specific scripture address when we read the text. This aggravates some - people are flying through their Bibles trying to find where we're at. But it is intentional. In our culture where information is commodified, owned, possessed, and used for our purposes we intentionally take the Word out of our hands and submit our ears to listen to it read over our community. We submit our designs for possessing and controlling information and allow the Word to be read aloud in our community. Hearing is a discipline of worship that frustrates our tendency to commodify information. We are fashioned into a people owned, controlled, and possessed by the Word.

Liturgicon
This is how we describe our "liturgical icon" - a reflective, meditative engagement with art and music. This unique part of our liturgy is meant to be a window into God's goodness, or sometimes a mirror of reproach. After viewing the 2-3 minute moving picture (sometimes live-action video, sometimes ancient artwork, sometimes modern photography), we respond corporately in praise, affirmation of truth, confession, or thanksgiving. Seeing and responding is a discipline that frustrates our passive engagement with technology and overly-cognitive ways of processing reality. The liturgicon frustrates our tendencies to consume media passively and rely solely on hyper-active minds that seek to dissect and figure our way into submitted relationship with God. We are fashioned into a people who actively engage art as a window or mirror of truth, beauty, and God's reality for us in Christ.

Lord's Supper
The Word is read and proclaimed and we respond by breaking bread together in the Lord's Supper. The climax of our worship, the Lord's Supper is more than a mere object lesson, more than a memory tool; it is the very participation in the salvific work of Christ's death on the cross and resurrection life. As we eat and drink the bread and cup, we proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Eating the Lord's Supper weekly is a discipline that frustrates our consumeristic, self-centered tendencies to approach the crucified and resurrected Christ individually. We are fashioned into a re-membered Body by a meal that preaches, re-orders, and calls us into a fresh reception of the redeeming work of Christ's work on our behalf.

Liturgy teaches us how to worship. It calls us to recognize our sin, God's expectations, our need to confess, declares the promise and reality of forgiveness, and climaxes in the perfect celebration of the Gospel in the Lord's Supper. This celebration of Word and Table is no mere memory tool, but rehearses right worship and allows engagement with the Holy Spirit to be sent out in mission. Cheryl is correct: liturgy properly orders our worship of God and thereby teaches us how we ought to approach him in call and response. Using both ancient and modern liturgical disciplines, we seek to create space and opportunity to frustrate the ways our world has taught us to worship and be fashioned into proper worship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Liturgy both frustrates and fashions our worship.

Why Emergent Needs the Hauerwasian Mafia

2008-04-15T08:39:00.000-07:00

Tony Jones recently posted a chapter on the Hauerwasian Mafia (HM) left out of his most recent book on the emergent church. He details his journey in and out of Hauerwas country. He highlights a conversation with one of our co-pastors at "Life on the Vine" - Geoff Holsclaw (boy Geoff, were you a wimp or what?) - where he asserts that Hauerwas would not approve of his chaplain role with the local police. Huh? I think this is a confusion. I think Tony's chaplaincy in service to his local police department provides an excellent example of how Hauerwas would say the church should engage the world (especially the 80's Hauerwas whom he seems to be characterizing). For it is here where we reveal the character of our Christian convictions as followers of Christ, laying down our lives to minister to the suffering. I don't think Tony should confuse his chaplain efforts with the kind of chaplaincy Hauerwas' rejects. Hauerwas rejects the American church's attempt to hold onto power in society through the maintaining of a chaplaincy relationship to the State. The error Hauerwas seeks to avoid is the one where the church, by maintaining its chaplaincy role to the State, aims to share in the State's power thereby becoming seduced into being the servant of the State and eventually finding itself compromised and subverted by the State. The result: the church finds itself supporting the Iraq War. I don't see how Tony's service as chaplain to the police would violate the Hauerwasian attempt to resist Constantianism. Unless of course Tony was tempted to take up arms, alongside the police force, and use his police weapon to coerce the Hindu to make a decision to covert to Christ, or arrest gay transgressors or pro-choice activists. Since I don't see Tony doing any of these things, I think Hauerwas would applaud and encourage Tony's ministry as a wonderful manifestation of the ministry of Christ's presense in society. I think he would approve of Tony's deft engagements of folk of other faiths ( see one of Hauerwas' earliest writings, Community of Character ch. 5).

Having said this, I propose the following three reasons why the Emergent church would be blessed by granting a sanctioned admission to a more vocal Hauerwasian Mafia in the Emergent conversation. Emergent would gain:

A wherewithal to resist the Constantinian seduction to opt out for the easier way towards accomplishing justice in the world. I think we too quickly (not always!) opt out to collaborate with State agencies to achieve Christian ends (justice). The Emergent voices could use a sober sense of the mistakes of protestant liberal social strategies of the past ( which is why we're in this mess in the first place)
The means to seriously consider the church as a social-political strategy (mirco-political) for justice in the world, as opposed to a Christian alumni association for the recruitment of individuals to talk about and engage in an ever elusive ethereal justice that never quite hits the ground.
An alternative engagement with continental philosophy that takes things beyond the deconstructive discussions of Derrida, Caputo, Kearney and friends.

Furthermore, if I can become even more bold, let me suggest three more advantages the Emergent church would receive by adopting the HM into the fold.

In Hauerwas, they would have someone who could teach Mark Driscoll a thing or two about inappropriate language.
Embracing the HM would allow Emergent to p_ss off the protestant liberal churches equally as well as they already p_ss of the evangelical fundamentalists
Lastly, the Emergent leaders, by embracing pacificism, could make their first definitive doctrinal position ever on anything, realizing that pacifism is not actually a doctrinal position but the epistemological (Christological) basis which makes possible an open never ending conversation in the first place.

OK, the last three were "tongue-in-cheek." Any other reasons out there why Hauerwas might be good (or bad) for the Emergent Conversation? Blessings to Tony Jones, the Emergent conversation, and may she keep on rolling.

The Trinity and Missional Theology: I'm Off to the Wheaton Theology Conference

2008-04-10T08:45:00.001-07:00

I'm off to the Wheaton Theology Conference for the next few days. This conference will be on the revival of Trinitarian theology of the last fifty years (really since Barth). The Trinity is a central part of what drives the notion of missio Dei and missional ecclesiology. In the words of David Bosch:

It (missio Dei) was thus put into the context of the doctrine of the Trinity ... The classical doctrine on the missio dei as God the Father sending the Son, and God the Father and Son sending the Spiirt was expanded to include another "movement": Father, Son and Holy Spirit sending the church into the world.(p.390)

Because of this, the mission of God (the missio Dei) becomes something that forms the church, that the church is a part of, that the church participates in (as opposed to a self generated activity of the church). Of course this breeds all sorts of theological issues centered on the intersection between the Trinity and the church. I hope to glean much from this conference. Anyone else going? I'm open for some dinner if you're available. I'll probably post on this next Tuesday. I also have a post in the works on "America's housing crisis: the idol hath fallen" and what this means for mission in the suburbs. See y'all next week.

Jesus Manifesto Writing Competition: Stepping into the Wind

2008-04-08T13:21:00.000-07:00

My friend Mark Van Steenwyck and the blog he runs, JesusManifesto.com, is doing a writing competition. It's called the "Stepping into the Wind: A Pentecost-Inspired Writing Competition". I mean where does this man's creativity end? I thought it looked so good that I wanted the readers here of ReclaimingtheMission to "get wind" of it. Blessings to Mark and everyone over at JesusManifesto for spurring the flames of creativity for the Kingdom. If you can contribute the details are as follows:

We want your words. Jesus Manifesto is inviting you to submit an original article exploring the theme of Pentecost. In particular we want you to explore the theme of Pentecost in light of the world’s struggles. In the so-called “first” world, Christendom is fading into memory. In the so-called “third” world, new religious realities are emerging as Pentecostalism, Catholicism, and Islam compete for souls. Meanwhile, our world is growing increasingly diverse as immigration patterns and globalization intensify both the interconnectedness and the fractured-ness of our world. Ours is a world where urban poor in US cities carry cell phones while urban poor in other cities live amidst disease and intractability.

How can Pentecost can provoke our imagination for the 21st Century? In 1000 words or less, we want you to stoke the embers of our imagination into flame.

PRIZES: We’re awarding one $50 prize for each of our categories (doxis, praxis, culture, aesthetics, and satire) with a $150 grand prize for the overall best general submission. That’s $400 total in prizes.

Winners will be announced on June 1. The winning submissions, along with the 2nd place submissions for each category, will be published in JM in June.

DEADLINE: Pentecost 2008 (May 11)

Enter the contest here.

SOME CHURCH PLANTING TALK - BETWEEN JAMIE AND MYSELF

2008-04-04T20:42:00.000-07:00

Jamie, over on his blog, e-mailed me asking for advice on planting a church (I prefer to call this "seeding missional communities"). I responded with the following "advice" (in bold) and Jamie responded. My advice was simple and unoriginal. Yet it was advice I WISH I HAD TAKEN MUCH EARLIER in my church planting ventures. As I read it on his blog again, I thought others might find it helpful. And let's pray for Jamie and his wife Kim in this noble and blessed venture for Christ and His Kingdom.
For what its worth here's my church planting advice compacted into one paragraph and Jamie's interaction.

Church Planting Advice From David Fitch

DF: "DON'T DO IT ALONE. In today's post-Christendom, I believe you must have at least two other couples or single people to be ministry partners in this, equally committed to the leadership and development of this little community over a span of five years."

JAMIE : This is encouraging, as it was the first requirement Kim & I made when we started conversation about the plant. It does scare me that we won't find those others, but I have to hold on to hope. In fact, if any of you feel a tug in this direction, drop me a line.

DF: "HAVE A VERY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT MISSIONAL COMMUNITIES require several years to germinate, and so success will not be measured by numbers. That the real incredible stuff happens after fostering a life together of support, encouragement and discernment of where God is calling you to minister in the neighborhoods."

JAMIE: Having spent the last 6 years nurturing our little missional community in our ministry, this is a lesson we understand very well. As a YWAMer, I obviously believe there is a place for short term dynamics, but there are some areas (like this) where it isn't an option. I guess it was good I didn't know any better, because I expected it to take that long!

DF: "HAVE A SURVIVAL PLAN. Finances and visions of grandeur destroy church planters, their health, marriages and well being. Live simply, have a way to support yourself that is sustainable (bi-vocational maybe?). Plan so finances won't be a huge drain on you all the time."

JAMIE: Again, being YWAM missionaries has helped prepare us for this. Not only are we used to living and ministering for very little, simply living is a way of life in our mission. We have much to learn, though, especially as we move forward with those living outside the YWAM context.

DF: "LEAD THROUGH HUMILITY, GRACE AND MODELING SERVANTHOOD. Always be ready to minister prayer and the forgiveness of Christ. Don't be afraid to show anyone the way of dying to self that leads to life, even the poor."

JAMIE: One of our core values here is rooted in this truth. We have a long way to go in walk it out well, but our neighbours have been patient, yet rightfully demanding teachers. I am forever grateful to be knocked off my pedestal on a regular basis!

DF: "INVEST IN OTHER LEADERS walking with them, praying with them, guiding their imaginations towards God and His Mission. This multiplies ministry exponentially."

JAMIE: This is the area that I feel particularly challenged in. It is a combination of my own need to do it better and a seriously lack of self-confidence. I also know that leaders have hurt me in the past, so I am often gun-shy about repeating those same mistakes myself.

DF: "MAKE REGULAR TIMES OF PRAYER (that can last at least an hour - say on a long walk) out of which you struggle to give up your dreams and allow God to work in whatever small seeds you're planting that day. You'll look back in 5 -6 years and can't believe what God did."

JAMIE: Prayer is another area that I struggle. I am constantly talking to God through inner dialogue, but the discipline of prayer must extend far beyond that. I have tried many different ways to overcome this barrier, but it is something that will require more time, patience and discipline.

DF: "I believe everyone should plant a church at least once in their lives. For it is here where Pentecost can be most purely experienced in this lifetime. We really have no idea the amazing things God will do (often subtley) with our feeble offerings when placed under the Reign of Christ."

THANKS JAMIE FOR THE ASKING THE QUESTIONS AND BEING WILLING TO SERVE CHRIST IN THIS WAY.

EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE or EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED? 2 My questions for Brian McLaren on His View of the Kingdom

2008-03-31T10:03:00.000-07:00

Last post I blogged on some of the highlights of Brian McLaren's Everything Must Change (EMC). To just reiterate, I found EMC to be a compelling statement for the emerging church's theology (read prior post here). I highlighted several aspects of the book that I felt were valuable contributions that furthered the emerging church's theology. I could have talked about several more. Having said all that however, I also think the book illustrates why emerging theology/writers are often misinterpreted or criticized. For emerging church theology often leaves crucial things unsaid. I see this problem with EMC. As far as specific criticisms of EMC, Tall Skinny Kiwi (TSK) recently posted here some questions on his blog that are similar to mine (and for that matter Scot McKnight's). Where is "the church" in this book? Is EMC's eschatology too immanentist? What do you mean by "the kingdom of God"? I urge you to read TSK's interview with Brian. To me the interview substantiates this problem of emerging writers "often leaving crucial things unsaid."

What I'd like to do in this post is concentrate on Brian's theology of "the kingdom of God." I think Brian is often too opaque in his descriptions of "the Kingdom of God " in EMC. I think he implies things he might not really believe if pressed. I think this then weakens his message as a provocation for change. I hope this little post, along with all the others, furthers the upcoming DeepShift conversation (at Oak Park, it's still not too late to sign up) and encourages Brian further. For I have great hopes that an invigoration of the church can come forth by the Holy Spirit through Brian's leadership. And I think this could be furthered by some clarity from Brian on some issues concerning the Kingdom of God. So here are my questions in brief:

BRIAN - ARE YOU IMPLYING WE SHOULD SEPARATE THE MESSAGE OF JESUS (THE KINGDOM OF GOD) FROM THE MESSAGE ABOUT JESUS (HE RULES AND REIGNS)- if so why?

Brian seems to differentiate "the message of Jesus" (the kingdom of God) from "the message about Jesus" (see for example p.22,98 - this is something I have heard Doug Pagitt do more than once). This hearkens back to the basic questions driving NT Theology at the turn of the last century. For Brian, "the kingdom of God is a framing story (which I agree it is) yet somehow I sense Brian wants to distance this message from the message that indeed the person and work of Jesus Christ as reigning Lord is the means by which this Kingdom is taking place. Am I imagining this? I could be wrong. Because I am sure that Brian would agree that Jesus, the Son f God, having won the victory over sin, death and evil on the cross and in the resurrection, is now sitting at the right hand of God ushering in His Kingdom through the Spirit's work until its final completion. But somehow this seems to be missing. Brian simply does not talk about the Kingdom of God in this way in EMC. Brian seems to be asking us to follow the message of Jesus, the way of Jesus, and if we believe in it then "everything must change." My contention is "everything has already changed." God has begun His reign over evil and sin in Jesus Christ through the resurrection, His exaltation and His reign. Let us now begin to live in/under this change, this inbreaking reality. Is this missing in EMC? Or am I being picky?

BRIAN - WHAT WILL KEEP "THE KINGDOM" MESSAGE FROM GOING THE ROUTE OF THE FUNDAMENTALIST'S JESUS MESSAGE?

Brian's argument is that the proto-type American evangelical gospel domesticates Jesus into a middle-class gospel that has been flattened down and no longer challenges the social status quo (p.3,4,29). Most of us agree wholeheartedly with Brian (including myself!). This is one of Brian's great appeals to us disenchanted evangelicals. But if the above is true - that Brian separates the message of Jesus from the message about Jesus - what is to keep "the kingdom of God" from going the way of this middle class gospel? What is to keep the "kingdom of God" as concept from becoming domesticated in the same way as Jesus was by the American evangelicals: i.e. made comfortable for the same middle-upper middle class American Christians.

Many of us believe this already happened once - in the first articulation of a gospel around "the Kingdom of God." In the mainline protestant social gospel of the 20's 30's to the 70's, the "kingdom of God" became a gospel preached in protestant churches which enlisted thousands for the government programs of justice, "the Good society." The church then, with the job of God's justice being taken care of by the State, settled into its comfortable middle class life. Just as "Jesus" became domesticated into a upper middle class gospel about the afterlife that asks nothing of us socially and politically as a people (evangelicalism), so also the message of "the kingdom of God" became domesticated for ulterior purposes as well: i.e. the kingdom of God became a social program (via the protestant social gospel movement) under the auspices of the government which many would argue became the servant of democracy and capitalism, the very socio-political systems which encoded power, wealth and privilege in the first place. INSTEAD OF EVERYTHING BEING CHANGED, very little was changed.

To just rehearse this theological history, Ritschl, Harnack and others of 19th century protestant theology preached the Kingdom of God was the primary message of Jesus. In the aftermath of the sweeping acceptance of the "Quest for the Historical Jesus": (Schweitzer et. al.), it was accepted that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet, yet the message of Jesus, the Kingdom of God, was the truth of the matter. This "Kingdom of God" got interpreted to refer to what God was doing in the world as understood in the surging progress of democracy (most notably by Rauschenbucsh) and all things liberating the individual from economic and social oppression. Democracy became the stand-in for "the kingdom of God." Ironically, fundamentalist evangelicals (read here pres.Bush) follow in this shadow seeing American democracy and freedom as the hope for the world's salvation.

I have argued this before, that once the church was taken out of the engagement for social justice in society, "the kingdom of God" became used to further the agenda of the powers including the state, capitalism and the multi- national corporate hegemony. Racial justice was all but usurped by government economic aims, the war on poverty and exploitation became servants of a sweeping global capitalism. The "kingdom of God" theology, which placed its hope in democratic ideals and economic progress ala the structures of a benign capitalism, became engulfed by the dominant powers which have formed the basis for what Brian calls the Suicide machine in EMC (I know I sound too much like Foucault here). Many may disagee, but the progress for racial justice in the US got derailed once it left the church (it was M L King of the church who started it) and became a set of institutions fed by State and corporate money. Many may disagree, but the progress in the struggle over poverty got derailed once it became a massive social program that depended on the poor for its enduring existence and profits. I know this can sound excessive, but I look to people like Shane Claiborne to make the same arguments more gracefully. So I think it is a fair question to ask Brian: WE'VE TRIED THIS BEFORE - HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT?

Today, there are some who see late democracy, and its collaboration with global capitalism, as the main culprits of this hideous suicide machine that Brian so brilliantly exposits in EMC (I'm talking about post Marxian Continental political theorists). Yet I argue, this is what happened with the first "social gospel" of the Kingdom. How does Brian's theological proposals in EMC avoid the same fate? I think Brian's work could be helped, as well as many emerging writers', if they would spell out the difference. Emerging folk complain often that they get accused of being protestant liberals falsely. I believe they are pursuing a different direction. Likewise, to many of us informed by postmodernity (obviously not all), protestant liberal "kingdom of God" theology is a failed social strategy. It would further the Kingdom and the emerging movement if Brian could clarify these issues for us.

BRIAN - SHOULD THE TITLE BE "EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE" or "EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED"?
I come away from reading EMC with the sense that, according to all of us who agree with Brain about this Suicide Machine (and I am one of them), EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE, and now "it's up to us!" And of course it is up to us. Yet in a way, IT'S NOT … you know what I am saying? The reality is "EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED" and now we must join in and cooperate with the ongoing work of God to usher in the consummation of His Kingdom. This guaranteed Final Victory is part of our Framing Story (is this what TSK was getting at with his questions concerning eschatology?).

This problem can be solved simply by linking the Kingdom of God inextricably to the affirmation - "Jesus is Lord." Nothing is lost here. For we are not asserting a new universalist coercive foundationalism (Lesslie Newbigen) We are telling the Story we believe to be key to the future of all creation (the Secret Message). To me one cannot read NT Wright and miss the power of this (nevermind the host of NT scholars that went before him (Goppelt, Cullmann, Guelich, Ladd etc.). I read hints of this Lordship Christology throughout EMC. But does it seem to be muted in the book? Why? The funny thing is, I'm convinced Brian believes all of this and more. Is this just in my imagination? Other bloggers, help me out here if I misread Brian here.

BRIAN - DOESN'T EMC CALL FOR A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF THE CHURCH? WHY SO LITTLE TALK OF THE CHURCH AS A STRATEGY FOR SOCIAL REVOLUTION?
Very simply, if "the kingdom of God" cannot be separated from "the King," this places a renewed emphasis on the local church as being the instrument of a new politics, the politics of justice, righteousness and social renewal. It is indeed these people, called out ahead of time to recognize the inbreaking Kingdom, who recognize Jesus as Lord already, who shall be empowered to be the subjects of the new dynamic, the victory over the powers that threaten the earth. Indeed Brian talks in EMC as if this is indeed what he is calling for (pp. 291 ff.). Yet it seems this message somehow gets dissipated in the book. The church does not take the central role here. Yet I can only imagine if a person of Brian's stature called for the church to begin a micropolitics of subversion WHOOOAH .. can you imagine 1000's of tiny communities of Christ, gathering under his Lordship to resist the foreign powers that threaten the world. (I think this emphasis on an incarnational subversive ecclesiology is the main difference between the missional movement and the emerging church movement). Somehow this dynamic is present in EMC, yet it misses the punch for the reasons I have stated before, and for a lack of a robust ecclesiology. Again, am I misreading here?

Brian, thanks for your contribution to the coming of Christ's Kingdom. I think you agree with everything I have just said. I just want you to more bold about it.

I'm open for discussion here. I'm open to being wrong. Heck, I want to be wrong. What are your impressions? Blessings on EMC and DeepShift.

EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE or EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED? A Question for my friend Brian McLaren on the eve of his DeepShift book tour coming to Chicago

2008-03-26T09:57:00.000-07:00

It's kind of late in the game to review Brian McLaren's Everything Must Change. So much has already been said. But I thought I'd do a quick review anyway and raise some questions. I think the book is important and well done. And I'd like to throw my hat in the ring and say thank-you to Brian for the book. I also want to remind everyone that Brian's DeepShift Tour on the book is arriving right here next week in Chicagoland: Apr 4th and 5th at the First United Church in Oak Park. I am hoping to be there and urge others to join in the dialogue. I am reasonably sure a good price is still available for most of you. You can find out more right here.

Everything Must Change is vintage McLaren. The book tackles large issues, digesting significant data and theological material. Yet he writes with a prose that makes it all imminently accessible and compelling for those of us who don't have time or the scientific and/or theological acumen to really dig and understand the writers and issues he is engaging. In doing all this, Brian's writing is a service to the church of Jesus Christ.

There are many highlights in the book, too numerous for me to recount here. I'll just offer a few that were highlights for me of Brian's book Everything Must Change.

"Framing stories": Brian says we all have framing stories that make sense of the way we live in our worlds. Brian says that corporately as citizens of the West, our framing stories are failing (p. 68). The evidence of this is the global crises we find ourselves in. Brian's task then is to unfold the alternative framing story offered by Jesus as a counter story ( a counter narration) over against the dominant framing stories that so many of us, even Christians, live by. I think Brian draws closer here to those of us who have argued that the church is about the narration of a counter story to the one that is in power (I am thinking obviously of Milbank, Hauerwas and friends). Admittedly, there are stark differences, but thanks to Brian for opening this particulart way of post foundational of thinking to a much broader audience.

"Theocapitalism": In the book, Brian deconstructs the master framing stories that are killing us (with global crisis). One of these framing stories he calls theocapitalism. According to Brian, the ideology of theocapitalism narrates "the invisible hand" of the market as God and economic prosperity (meaning material wealth accumulation) as a sign of God's blessing. Theocapitalism narrates a world that blesses progress, economic growth, happiness through owning, competition and autonomous unaccountable money making as inherent goods (Pt 6 of the book). Admittedly, this is a critique which makes me smile. In the case of my own evangelical roots, it seems that the values/forces of multinational capitalism have infected everything we do including/and especially church. Thanks Brian for some helpful clarity here for the church.

"The Suicide Machine": Here Brian narrates how three systems - the prosperity system, the equity system, and the security system - work together to create a suicide machine - the earth's ecosystem. The three systems work together to create a system that is headed for destruction. This is best illustrated in the diagram on p. 66. Each system has a framing story which undergirds the system (for example theocapitalism for the prosperity system). I think the explanation and descriptions offered here are powerful, compelling and illuminating. This is the heart and the brilliance of the book. Brian helps us see the framing stories we are believeing which in turn allow us to cooperate with these destructive forces, even in the name of Christ. Brian then turns and offers Jesus and the Kingdom of God as a counter-story. Thanks Brian for the way your writing here exposes things.

MY QUESTIONS FOR BRIAN

My questions to Brian for this book are really the questions I bring with me to the whole emerging church movement. I think this book stands as a wonderful statement of some of the central strengths of the emerging church movement. The sentiments of this book are what draw me into the emerging conversation in the first place and why I try to participate. I have great hopes for the future of this movement. Yet this book also reveals to me some of the issues that remain to be addressed if (in my opinion) the emerging church movement is to have legs. These questions center on asking just how will everything be changed? Most of us resonate with the many critiques of the evangelical church emanating from the emerging church movement and its writers. But any constructive movement must have proposals for the way we embody the coming revolution ("the revolution of hope" as Brian labels it). I recognize this is an easy statement to make (just about anything). Yet I really do seek to engage this issue with seriousness and constructively for the furtherance of God's Kingdom in this movement. So please bear with me (give me a day or two) until this next post. In this next post I wish to pose two questions for Brian centering on the issue - Should it be EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE or EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED (with the empty tomb and the exaltation of Jesus Christ as Lord). I hope it will add to the upcoming day with Brian McLaren and the upcoming stop on the DeepShift Tour.

Christ in Risen!

2008-03-24T03:37:00.000-07:00

Christ is risen, Christ is risen!
Tell it out with joyful voice:
Christ has burst the three days' prison;
let the whole wide earth rejoice:
death is conquered, we are free,
Christ has won the victory.

Come you sad and fearful-hearted,
with glad smile and radiant face!
Death's long shadows have departed;
Jesus' woes are over now,
and the passion that he bore
sin and pain can reach no more.

Come, with glad and holy hymning,
hail our God's triumphant day;
not one blackened cloud is dimming
all this glorioius morning ray,
breaking o'er the purple east,
symbol of our Easter feast.

Christ is risen, Christ is risen!
Christ has opened heaven's gate;
we are free from sin's dark prison,
risen to a holier state;
and a brighter Easter beam
on our longing eyes shall stream.

Words: Cecil Frances Alexander (19thC)
Music: Unser Herrscher, Joachim Neander (17thC)
Sequence: Dall Forsythe, Church of St. John the Evangelist

From the Daily Office ... Lord I'm ready ... help me go out now and live in this great reality.

"It is finished" (John 19:30)

2008-03-21T19:53:00.000-07:00

On this Good Friday ...

Lord, lead us into your death, that we might live, truly live ...

An Online Course in Post Modern Theology?

2008-03-18T18:06:00.000-07:00

Yes. I'm teaching an on-line readings course on postmodern philosophy/theology this summer. Interested?

Reading postmodern (Continental) philosophy can be a challenge to say the least. Yet a working knowledge of the basic authors can be invaluable when reading theology after the postmodern turn. Geoff Holsclaw (Ph.D. student at Marquette, part of the emergent village coordinating group, co-founder with me of Up/rooted an emergent cohort, and co-pastor with me at the Vine) and I are teaching a 10 week on-line course this summer covering some major authors in postmodern thought and theological responses to it. Northern seminary is offering it. Anyone can take it for credit that has an undergrad degree. You just have to register as either a visiting student or a student-at-large. You can of course transfer the credit to another seminary.

After the course, you should walk away with a good introduction to postmodern thought. We'll be tackling postmodern theorists like Foucault, Derrida, Levinas, Irigaray, Kristeva as well as theological responders like Rollins/Caputo, Milbank, Hauerwas and Rebecca Chopp. As prerequisites, I am recommending that you already have a basic knowledge of philosophy (say an "Intro to Philosophy" course) and theology (the basic Systematic Theology classes) to take the class. But if you're really interested in taking the course, and don't have these pre-requisites, please e-mail me via Northern and we'll talk about whether the class makes sense for you.

Here is a link, if you want more information on the course. If you want a copy of the syllabus, please e-mail here.

LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS SUMMER ON-LINE!!

THE BRIDGE ILLUSTRATION 3: LAST WORDS - TOWARDS A REVISED MORE MISSIONAL EVANGELISTIC TOOL (WAY OF INITIATION)

2008-03-12T14:06:00.000-07:00

There has been a broadening discussion out there on the ways we initiate people into salvation. Notice this post. Notice Tony Jones' contest for new metaphors for communicating what happens in salvation. Notice Dwight Friessen's heuristic thoughts on U-theory from a couple years ago (Thanks to someone's comment on this blog). Notice James Choung's book and video offering a new way to present salvation that addresses the issues raised on this blog concerning the Bridge Illustration. Thanks Andy Crouch for that link. I don't have any immediate suggestions for a new tool (I use the word "tool" hesitantly). Based on conversations at our church and over this blog however, here are six things I'll be looking for (in our own church discusssions) in a new initiatory tool.

1.) MAKE THE STORY HUGE When we tell the story, from the beginning of all creation to the coming of the New Heaven and New Earth, we need to make it huge. The story needs to be so huge that my life can only be caught up into the Triune God's work of bringing in the new order, of Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor 5). I haven't a clue as to how to go about this. Can the evangecube help here? I don't know much about it, just asking.

2.) PUT A DISCLAIMER ON THIS TOOL because no tool will work outside of an immersion into a community of Christ, a living breathing way of life where the language and stories of the gospel can make sense. Let's put a disclaimer on the next evangelism tool: Can only be used from within the living interaction a real living community of Christ.

3.) CHANGE THE CONTEXT OF THE TOOL. It seems that the Bridge is a metaphor for the middle class. It focuses on the issue of life after death or a personal relationship with God. Indeed these are parts of the salvation we have in Christ Jesus. Yet as has already been said, this reduces the salvation won in Christ. And it reduces it to elements that are appealing to a middle class Christendom. For you have to accept some of the basics to believe this pitch, i.e. heaven, hell. And you have to already desire a better spiritual life. These are characteristics of middle class Christendom. In addition both of these emphasies of salvation can be domesticated to the middle-upper class lifestyle without significant adjustments (am I being too cynical?). I believe the mission field in America has decidedly turned away from the middle-upper class. The real harvest is with the poor of all kinds in our declining society. A tool for evangelistic initiation should now focus on the poor, the desperate, those with addictions and foreclosed houses. Here people must be given a way to understand the bankruptcy in our real concrete lives within our equally bankrupt society. We must give a way of hope out of this desperation now that begins with life eternal now.

4.) WE NEED TO INVITE PEOPLE TO "COME AND DIE"
We need a way to invite people to "Come and die" (Bonhoeffer). For I am convinced … that no salvation in Christ really begins until one has died in some way. This has been too cushioned in the Bridge. And I believe it is the reason why I meet countless people saved under these methods who have little sense of the kind of discipleship we're called into and the kind of freedom and new life that awaits. Right up front we need to help people see the way to life is through death, mortification of the enslavements, whether they be materialism or addictive drugs. Strangely I think this kind of appeal will have some resonance with the poor, at least those who have come to the moment of truth that they need God. It will not appeal to those who are happy with their current attachements. But to those who have come to the place where they realize everything they have lived for is worth crap (Phil 2:7), this will be a relief.

5.) THIS TOOL SHOULD CREATE EPISTEMOLOGICAL CRISIS
I think most conversions happen when a lacuna is revealed in a person's cultural Narrative (something like "worldview" but slightly different) they are living. This usually happens in an encounter with another person's life, how it is lived, and the Narrative that undergirds it. It throws everything you believe up for grabs. By the Spirit, an authentic life as witness does just this. This new tool we're looking for should tutor Christians how to live the life of non-coercive simple hospitable authentic witness to the Story of Christ that throws people's lives (outside of Christ) into "epistemological crisis" (McIntyre).

6.) BROADEN THE TOOL'S THEOLOGY OF THE ATONEMENT
The Bridge Illustration reflects the traditional evangelical obsession with the penal view of the atonement. In the words of Scot McKnight in Christianity Today, this gospel is too small. We need a broader metaphor. I might recommend Heim, McKnight and Boersma as a few places to start. I like Oscar Cullman's metaphor of the war resistance in WW2 occupied Europe found in his classic Christ and Time.

The evangelistic tool we use at our church is built on the model of Hyppolytus in the third century. I learned it from Bob Webber in this book. Every year we have a 4 month initiation, beginning after Christmas all the way to Pentecost. It follows Hyppolytus' path of catechesis. We go from seeker (the understanding of the basics of conversion), to hearer (the understanding of Lord's Prayer, Apostle's Creed), to kneeler (self examination in the Spirit and the learning of Rom 6-8), which leads to baptism on Easter morning. It is a rehearsal of the Story of Christ. The goal is that all newcomers, or people seeking, or just wanderers wandering around our community, can be asked "are you ready to take the dive?" It's powerful. But it obviously is not portable. And it takes a four month comittment (In the third century it was a three year commitment). Even with this, to get people there, we are sensing the need for a more portable yet engaging tool for evangelism.

Peace ... and blessings as you walk next week in the path of the Holiest of Weeks.

The Bridge Illustration: An Idea Whose Time Has Come and Gone? 2

2008-03-06T09:31:00.000-08:00

A few posts ago, I proposed that the way we evangelicals speak about and practice salvation forms us for moral duplicity, for moral schizophrenia, for believing one thing and doing another. Among other things, I said:
1.) Our way of salvation has no account of what happens with desire. Therefore our desires are left untouched by our salvation.
2.) We have separated justification from sanctification, something I called the Lutheranizing of our soteriology (this got some comments over at the much beloved blog: the Boar's Nest - my response to that is that I was not blaming Luther himself, who was living at a different place and time. Rather I was referring to the ways we evangelicals took later developments in Lutheran theology and crassly made salvation all about justification by faith in separation from sanctification. To me, this is so patently obvious that I still believe I need take no additional space to defend myself on this).
3.) This development opened us up to make salvation a transaction between two individual entities (God and humanity) as opposed to the participation of me, a human creature, in the work of God to restore the whole of creation to Himself out of which I as individual am also justified, renewed and reconciled to God.
4.) As a result, we are left passive, to receive God's great salvation is Christ almost as consumers. All of this works to separate our newfound salvific status in Christ from the outworking of a life lived as doxology to God in Missio Dei.
If any of this is not making sense, please read the prior post where I might have done a better job explaining all this. I closed that last post by saying that the classic Bridge illustration "illustrates" (no pun intended) some of these problems. Here's why.

The Bridge Illustration I think illustrates some of these problems with our ways of initiation.

First, the Bridge constructs a "contractual" transaction. We recognize our "need." We receive Christ as the "solution." Then the "benefit" of this salvation is described. Then there is an individual decision to "believe." At the conclusion, we pray this prayer which guarantees me of eternal life. Recent versions construct the need in terms of our broken relationship with God and the solution as a birth into a new relationship with God. This version of the Bridge has significantly improved prior versions like this. Nonetheless, it still has its patented "If you've prayed this prayer and are trusting Christ, then the Bible says that you can be sure you have eternal life."

What's wrong with the Bridge's "transaction" approach? It has the effect of initiating the unbeliever into a salvation "for me" in the worst sense of those words. For in a consumerist society, the words "for me" can longer mean what they meant when Paul spoke them or Luther spoke them. Consumerist society has trained all of us to think, feel and breathe all things as products to be consumed "for me." Jesus, Son of God, very God, has been reduced to an object to be used for some benefit. At this point this simply is no longer a salvation recognizable by Paul, Luther or the Christian church.

Granted, what the Bridge says is true. Yet it has abstracted this truth from the story, which makes it into a consumable. This is what Guder refers to as the constant temptation towards reductionism in the missiological efforts of the church. The church as a result must be continually converted. To me, it is safe to say, that time has already long since arrived.

Second, the Bridge separates justification from sanctification. Although improvements have been made in the recent versions of the Bridge, salvation is still considered static! The plus in recent versions of the Bridge has been that salvation is articulated in terms of one's relationship with God as opposed to the singular penal transaction so common before. Nonetheless, it remains individualized and static. The problem is separation from God. The solution is "bridging the gap" to God through accepting the cross's payment. This makes the relationship with God static, you either have it or you don't.

The effect of this static account of salvation is to separate life with God from the moment of conversion. After praying the prayer, we now have the relationship as if it is already accomplished. The relationship we have with God is like this Thing. And the directions we are asked to follow on how to live the Christian life appear to be hollow individual exercises that hopefully keep you on the right path. They are not written as invitations into an endless expansive life with God and His Mission.

Last, the Bridge Illustration takes no account for what happens to desire. To me this is the most condemning problem of all with the Bridge. It is like once we accept Christ's provision for sin and the separation from God, desire takes care of itself. We are now told to read the Bible as intake, talk to God in prayer, tell others about our new found faith and go to church and serve. These all appear to be individual exercises, which can easily turn into legalistic works to secure a life after conversion. But unless the re-formation of desire is addressed, these directions for life after conversion inevitably produce failed Christian life and moral duplicity.

At our church, the pastors and leadership have started a conversation on this issue. WE NEED NEW WAYS OF INITIATING STRANGERS INTO THE GOSPEL THAT TRAIN THEM INTO BEING PARTICIPANTS IN GOD'S MISSON AS OPPOSED TO CONSUMERS OF THE GOSPEL. WE NEED A WAY OF INVITING PEOPLE INTO THE COSMIC RECONCILIATION THAT GOD IS WORKING THROUGH JESUS CHRIST (not just a transaction), WE NEED WAYS OF IMAGINING THE ONGOING LIFE WITH GOD THAT IS MORE THAN ONE'S PERSONAL PIETY (although it must include that as well). WE NEED COMMUNITIES OF THE SPIRITUAL DISCIPLINES for new converts to be invited into THE RE-ORDERING OF ONE'S BODY (soul and spirit) INTO THE GLORY OF GOD THE CREATOR AND REDEEMER.

On the next post, I hope to discuss my initial thoughts on this as well as what other people are coming up with as well. In the meantime, Do you think I'm overly critical of the Bridge? Which criticism has the most merit in your experience? I could tell you endless stories of people converted through the Bridge at large church, mega church or evangelistic events who simply cannot cross the line towards life in God (and His Mission). Or who struggle endlessly with the issues of re-formation of desire. Does that resonate with your experiences?

Peace

Zizek, Obama and the Emerging Church

2008-02-23T09:18:00.000-08:00

One of the key pieces of Slavoj Zizek's political theory in his foundational book The Sublime Object is his notion of "ideological cynicism." Subjects of the first world, Zizek says, are too smart to become duped by the political ideologies of Western states. After all, we know it's just more political spin. Instead, ideology for Zizek, takes on a different form in the so-called "first world." Here, we are offered ideologies to appease us, to make us feel better about ourselves, so that those in privilege can keep on conserving what it is they really desire. So now, we look at the political ideologies spinning across the political process, and instead of politically observing "they do not know it, but they are doing it," we observe "they know it, but they are doing it anyway." In essence, we listen to all the new political speeches and new political options given the electorate and we know nothing will really change. Yet we participate in it anyway, because in essence subconsciously this is what we really want: we wish to protect our own specific pieces of the economic social pie yet feel good about doing it (there's the classic Freudian split in the subjective consciousness). Political ideology serves a cynical function now, giving us a Big Other to participate in, making us feel better about ourselves (morally), all the while we hope for keeping the status quo in place protecting our own personal pieces of the pie.

When it comes to Christians of my evangelical tradition, I would suggest this "ideological cynicism" could work another way. We participate in National politics, its political ideologies of a more just society, even though we deeply suspect the corporate national machine insures nothing will change. We do this because it is much harder to think of the church itself as a legitimate social political force for God's justice in the world. It is simply a lot less work to support Barak Obama for president than it is to lead our churches into being living communities of righteousness, justice and God's Mission in the world.

I know Zizek might appear way too skeptical here for most of us. And there is always the cry "why can we not do both - vote for Obama and be missional communities for justice in our neighborhoods." Yet (at the risk of being over provocative) I think the question is worth considering: "Are we supporting Obama because it's easier than being God's justice in the world ourselves?" Is our participation over here in electoral politics sapping our energy (or worse even assuaging us) from participation in the work of justice as an extension of the church?

Senator Obama is putting out a pleasing message of "Change." "I'm asking you to believe in Change," "the Audacity of Hope," and "A Unified America." Yet Zizek would call these ideas "signifiers without the signified." Words that in the end no one knows what they mean or refer to. Zizek would say it is these "words" which allow us to consent to what we know is a lie so that we can avoid the Real: that true justice of God demands we change fundamentally the way we live in relation to each other and the world. I fear these Obama "words" take the place of pres. Bush's words "Freedom" and "No child left behind," words that few knew what they actually meant but morphed into a politics of multinational corporate politics the horror of which is hard to believe 8 years later. In a Zizekian way, I have often asked, did we consent to all this (vote for George Bush) as Christians 8 years ago (who by and large elected him) in order to assuage ourselves that we (through our country's national politics) are contributing to a better world all the while staying comfortable within our protected enclaves.

Final Words: I know some expect me to get on the Obama bandwagon, especially those who know of my criticisms of the current president. Yet I continue to want to press for the church to be the primary political instrument of true justice in the world. The church must be FIRST as initiator for social justice, from which we can then push for governmental cooperation. I have always been concerned about the marginal status given the church as the foundational center for justice in society by my various spokesmen/women/friends of the Emerging Church (I hope to review Brian McLaren's Everything Must Change in this light). I know many fear fundamentalist sectarianism. I fear the democratic capitalist Symbolic Order (ala Foucault) shall subsume us all. More and more however, people like Jim Wallis are seeing the insights of a tempered vision of what is possible in national politics (see The Great Awakening). More and more, people are understanding a new possibility for a Hauerwas radical politics (see for example Mark Van Steenwyk here and here). SO GO AHEAD AND BY ALL MEANS VOTE FOR OBAMA, but do not allow false ideology to sap our energy or distract us from the task of being God's people, his embodied Kingdom in submission to His Lordship, birthing forth His justice amidst the world that was made possible in His death and resurrection until He comes.

What do you think? Is there a work of "ideological cynicism" at work in Christians supporting Obama? Is the Obama bandwagon a positive or a negative (or neutral) for the church's role in bringing justice to the nations? Is energy by Christians spent on Obama politics misguided, too hopeful, and misdirected? Is it too easy to just say "you should be doing both, voting for Obama and working for social justice in your local church"?

BTW I shall post a second post on the Bridge Illustration next week.

The Bridge Illustration: An Idea Whose Time Has Come and Gone?

2008-02-17T20:03:00.000-08:00

I was away this past week speaking at the Ecclesia Network National Gathering along with Alan and Deb Hirsch. What a hoot that was! One of the issues I engaged for about an hour was "The Way We Speak About and Practice Salvation." I argued that the ways we have often practiced the salvation we receive in Christ, and by derivation discipleship, have trained us as a people for moral duplicity.

Among other things, I said:

We separate justification from sanctification in a Lutheranized fashion. Law and Grace are held separate yet together (simul justus at peccator) in the same person. We do this because we fear any appearance that salvation can be earned via works. Righteousness can only be imputed. Any participation in that salvation must be avoided lest we think we can earn our salvation through effort. The result is an inherent disconnect between what we believe and what we do.
We then practice a Cartesianized sanctification, where the Bible/preacher tells us what to do, the mind hears the information and understands it, and then tells the body what to do. This never works because it takes no account for desire; the way desire is shaped and formed. The most these methods can do is repress desire.
We give no account for desire in our discipleship. Our soteriology is "get saved and join the military" - the white-knuckle approach. And then, when there is no where else to go with one's desire (indeed the issue is rarely even considered), desire must by default go wherever the culture would take it. This ends in duplicity.
We perceive the love of God (agape) as a unilateral unconditional gift from God. We are told we can never add anything to it. Of course this is true. Yet, the impression is that a response to that gift can never be truly ours (it must be the work of God also). An ordered ever flowing response to God can never be an inextricable part of that same love- grace action received by us from God. We are therefore left passive. (I am thinking of Milbank's work on gift here). This is another aspect of what separates our status in God from the life we live and participate in.
We package the gospel often into a transaction. Playing off the Reformed penal view of the atonement exclusively, we make the gospel into God has done a., you do b. and you receive c. from God as a gift. And that's it. You're done (in a sense) although strangely you're not. By packaging salvation as a transaction in this way, it puts the subject in control of God and His salvation. Again, the subject cannot be formed by something it has chosen as a consumer for certain benefits. It can only receive those benefits passively.

ALL OF THE ABOVE LEAVES US HELPLESS IN THE WORLD OF DESIRE THAT FORMS US TOWARDS WEALTH ACCUMULATION, CAPITALIST IDENTITY, CONSUMERISM, PERSONAL PLEASURE AND OTHER ASSORTED CULTURAL FORMATIONS. WE ARE IN ESSENCE, IN AN UNSUSPECTING WAY, FORMED FOR MORAL DUPLICITY, EVER SAYING ONE THING, YET FINDING OURSELVES DOING ANOTHER. Worse, these inherent theological problems with our soteriology disconnect salvation, from the telos (end purposes) of God's righteousness in the world. It disconnects salvation from the Mission of God for the whole world.

Next post, I want to illustrate some of these points by looking at the famous Bridge Illustration that many of us grew up on and is used as the primary catechetical tool for salvation in many evangelical churches. (I also want to offer some models of spiritual formation as discipleship as an alternative)

We at our church have been talking for months how we desperately need another teaching tool to initiate new coverts into God's salvation for the world in Christ. Something that would teach in simple ways the Huge Salvation of God that He is Doing in Christ that we are invited to participate into. We (or at least I have) decided the Bridge Illustration has been a disaster for Christian discipleship in the most recent period (last twenty years) of church history in the N America.

How do you all feel about the Bridge Illustration? Do you see any of the above weaknesses in it? Do you have a tool for initiating new converts into the basics of Life in Christ and His Mission?

I'M OFF

2008-02-11T15:06:00.000-08:00

to Ecclesia National Gathering. Knowing the people who will be there, there should be much to blog about when I return. Frankly I've had alot to blog about, just no time. So I look forward to getting back to blogging next week. Before I go, Jason Weaver tagged me on this 1-2-3 meme thing. I am supposed to pick up the closest book, turn to page 123 and copy the first three sentences after the fifth sentence. This is embarrassing, but the closet book to me by about 3 inches (I'm in my office library) is Richard Rorty's edited volume The Linguistic Turn. Boy I wish I had done this yesterday or early this morning, when my Bible was closer. Here goes:

When the philosopher supposes that his paradox is literally true, it is salutary to refute him. The fact that the authors of the paradoxes nearly always fancy themselves to be right and comon sense to be wrong, and that they then need to have it proved to them that their statements are false, explains Moore's great importance to philosophy. No one can rival Moore as a refuter because no one has so keen a nose for paradoxes. (Norman Malcolm

I have just been convicted of the way I sometimes waste my time on certain books. After undergoing this humiliation, I shall inflict this on anyone else by tagging 5 more people.

Peace, and Jason... nice to meet you over the internet.

ON THE ONES WHO WOULD GO AND SEED MISSIONAL COMMUNITIES 2

2008-01-31T18:38:00.000-08:00

I left off the last post asking what kind of people make good gardeners/missional leaders? Since I wrote this about observing Canada these last four years, you'll notice I reference Canada in the post. In my travels, I have observed that missional leaders both in Canada and Northern US will most often be the following kinds of people. Am I close? Is this too idealistic? (like maybe some - not all - denominational leaders might accuse me of).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOME OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING MISSIONAL LEADERS

THEY WILL BE SURVIVORS

Enduring missional leaders learn how to survive financially and spiritually for the long term. They must be able to hold down a job that does not consume him/her, merely enable them to live simply for the long term. In Christendom, the denominations used to pay someone to go plant a church. This would usually be one person who was unusually gifted and (based upon the above premises) and could get a self-sufficient church going in three years. This person was in essence paid to extend an organization, open up a franchise, and set up a version of church with the distinctives of the denomination. In the new post-Christendom, this doesn't make sense. In my opinion it takes at least 5 years of "seeding a community" before one even begins to see an ethos of community and new life develop that can be a cultural carrier-transmitter of the gospel. As a result, the new missional community leaders must have patience, steady faithfulness and the ability to live simply. They must be able to get jobs and not see the ministry as a privileged full time vocation. They must have a mental image of how they are going to sustain their lives financially, relationally, spiritually and personally. It all must take the shape of a sustainable rhythm. In my experience, these kinds of leaders are often found among the young and disenchanted evangelicals. I have learned they merely need a vision and a support network and they are willing to sacrifice in ways my generation never would.

THEY WILL BE COMMUNAL SHEPHERDS

I have found that missional leaders are most often shepherds of an overall ethos of a community. They are not starting and managing an organization. They may not even be good at organization. Instead they are cultivating a communal sense of mission identity among a gathering people "for this time and place". It used to be every church planter had to be an extravert entrepreneur, someone who looked good and had the perfect family. Single people need not apply. This person had to be a good salesman (woman) and had to have endless energy. He or she had to set a vision, direct a course, motivate and sell. Now I certainly can see that many of these qualities are helpful in starting new things. Yet I have seen, in this new era, that the missional leader is most often someone who can take time and be with people. He or she will listen to people, discern the needs, articulate where we are going, knit the community together in a common struggle with gentleness, encouragement, listening. For we do not gather as we once did to hear a charismatic leader preach an entertaining piece of inspiration. We do not gather for a professional piece of programmed worship experience. In the new post-Christendom we are coming together to be formed and shaped, supported and edified for the Mission as a band of brothers and sisters. Yes we do gather on Sundays to hear the Word, to be nourished at the Table, and respond to what God is calling us to, but we do all this not as individual but as a community, a community "sent out" into mission.

These kinds of leaders do not grow on trees. I think they must be mentored in character for the patience and faithfulness such shepherding requires. That type A person who is always selling something or programming something has a role - don't get me wrong. But missional communities will not grow unless there is a nurturing sustaining presence prodding for the long term. Leaders that can adapt, roll with the punches, and shepherd communally are more valuable than the high-powered "strong starters" who wish to be gone in two years. These leaders are mentored not through leadership conferences and books. Instead, we must have regular times together to practice together listening, mutual submission, responding with love and guiding instead of dictating. We look together for what God is doing in our lives and in and around our community.

THEY WILL BE INTERPRETIVE LEADERS

Rarely do missional leaders lead their communities as a feature Bible teacher who dictates the a.'s and b's of Biblical doctrine. Rather they are interpreters of what God is doing communally through the teaching and preaching of Scripture. They read Scripture in community and preach looking for what God is calling us to in the neighborhoods. It used to be that every church planter would be this high-towered charismatic gifted preacher. He (normally a man) would draw the crowds. Soon a crowd would be gathered to hear "the show." These days are past, not because you cannot attract dissatisfied or thrill seeking Christians from other churches with a great preacher, but because we have seen that true spiritual growth occurs communally only when the whole congregation is involved in times of praying, hearing, submitting and responding to the Word. Interpretive leaders(1) do not dictate from the pulpit a list of do's and don'ts and solutions from God for every problem. They interpret the Scriptures to open our eyes to what God is doing and where He is taking us. In a different way then, we must mentor leaders who are more than great preachers. They must lead their communities in interpreting what God is doing via the eyeglass of Scripture. Where is God taking us, where is he calling us? His/her sermons therefore fund the corporate imagination of God's Kingdom in our midst and where He is at work in our everyday lives. And when conflicts arise, we sit and pray, submit, pray for courage and humility and discern the Scriptures for the journey we are in called God's mission. This kind of leader often does not come from our (all too often) modernist seminaries. They are grown in a community who gathers to worship the Triune God so as to discern Him at work in our midst.

THEY WILL BE DIRECTORS OF SPIRITUAL FORMATION

I believe that missional leaders must know how to guide the community in a spiritual formation. Admittedly, this kind of leadership is not common among younger evangelicals at least. Yet I still believe that the development of communal worship liturgies that are historically thick yet still local and organic, is crucial for these times. For we now recognize that the consumerist forces of our post Christendom Canada (and even worse United States) cannot be resisted as an isolated individual. An individual alone cannot resist the forces of desire that tell us a five bedroom house, two new cars are more important than Mission, the life itself we share with the Triune God. Our communities therefore must be places of spiritual formation, of resistance to the forces of distraction, unsatiated desire and exploitation of those we choose not to know.

This means that our Sunday/Saturday? gatherings must be places of spiritual formation, encouragement and sending out for Mission. We must ever navigate against putting on a show that will attract, yet develop a liturgy that is simple, accessible and Scriptural that thereby guides our lives into Christ and keeps us from the distractions that would take us from Mission. I know that liturgy is a difficult pill to swallow these days for the newly arriving missional leaders. But there will be no missional community of people formed and shaped for mission if we just preach Mission as a legalistic requirement. Mission requires patience, a sense of vision and a self-denial that can only be trained in the simple organic disciplines/liturgies of the historic church.

THEY WILL BE LEADERS WHO GIVE AWAY POWER

Missional leaders that have served for any length of time have learned how die to their ego's and allow God to use every man and woman's gifts in the community for the furtherance of His Kingdom. Hierarchy is the product of Christendom. It hails to a day when Christianity still held power in society, when, Jesus was still established as a given in Canada (even when the protestant liberal Jesus dominated Canada, there still remained an authority and respect for who Jesus was). Hierarchy made sense in a day when the preacher in the town was looked up to and held power. This world, when one man could wield influence and get things done in the name of Christ, is waning. As a result, no one man or woman can lead a community from the top down and expect the church to go on as a viable social reality. We cannot be the very Body of Christ if we do not empower the manifold gifts in the community to minister the kingdom as part of everyday life. If we even try to operate out of the old hierarchical ways, missional communities will flounder and their leaders will die from exhaustion. I have seen it happen over and over.

It is my belief therefore that missional leadership needs always to be multiple. Most missional pastors/leaders need to be bi-vocational (bi-ministerial) for their own survival. Such leaders must learn to mutually submit to the other leaders as they guide the journey of the community. They must mutually learn to mentor leaders and give away power. Different strengths should be recognized among leaders and then multiply that leadership (following the APEPT model of Frost and Hirsch's The Shaping of Things to Come). This model subverts the CEO pastorate style we have all become so used to for each pastor gives away power instead of consolidating it. This kind of pastoral leadership models a kind of community for the rest to see instead of dictating the rest of the church to just do it. In this way, all shall own the leadership of this community and the journey we are on in the Mission. This kind of leadership needs to be modeled and practiced and it does not come easy in our day.

THE PROMISE OF CANADA'S NEW MISSIONAL LEADERS

All of the above paints a picture of a leader mentality drastically different from the church planter of the past. Yet most (not all) of the missional leaders I have met possess strains of this new mentality. I believe this bodes well for the future. For I believe this next generation of pastors (in my experience coming mostly out of evangelicalism) provides hope for a renewal of Christianity in Canada. Like a fermenting revolution evolving out of a tired and reified ancien regime, these tiny bands of Christians have come on the scene committed to live a life together of worship, spiritual formation, community, hospitality and service to the poor (of all kinds). In ways never imagined by the machinations of the mega church, many of these bands are already infecting their neighborhoods with an embodied gospel that cannot be denied, only responded to. Knowing Christendom is gone, they carry no pretension. Instead they embody the gospel in its most compelling, authentic, non-coercive form. This new wave of Christians is small in number and possesses little to no resources financially. Most do not impress with their grandiose visions. They do not hang in the halls of power. They do not make a show of their successes. Yet their vision of a simple Christian habitat as witness in the world reminds me of the Irish missional orders God used to effect a profound conversion of European society in the 4th century. We have seen the world changed like this once before (read How the Irish Saved Civilization, Thomas Cahill). Could we be in the early stages of seeing God move in a similar fashion once again? Let us pray it be so.

1. I owe this term to my friend Jim VanYperen.