on February 2 2012

You Go To McDonald’s Too Much!: On Being Called Out and the “politics of the small things”

It seems these days I’m getting “called out” for going to McDonald’s too much.  I admit, it’s part of my daily ritual. Evidently people out there are having a problem with this (smile wink). It would be nice if people were actually concerned about my physical well-being, but no, this has evidently become a problem of my moral duplicity. This is what tweeting will get you.

First it was my friend Will Clegg who dares to ask me about this privately (at least he did it privately) with the following FB message:

“David, on occasion you criticize American politics, capitalism and other facets of American life.(I have no problem with that) What I wonder about is why you go to McDonald’s on a daily basis? Isn’t McDonald’s the epitome of much of what you say is wrong with America?”

Will

Again, notice, no concern for my health, diet or physical well being (wink, wink).

Then today, while diligently minding my own business toiling away in my other office (McDonald’s cubicle 2, Rolling Meadows), my new Anabaptist revolutionary bro Brian Gumm, writes a post calling me out for my duplicitous McDonald’s misbehavior (smile wryly). He says among other things:

… one thing in particular strikes me about Fitch: He’s at McDonald’s a lot. I know this from his tweets. Just this morning he reported, “Gathering early at McD’ s w/ triad in the back to read, pray, check in and ask the questions – ahhh discipleship :-) #fb.” What’s the deal?
I have a love/hate attitude about McDonald’s, and the fast food industry in general. To me, McDonald’s is an icon of the neo-colonial powers of late modern consumerist hypercapitalism. For instance, when I saw commercials for McD’s in Ethiopia – piped across an Arab satellite network – I cringed. (Thankfully there are no McD’s in Ethiopia…the government is very strict about foreign chains setting up shop in the country.)

That’s the hate side. The “love” side is that I’m an American who was a child in the 80s, bathed in  advertising with catchy jingles like the “menu song“. (Note how much the word “love” has been used in their advertising over the years. That matters.) We didn’t eat at McDonald’s frequently when I was a kid, but it wasn’t unusual and I was usually pretty excited to be there getting cheeseburgers and the occasional “Happy Meal.” Now with a family of my own, we’ve mostly exorcized fast food from our diet, but it’s still an option when we’re on road trips. We recently stopped at one in Pittsburg on the way home to Virginia from Iowa, wherein I grudgingly munched on a chicken sandwich from The Man. (I kind of liked it…but just a little.

But this David Fitch at McDonald’s thing?!
I’m sure he’s read all the stuff that I’ve read and more that would give one a bad attitude about the systems and clusters of practices surrounding fast food. But there he is. I imagine having this conversation with Fitch, at McDonald’s of course, with me giving all the reasons stated above. Fitch would nod and grin, barely concealing a mouth full of sausage, egg, and cheese biscuit. So why?
In all fairness to Brian Gumm, he gives a heroic answer to my dilemma on his post. Thanks man! I needed that. Read the entire post here. But what I love about this post is the way Gumm brings up this whole issue of inhabiting the evil empire. How do we do it when in fact we might be supporting it by just being there? Afterall, I am notorious for asking American Evangelical Christians why they insist on elevating the practice of “voting” in an American election to the equivalent of the Eucharist. In fact, we might make it higher than the Eucharist for as best I can tell the majority of Christians I know aren’t really bothered when they miss the Eucharist a time or two, but hell would have to freeze over before they would miss voting. (I suggest we could even bring down this empire if 37 million evangelicals would just refuse to vote! But I digress).
At the risk of sounding trite (and making too much of my habit of going to McDonalds), I think resisting the powers of injustice is mostly about doing the small things. We have to sit, be present, and cooperate with what is just, resist what is not, and of course bring the peace and reconciliation of God in Christ to everything in these places we inhabit. At the risk of making my McDonald’s habit more holy than it is (I admit I first started going to this McDonald’s because of it’s PlayLand. I took my 3 year-old and I was able to get some work done too. In other words, my McD’s habit might reflect poorly on my parenting as well as my eating habits if I were to be totally honest :) ), I think we must beware of concentrating too much on every way every system corrupts and/or undermines God’s justice and salvation in the world. Let’s pay attention for sure. Avoid what we can. But let’s not end up refusing to participate entirely in the systems (I’m thinking about voting this election!). We might find ourselves in paralysis by analysis. We might not even be able to walk out the door in the morning. We have to start somewhere and for me that somewhere is local. With my neighbor. Hanging where he or she hangs. Watching, praying, being with, all the while staying in integrity and doing what I’m called to be doing.  For me, in Rolling Meadows/Arlington Heights Illinois, that’s my local McDonald’s.
In answer to Will Clegg I said the following:
Will,
McD’s is where my peeps go … it is the intersection of Rolling Meadows/middle class Arlington Heights(to be distinguished from upper class Arlington heights) where I live. I admit it’s a bit of a compromise … but I follow Aquinas’s dictum “to my neighbors first.” Justice starts in my relationships communally in the neighborhood … here at McD’s is excellent place to have those relationships …
Now I admit, supporting McD’s and some of its overtly capitalist excesses might seem a problem. But the peeps here might indeed be undermining it. They can’t be making money on us. We mostly drink the coffee, and alot of these peeps take advantage of the “senior” discount. McD’s at times is forced to see injustice issues in the store (at times) … say treatment of immigrants etc…
If I had alternatives in the hood, that were not McD’s, I’d probably prefer it … but as is…given the ubiquity of McD’s everywhere … I just don’t see the advantage of singularly avoiding it when so many people go there … My strategy is to go and subvert … participate as much as possible .. ceasing to participate when it is sin (i.e. eating a Big Mac) … Perhaps this alone will bring McD’s to become a more just place?
… til then … til maybe we all meet at each others’ homes (which the McD’s peeps do sometimes) … I’ll continue to infest these places for Kingdom!!
Blessings .. good to hear from you!!
In short, when engaging the systems of injustice in the world, we might have to actually inhabit, engage and be present in order to bring justice to overwhelmingly large systems. In the words of Brian Gumm, we might have to “find small fissures in the empire, enter in, and subvert from within to whatever limited degree we can.”
So what say you? Yes or No to McDonald’s. And if anyone suggests I need to switch to Starbuck’s, I’ve got one sentence for you: “Fair Trade” is a Consumerist Label the Capitalist Empire Has Absorbed to Make You feel Better When You Go To A Upper Class Snob Fest.
There, I feel better (smile, wink). (That’s for my Portland and Seattle bros – especially Bob Hyatt).
OK, Am I in trouble now?

Tags: ,

Filed under Incarnational,Missional,Uncategorized 19 Comments

on October 27 2011

The Mars Hill Seattle “Cease and Desist” Letter: Why Branding Is the Ultimate Anti-Missional Act

The part of the story I know goes like this: There was a church in Sacramento that named themselves “Mars Hill” several years ago. It is the same name as the well known Mars Hill church led by Mark Driscoll in Seattle Washington. A couple weeks ago the “Sacramento congregation received a “Cease and Desist” letter which came from attorneys representing the Seattle Mars Hill Church.  They were told that the Seattle Mars Hill had copyrighted the name “Mars Hill” and they demanded that the Sacramento California Mars Hill church stop using the name and any logos with similar lettering.” These events were made known by a blogger/pastor in the area (see here). A storm was stirred up. Then the Mars Hill Seattle pastors contacted the Mars Hill pastor in Sacramento. There was some good discussion, apologies and reconciliation. Sacramento Mars Hill agreed to change its logo so there would be less confusion surrounding its identity with the larger Mars Hill church in Seattle. (These events are reported here, here and here)

So everything seems good. I’m glad this is over. Nonetheless I think there’s something that remains left for all of us (including Mars Hill Seattle) to think about. It is the question of branding. Should a church ever be concerned about its own branding? Is branding a sign that the branded church has now morphed from being a participant in God’s Mission to now becoming a builder of a church empire?  When a church expands beyond its immediate locale and works for its recognizability across cultural boundaries and broad ranging markets, is this a sign the church is no longer about reaching people outside the gospel, but rather about attracting people in who already know the gospel, but now want a particular brand? IS BRANDING THE ULTIMATE ANTI-MISSIONAL ACT?

I offer this post as an opportunity to discuss this question. I think it’s an important discussion to have. I think a lot of us face this question regularly in one way or another every year. To start off this discussion then, here’s three reasons why I believe branding is the Ultimate Anti-Missional Act and Mars Hill Seattle (and the rest of our churches) should CEASE AND DESIST all branding.

1.) Branding Is Consumerist Attractional  The cease and desist letter, despite the apologies etc., reveals that Mars Hill recognizes itself as a brand and wants to protect that brand name.  It seems to me you brand a name in order to communicate to a “market” that when you go to Mars Hill you get such and such. A brand name in this case is useful in helping those who do not know you or your church understand through advertising and media what the church is, who the speaker is, what kind of specifics about this church differentiate it from other churches. It therefore enables already existing consumers of church to select your church over against others fro personal reasons. It seems to me once you do this you are openly admitting you are seeking to attract Christians from other locales, other churches, Christians who are moving, or discontented with their present church. Because after all, aren’t these the only people that would get up on a Sunday morning and “shop” for a church via the brand.  Branding therefore admits you not seeking to engage those outside the gospel. It is the ultimate anti-missional act.

2.) Branding Promotes Competition: Branding differentiates one church from another. It says we offer preaching like this, we offer this kind of celebrity speaker, we offer this kind of worship, this kind of theology. Over against other church choices “We’re better at this”? I contend we should not be competing with other churches. Instead of counter branding, we should instead enter each context humbly, seeking cooperation, wisdom and guidance from/alongside other churches.  We should work in cooperation with each other for the same Mission from locale to locale. We should be grounding the body of Christ in each locale for life with God in His Mission. In that church-branding works against this, I think we should consider once again how branding is the ultimate anti-missional act.

3.) Branding DeContextualizes: Based on 2.), the act of branding differentiates a church for a religious consumer. It brings a brand of church contextualized somewhere else (Seattle Washington) and lands it in a different locale (like say Albuquerque nm) and assumes the context is the same as the one it came from. It assumes this church, its message, its pastor’s sermons piped in via video screen, can respond to the contextual issues presented by a context  hundreds of miles away.  Branding therefore decontextualizes the church and the gospel. It assumes one size fits all. It does not listen to the context. It does not seek to understand what God is already doing in this different context and how to join in. In other words, this kind of branding is the ultimate anti-missional act.

Summary

I think we have to discern carefully how to name our churches. Yes we need to name churches, we need to make them identifiable. We are here to make the works of God made manifest known (1 Peter 2:9). We need a public presence (not in the sense of the private/public distinction political theologians talk about). But we must discern carefully when doing this so as not to cross over the line into branding. Based on the above, I call upon Mars Hill Seattle (and the rest of our churches) to CEASE AND DESIST all branding!! Your thoughts?

P.S. Just a question. Does anyone know if I can get sued for using Mars Hill church’s logo on this post? :)

Tags: , , ,

Filed under consumerism,Incarnational,Mark Driscoll 55 Comments

on October 18 2011

“We Are Broken”: Overcoming the ideology that stymies the church’s encounter with the LGBTQ Community

Here’s a bold claim: the church should put aside all other declarations when it comes to engaging the LGBTQ issues of our day, and start by gathering around the affirmation “We Are Broken.”

I believe the LGBTQ issue is being ideologized in American culture as well as in the church ON ALL SIDES. A church’s or individual’s public position on the issue has literally become the moniker on whether you are in or out of the evangelical orthodoxy club. I understand why people on both sides would do this. There’s important things at stake. But ideologizing the issue: i.e making the LGBTQ into a concept that one is either for or against, extracting said concept from real lives and concrete communities, and galvanizing people around one side or the other, accomplishes nothing in the church for God’s mission.

Instead of all this, I suggest we start gathering people together around the affirmation “We are Broken.” Arriving at this posture, I suggest, is the starting point for the engagement of this issue. Of course it is the posture that must be re-inhabited by the community of Jesus Christ whenever she is confronted by any fork in the road that comes when a church body is confronted with a new and or conflictual issue in culture. This posture, labeled by the words “We Are Broken,” is always the starting point for the process of discernment in Christ. We come together under the common agreement “We are Broken” and then invite others to join in as we seek the way forward for healing, redemption and new creation.

Now I admit, big denominations and large mega churches are probably too far along the process of ideologization to go this route. When money is involved, when power is assembled, we gravitate towards hot button issues and get behind agendas. So, just maybe, it shall be the missional communities working in the neighborhoods who shall make way for a renewal of a different kind.

I therefore suggest that it might be up to missional communities, confronted with the issue of same sex relations  (or for that matter other points of disagreement over how we shall lives our lives together as sexual beings) to begin by gathering in this way. Begin a conversation around the question “are we broken?” Not “are you broken?” but rather “are we broken?” The leaders of such a conversation should start by admitting “I am broken.” If the church leaders have led a perfect sexual life and never encountered issues in their own lives of sexual brokenness, then they should not be leading this issue in their local churches.  They should look to others who have struggled with issues of sexual brokenness to lead. The discerning posture cannot begin until we all gather together in the place of “we are broken.”

By saying “we are broken” we are clearing the table. Arriving at our brokenness goes beyond whether one claims a heterosexual, bi-sexual, gay, etc. sexual orientation. When the leader confesses “I am broken” it forms the safety and the space by which we gather before the cross.  Frankly, regardless of whatever sexual orientation we inhabit, if you feel like everything is perfect in your life in this regard, there simply is no need to discuss your sexuality in the church. Taking all particular sexual sins off the table, can we agree, together that WE ARE BROKEN? The gathering of people before Christ is for the broken. And …. “we are broken.”

By saying this is the place where we start, we are not (nor should we) denying the 2000 years of history in Christ, it’s time worn understandings of sexual redemption in Christ. But these understandings need to be furthered into our lives through discernment of Scripture in the Spirit. God must work to extend the depths of these understandings into our lives. None of this can happen apart from the mutual submission to Christ that comes from the place of mutual confession “we are broken.”  By saying we are broken, neither are we denying the various understandings and histories of sexual identity each person brings. Again, we come with these histories and enter in to what God is doing here. But the LGBTQ person, and the rest of us, cannot enter in to this discussion if we cannot trust one another to be in the center of God’s work. This comes by first saying “we are broken.” Then we come to the cross, that place where we together confess our brokenness and come to submit our lives to what Christ would do.

Can we then agree among our missional communities that before anyone discusses this issue, goes public with a statement on the sexual issues of our day, before we get into the actual details, or any of the issues are to be determined, before we can even discern this among ourselves, before we can even examine ourselves before the Spirit, we must make way for a safe place that is comfortable, loving and supportive where we can mutually submit to one another and say “we are broken.” From here, we can love, care and have discernments about ANYTHING.  But most importantly, from here we can submit one to another to Christ, allow His gifts, his discernments to take shape in a group. God by the Holy Spirit can work here.

Again, this kind of unusual place will probably have to happen in small missional communities (where you can avoid the ideology). Because we live in one of the most sexual charged, excessively sexually focused, sexually abused, sexually broken cultures (compare U.S.A. to Africa or even Europe), we will need to make way for these kind of places.  And so to deal with any of this, we do not need a do’s and don’t’s list of what’s permissable and what is not. We need a place where the Holy Spirit can work in and among His people, a place of uncovering. Otherwise we will get no where in this mess.

So the first item for missional communities (and I would argue for the broader church as well) to accomplish in this day of controversy over sexual relations, is discuss how we can put ideology aside, and come together in small spaces where there can be redemption because “we are broken.”

Is this possible? Is this a pipedream?

Filed under Incarnational,LGBTQ Issues,Missional Leadership 33 Comments

on October 11 2011

Is It Time For Evangelicals to “Occupy Wall Street”?

I believe that there is no such thing as pure capitalism. Purist capitalism is a myth. Every capitalist economy needs regulations, infrastructures and laws that make possible the conducting of business, even in the most capitalist of countries. The roads, the education systems, the penal systems are all socialist if we label them according to the roll of central government in governing them and paying for them. Yet capitalist systems need all these things and more to make capitalist economic organization possible. You see, it is not whether government will order certain parts of a country’s life, it is a matter of what it will order and to what degree.  Most of what we talk about then when we say “capitalism,” by the media or Tea Party or the Left, is not a serious discussion of economics and capitalism. It is a hurling of terms like “capitalism” and “socialism” as ideological terms to stir up irrational fears and gain an edge against the other side. It is the modus operandi of American politics. It keeps us enslaved instead of having decent and needed conversations.

That’s why I am heartened by the “Occupy Wall Street” movements (I love some of Zizek’s comments at the rally). I don’t know enough about them. I haven’t studied them. I am sure there are examples of licentious activity going at these protests. But there are three things I like about what I’ve heard so far. I offer these three things as guidelines for your local church to have a serious discussion on how should the church of Jesus Christ respond to the “Occupy” movements in this country.

1.) They protest the corporate power taking over every aspect of our lives. I sense a broad realization by more and more people that large corporations are taking over every area of our lives. Food, education, healthcare, business, government is all being engulfed by corporate profit driven behavior. All these areas of life are more and more intertwined with huge corporate systems that are so huge we as individuals cannot help but be subsumed. Huge never-ending flows of dollars are going to elected officials. This combines with the illicit ways our officials are elected through largely unregulated campaigns fed by corporate money that pollutes our entire democratic system. It has been going on for years. It is the new socialism, corporate socialism with the corporate elite taking over our lives and Washington DC their puppets. And so, it is very difficult to escape. Corporatism – for me – is the new atheism. These are the powers and principalities.

We must realize that there are times in history when God’s people cannot participate in systems (even if they be God-ordained) because they have left the ranch, they have turned in rebellion against God and His purposes. They are past the tipping point. We should then withdraw from participation and resist. To me, this may be one of those times. This is what “Occupy Wall Street” is about. I am no socialist. I am no capitalist. I believe Jesus is Lord and so our discussion should revolve around whether participation in the current government-corporate structures is a denial of the Lordship of Christ over our lives.  And so I call upon our churches to have this discussion in relation to “OccupyWallSt.” Discern whether to support them, join in with them, on this basis! We could bring a new perspective, the Kingdom of God, into the very center of this movement.

2.) They are nonviolent. The “Occupy” movements realize, I think, that the systems are so big we simply cannot go to the elected officials, through the election process. We will simply get more of the same. It is time to simply opt out of the corrupt powers, protest, point to the reality (in Scriptural terms we call this “witness”) and non violently resist. This little piece is part of our historic faith. Since the beginnings of the called out people of Jesus in Rome under Ceasar, we have believed that there will be reasons to join in with the state, and then sometimes there will be reasons to opt out (read Ch. 10 of John Howard Yoder’s Politics of Jesus on Romans 13). When the Christian says “Jesus is Lord,” he or she ultimately acknowledges there is the continual option of the Christian to withdraw in peace, resisting being absorbed, refusing to cooperate with a government at odds with the Lordship of Christ. (The lack of this option in Tim Keller’s Ecosystem was one of its blind spots that I talked about here). The fact then that “OccupyWallSt” is nonviolently opting out of polluted democratic structures plays into this Christian impulse. And we need to train our gathered people to recognize this is part of the Christian life. So let us gather in our churches to discuss the non-violent opt out option and whether it is time to live this in our society. For this reason, I urge all our churches to have discussions about “OccupyWallSt.” Because when we join in with them, we bring Jesus, the Lordship and Reign of Christ. This becomes an opportunity to participate/manifest the Kingdom into the world!

3.) They Are Reflective and Open to Self Examination: I have sensed in this group a desire for some serious discussion. They seem to want genuine reflection on what is happening in this country. We are all sick of the vitriolic prattle of political campaigns since Karl Rove.  Yet few politicians have been willing or capable of going another way. The “Occupy” people are at least making a space for something else (read Chris Hedges piece here). I think however if Christians get involved, we could bring our unique wherewithal to begin with self-examination and forgiveness in Christ before the nation. We could model what is needed if this thing called United States is to come out of our sickening malaise. We could bring self examination (read this piece over at JesusRadicals). Again, I urge Christian churches all over the land to have your own discusssions about these things and ask what we can bring to these demonstrations by virtue of who we are in Jesus Christ. Let us discern whether we should get involved and how we might bring a confessing aspect to these protests. I believe if we did, the Kingdom of God, the Lordship of Christ might break in.

There are of course many caveats/misgivings to getting involved with the “Occupy” movement. “Occupy” DOES NOT EMULATE THE ASPIRATIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. Yes I have noticed. Likewise, I recognize that if “Occupy” is to amount to anything, it must produce a substantive way of life lived counter to the goals and aspirations of wealth accumulation and control of power that so drives American life. Ultimately, this must push us towards local social expressions of life in obedience to Christ and His Kingdom. Yet are not these the things we bring as Christians? Is this not the opportunity to bring this witness? At the very least, does not this movement present to each of us (and our churches) the need to examine our own lives and what it is we are living for and whom/what we have become slaves to? Based on these reasons, I think “OccupyWallStreet” might be an occasion for the younger evangelicals to reshape the political presence of evangelicals in United States politics. If you’re an evangelical like me, and you don’t get the alliance of evangelicals to the politics of The Tea Party, this might be the opportunity to reshape the conversation under Christ’s Lordship. At the very least, this is an opportunity for witness to God’s Kingdom. It is an opportunity to proclaim the Kingdom of God, Jesus is Lord, over our money, our systems.  Let us then get active. Let the discussions go forth in and from our church gatherings.

What say you? Should churches all over the country make this discussion a top priority? Yes or No? Why or Why Not?

————-

If anyone wishes to explore further the relationship between evangelicalism and the ideology of capitalism, see my book The End of Evangelicalism? and buy it cheaper here.

Filed under Incarnational,Justice,Uncategorized 41 Comments

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 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 May 17 2011

The Important Task of Cultivating Missional Rhythms in a Community

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

————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on March 23 2011

For All the Big Dreamers in the World – Start Small On The Ground and Let the Rest Take Care of Itself

“I’m astounded by people who want to ‘know’ the universe when it’s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown.” Woody Allen

I’d like to direct this post to the many people seeking advice these days on book writing and getting Ph D education and stuff like that.

————————-

I am a pastor, church planter, nurturer of missional communities and a full-time professor at a seminary. I regularly receive inquiries from people seeking advice on how they too can follow my path. It seems there are a lot of young men and women who find the dual task of teaching in a seminary and pastoring appealing.

I don’t exactly know what’s going on but I am always prompted to ask these good people why they would find my life appealing? I sometimes think people want to teach because they find the influence and admiration that comes with these dual jobs appealing. Perhaps they find speaking engagements enticing because of the acclaim that can give someone. I AM NOT SAYING I HAVE EITHER. But think about all that for a minute. I don’t think you should gain influence in the church apart from what God has being doing in, through and around you within a circle of community relationships in Christ. i.e. in the church. And you can’t plan that. Right? You should start therefore from wherever you are living in ministry and pursue faithfulness and take opportunities for influence ONLY with the greatest of care. Lest you be elevated falsely as part of a media campaign or some other untoward hype. (I recognize this can be read as arrogant – but I seriously am not assuming I have any of this influence or authority).

It seems at one time there was a path to influence within Christendom. Do well in your seminary studies. Practice and become a polished public speaker. Go get a Ph. D. at a premier school and write and think on the highest levels competing against the best. I did none of this BTW so maybe I’m not the one to ask. Yet from my perspective, that world is shrinking. The days of gaining influence from positional achievement in Christendom are (gladly) waning. Today this kind of (Christendom) influence is largely generated in large conference venues. For me, these venues try to sell too much. Again, because Christendom has its problems, I strongly suggest none of us go this route. The best thing for anyone is to put these temptations towards influence aside, and start with the ministry God has given you. Seek faithfulness and allow God to use you in the world. Seek additional education as it seems a natural extension of your life – the life God is working in and through you already. If influence comes, it comes from God and you should submit to it humbly and in service to His Kingdom.

The allure of fame seems to be everywhere these days. I talk to at least two or three people a month who want to write a book. Everybody wants to write a book, be a speaker at conferences, or affect the national conversation (what national conversation?).  It seems like nothing matters unless you’re starting a new movement to end global poverty in our lifetime (or something like that). It seems everyone is starting a blog, a new church, a twitter account, all to gain a following so they can do something national or transnational. Why this chase for national significance? To me this is counterproductive to the Kingdom and works against one’s own personal development in Christ.

Notoriety has a way of screwing with your mind. I say if it happens to you keep your head down and be very intentional on your spiritual disciplines. I’ve seen it happen a hundred times. A pastor or a leader becomes nationally known, gets asked to speak at conferences, quits his/her day job and starts appearing on stage as the supposed “expert.” He/she becomes separated from his/her ministry that kept him grounded, that kept her work generative and in touch with actual life issues in church and ministry. Before you know it, he/she’s got to appear in Metro Somewhere to say something to help people he/she does not know about a problem he/she hasn’t dealt with in ten years. And yet we listen to people like this eh?

Worse, something happens to said person (I’ve experienced this personally) when this dynamic starts to shape one’s life. You start appearing as someone you’re not, someone people now expect you (and pay you) to be. And I’m sorry, at this point something huge has been lost by both the person speaking and the people listening. The only way this can work for either the speaker or audience is if the speaker pays attention to his/her spiritual formation in a live Christian community in Mission and is actually invested there, being shaped there, being called out of sin there, and participating in real life mission there.

In the end, I contend that every movement that changed the world started with relationships. It started on the ground. Most non-relational ways to change the world only end up either preserving the existing order or worse sustaining an injustice hidden beneath the ideology. Their effect might be big initially but almost always short lived. We raise huge sums of money that in the end do very little because the social redemptive reconciliation only happens painstakingly on the ground. And yet we are tempted to contribute to the big (it makes us feel more significant?).

I remember sitting around a church leadership meeting one night talking about a proposal to contribute to a national campaign by some famous musicians to stem the AIDS epidemic in Africa. I asked if anyone knew what percentages of the money would go to the cause, to whom and where. No one knew. Meanwhile we had a relationship with a missionary hospital in the rural area of Africa dealing with 100’s of AIDS patients a year, whom we knew well  (my sister ministers there). The other more famous option was more appealing. Uh why do we do this? For me, revolutions work for change on the ground in the raising up of repentant and resistant communities (Read Ched Myers on this).

I admit I have a blog. I started to tweet a year ago. I speak at conferences. I admit I have an agenda. It’s driven by what I see as the way forward in post-Christendom in America. Call it Neo-Anabaptist Missional Christian life. I admit to trying to make my case, often in large settings.

I have discovered however that my blog, twitter feed, facebook and speaking must be part of my life, not a calculated strategy to make a wider case. Stangely, my blogging, tweeting etc. have become part of my personal spiritual disciplines. They have become part of me developing my theology from the ground up.  And I go to conferences to get challenged and put forth ideas and contribute to/support grass roots organizations I feel committed to. But I need to take the warning, that the minute I try to architect all this into some national exposure, I find my material disqualified as something not real but manufactured. I must be grounded in the proving of God’s truth amidst vibrant missional communities living among the everyday rhythms of post Christendom. This is where any authority/gifting I have is recognized and authenticated. In real relationships. This is where I think true gospel/kingdom work begins because, in the words of Gil Scot Heron “the revolution will not be televised.”

So here is my very best advice to all of us who would be used by God in whatever context, yet have big dreams – to get a PhD, become a seminary professor, write a book and speak at conferences. Put aside your big plans, put aside your well devised managed future where you think if I get said degree, start a blog, write a book and plant a church, I can find my role in the church. No go the other way. Sell everything, abandon all personal ambition to the life of following Christ into the local mission of God. This will most likely mean inefficiency, getting down and dirty, getting a job and working alongside others in realm life community. It will demand that you devote energy and time to getting good at stuff which doesn’t seem immediately germane to becoming a national church leader. But that’s ok. Spend time in cultivating a community life, partnering with several others, learn your gifts and start cultivating the Kingdom in a neigbourhood. And then see what happens. See what God does. Listen for what God is saying and respond daily. Out of this place, when money – time affords, pursue a graduate theological education that will deepen your understanding of the Scriptures, theological trajectories and culture. If teaching opportunities come, book contracts and speaking opportunities come – praise God! Use them to further the gospel of His Kingdom. But always, I REPEAT ALWAYS, treat them carefully – submitting one’s ego to the Kingdom lest you too become a statistic on the scrapheap of fleeting fame.

____________________

To anyone attracted to this way of thought – I’d like to recommend this conference. EPIC Fail. Check it out here. I love this kind of meeting place to discern what God is doing among us instead of listening to people we’ve exalted as experts. Read what Bob Hyatt has to say about national conferences here. I agree with everything he says. And if I have offended anyone with this post – tell me what I need to hear. I’m always ready to repent from hubris or whatever … Blessings as we pursue on the ground ministry together!!

Filed under Incarnational,Missional,Missional Leadership,Uncategorized 27 Comments

Older Entries »

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