on February 8 2012

I’m a Pastor. Do I lead as one “ahead” or as one “among”?

I’m a pastor. Is my job to:

a.) lead everyone individually into the Christian life that I am already living? or

b.) to lead everyone into joining in life with God and His Mission wherever that might lead?

If it is a.) I am in trouble. Because I now have the pressure to have a perfect life so that having achieved that I can now give it to someone else. Here I am. Take a look at me. Here’s how to do it.

If it is b.) then I take an altogether different posture. I can reject the posture of “I am ahead of you.” Instead, I lead not as one who is “ahead” but as one who is “among.” We are in this together and, out of my gifts, I am inviting you to join in a journey together into the depths of life with God and His Mission. Let us journey together and along the way, there will be things you learn from me and there will be things I learn from you.  It is true, I have been walking along this way for a while. I am embedded in a direction. This however does not mean I will always be perfect. It does mean that I have been put on course in an unswerving direction.  I have been walking this direction and God has proven Himself again and again as Lord in and through Jesus Christ. But I cannot be everything to you and I will not be perfect in this endeavor. We must be in this together. God has found me in Christ and God has found you too in the same way. Yes? Then let us join in this journey together.

To continue on with model b.), We each have gifts. I don’t have everything. I cannot do everything. I am very limited actually. I may have been given certain gifts for leading, and teaching (let’s say). To the extent they are recognized in the community and given authority by the Holy Spirit out of my submission to Christ, I offer these gifts to my community (I think ordination recognizes, tests, and facilitates the gifts within the history of Christ). But you have been given gifts as well. I need you as much as you need me. The church body needs you as much as it needs me. We, and I emphasize “we” are the body. And God will use “us” to build up His Kingdom visibly in this place until He returns.

This model of leading (model b.)) requires character and direction. In this way I guess you could say I am leading from “ahead.” But I must grow too in my character. I must receive constructive truth-telling into my life. If I can’t do that, then I should expect no one else to either. Because I am growing too.  Because leading “among” requires modeling “growth.” It requires growing into new territory. The minute I stop growing is the minute I am disqualified for ministry. Likewise, if I take a different direction, a direction of rebellion against God, a refusal to repent when in sin, or if I fall having given myself over to sin in a way that reveals I have lost my direction in Christ, then these things as well disqualify me to lead in my respective gifting. This model of leadership requires character and direction. Part of that character is the posture of leading humbling as one “among.”

Applying this to Preaching

In a recent conversation with a pastor/leader of a missional community we were talking about the struggle of preaching regularly. Here the pastor (I use the title “pastor” as applied to those recognized to lead in N American church whatever gifting they might have) discussed how he struggled with his interior life (not to be confused with his thought life). He found himself asking “Am I measuring up?” “Am I in sync with God?” “Am I living the life I am calling other people to?” To me, this pastor was revealing the leading from “ahead” model of leadership (articulated above) so often embodied by American church. This is the temptation to preach from the posture from above the congregation, as one with all the answers. We all fall into this temptation. It forces us to be somebody we are not in the pulpit and elsewhere. The temptation is to put on a front. And you do this every week, and you’re killing yourself to try to come up with some original insight each weekend for the sermon. This, I assure everyone reading this post, is the death of leadership in Mission.

But following the leading “among” model our job is to listen to what is going on each day in the lives of people around us and in our communities and then to reflect theologically, out of Scripture so as to interpret for our gathering what God is calling us to as a people. This is the gift of preaching! We are given a text to preach within the lectionary. Study of this text is important for preaching (it goes without saying). But meeting with one, two or three people every week, listening carefully to what is happening and reflecting with them about what God is doing in their lives and in their neighborhoods, will be the source material for the sermon. It provides the material from which to reflect on via Scripture. Yes, preaching is about understanding the text well. But it is also listening to God and discerning through the text what God is calling us into as a people. This is leading from among, missional preaching, or contextual theology. It is one of the leadership tasks so essential for the birthing of communities in mission.

Many pastors would disagree with this approach. Mark Driscoll for one has said (in this video here) he’s an introvert and therefore doesn’t want to know anyone is his congregation, just let the Spirit lead and guide him to say what needs to be said in his sermon. This I contend is leading from ahead versus leading from among. This kind of preaching, I contend, will tend to draw a crowd of people who are like you and already get your language and style. This kind of preaching, I contend, tends to decontextualize. The attempts to contextualize from ‘above” always lead to efforts to be more “relevant.” Thus it’s really more marketing than embedding in a context.

So here is what I suggest. If you’re struggling in your teaching/preaching ministry to “come up with” a sermon for this week, have a cup of coffee with people in your community and listen carefully. Take someone out in your neigborhood to a bar or coffee shop and listen carefully. Read the text from Scripture before and after, do the work of study. But it’s that cup of coffee that the Holy Spirit will use to give context and energy for the sermon.  and you’ll have a sermon. Make it a weekly, monthly rhythm!

Agree? Disagree? Am I wrong about leading “from ahead” decontextualizing  preaching?

 

 

Tags:

Filed under Mark Driscoll,Missional,Missional Leadership 21 Comments

on February 6 2012

Is Church Planting Hard Work? It All Depends How You Look At It

So my buddy and pal Martin Robinson from the UK put this video of me up on his web site. Martin is a missional thinker, author, leader. He’s the principle of Springdale College. He goes back to the days of the great one Leslie Newbigin himself! We were meeting up at Luther Seminary with Craig Van Gelder and Allan Roxburgh and many others. After our meetings were over, and I was heading to the car, he catches me. And then he pulls out this little camera and takes this video of me. What resulted was this interview about church planting. During the interview he (dares to) ask if the approach that I was pitching was “hard work.” My answer is on tape.  Have a look if you have 5 minutes. And then comment as to whether you think church planting is hard work and why. Thanks to Martin Robinson!! He’s the real deal!

David Fitch from Together in Mission on Vimeo.

Tags:

Filed under Church Planting,Missional,Post-Christendom,Uncategorized 6 Comments

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 January 19 2012

The Mark Driscoll Fiasco: What the Latest Flap Teaches Us About The Neo-Reformed Movement

You can stop reading this post if you think I am going to review Mark and Grace Driscoll’s book Real Marriage. I have a much more boring post in mind.

Driscoll’s Real Marriage book is to the NeoReformed what Rob Bell’s Love Wins was to the Emerging church last year. They both stir up humongous sales with a media frenzy and in the process reveal the “cracking” (to use Scot McKnight’s word) taking place within the mainline N. American protestant evangelical church. As with Bell’s book, so also with Driscoll’s book, each brouhaha (to use Bill Kinnon’s word) reveals something of the theological pulse driving their respective movements.

This time the Driscoll fiasco revolves an interview done by the Driscoll’s about their book with Justin Brierley on the British radio program Unbelievable (here’s the podcast of the entire hour-long interview with Mark Driscoll). There was a “dust-up” on the interview. Driscoll was offended. He then calls it “the most disrespectful, adversarial, and subjective” interview he’s ever had. And now it’s all over the internet driving up sales of his (and his wife’s) new book.

My take (and the angle I want to pursue) on the interview is that Driscoll’s “act” simply doesn’t translate well into the very post-Christendom context of Britian.  In fact the whole encounter reveals the Christendon assumptions that drive his theology. There are three missional “bugaboos” that he clashes with Brierley on. Each bugaboo represents a theological position we Missionals fear/resist because of the way these things work against mission.  In this interview, these bugaboos  are a.) Driscoll’s singular obsession with penal substitutionary atonement, b.) his commitment to hierarchical male authority in the church, and c.) his blind belief in the importance of preaching/successful preacher to the church’s identity. These bugaboos represent the Christendom assumptions behind Driscoll’s theology and way he operates. Yet I think we can make a case for interpreting Driscoll as  a symptom of the wider Neo-Reformed theological movement. So I think this episode reveals more than just Driscoll’s Christendom theology and mode of operation. I think it speaks to why the current Neo-Reformed revival and its theology will have a hard time leading missional–incarnational-externally driven church. So I put this theological psychoanalysis to the test before all my neo-Reformed friends. Let’s converse. Here goes!

(FYI: I’m riffing off of the account of the interview here and here, Driscoll’s response to the interview here, and Justin’s response to Driscoll as reported here).

1.) The Focus on the Substitionary Atonement. Towards the end of the interview, Driscoll asks Brierley if he believes in the penal substitutionary atonement. When Brierley affirms it as one of many ways to view the cross, Driscoll suggests he’s being cowardly about it.  Driscoll then insists on singular commitment to penal substitutionary atonement is essential to the success of the gospel.

To me this speaks to the singular focus on the penal subtitutionary atonement that is central in many parts of the Neo-Reformed matrix regardless of contextual considerations. Am I right? Driscoll is blind to contextual considerations concerning salvation. In other words, the atonement is many faceted (read McKnights Community of Atonement for example). One size does not fit all. It could be argued that penal substititionary atonement makes the most sense in Christendom, amidst a culture shaped under Medieval Catholicism, it’s theology and penitential system (Driscoll grew up Catholic). Moral guilt, you could say, was (and is) the singular Christendom condition into which Reformed theology was born. It is not however as universal in the West as it once was. If we insist on being locked into this one view of the atonement, we will in essence be narrowing our context for mission.

The atonement is wider, bigger and more multitudinous than substitionary theory. And the hurts and pains of the world we are engaging cannot be put fit into this one theory. I believe in the substitionary theory of the atonement. But it is limited. The work that God is doing in the world includes reconciliation, healing, restoration, justice, and the victory and authority of Christ over Satan, evil, sin and death. It is in short God at work through Christ making all things right.  A narrow focus on substitionary atonement disables the church from engaging the world outside Western Christendom culture. It discounts the manifold ways God in Christ has come to set the whole world right. Mark Driscoll can’t understand this. And so when he enters a post-Christendom context he gets frustrated.

Does not Drsicoll’s frustration then reveal the atonement myopia at the heart of the Neo-Reformed movement. Does it not reveal the weakness inherent in Neo-Reformed theology for those of us minsistering in post Christendom contexts (like Brierley’s Britian)? Does not his whole fiasco reveal how the singular focus on subtititionary atonement hinders missional engagement? Yes? no?

2.) The View that Authority is Hierarchical. Towards the end of the interview the issue of women pastors came up. It caused a bit of a flare-up in Driscoll’s intensity. Driscoll ends up suggesting that the reason why more people did not show up at Brierley’s church was because of a woman in leadership. To me, this has been a subtle persistent theme within Neo-Reformed ecclesiology: that men should be over women in authority in the church. Now it explodes on a radio interview in the UK. This I suggest is a Neo-Reformed habit learned and sustained in Christendom.

Authority in Christendom is viewed in hierarchical terms. Hierarchical patterns of leadership exist readily in established church systems where you have Christianized people who are already conditioned to respect clergy authority, where things can get done, goods and services distributed, decisions made, disputes arbitrated more efficiently among Christians who already submit. It is because of these ingrained habits of hierarchy that most Neo-Reformed views of church authority have struggles with women in authority over men (OK this is at least one of the reasons). Take hierarchy out of the authority question and it becomes much harder to interpret Scripture in a way that excludes women from leadership in the church.

In the post-Christendom world, authority is flattened in the church and pushed outward (Read this post for more info). Positional authority of anyone over someone else is not the way things work in the Kingdom (read Mark 10:42). Instead we work alongside each other out of our giftedness in the communities appreciating one another gifts and mutually submitting one to another in each one’s gifts (read Eph 4, Rom 12:3-8). The authority lies in one’s recognized gift. The idea that women are over men is as unthinkable as the idea that men are over women.

Flattened authority structures push leadership out amidst the organic work of ministry in context. Hierarchy pushes church ministry inward and upward for approval. Hierarchical authority inhibits dispersed missional engagement. Its structures will miss with people who submit to authority only as encountered via authentic relational engagement. Driscoll seems blind to these issues. He’s absolutely frustrated with Brierley’s inability to be impressed with the importance of top down male leadership. My question is: are these assumptions part of the larger Neo-Reformed movement as a whole and does this mean that the Neo-Reformed will always be inhibited somewhat from true missional engagement? (Can I say “just asking?”). It will always be a movement prone to attracting Christianized people who are already habituated to submit to a pre-established hierarchical (male) authority.

3.) The assumption that “success” is best measured by the number of people who show up to hear a male preacher preach. When Mark Driscoll finds out that Justin Brierley’s wife is a pastor and is questioned on the validity of a wife whose husband supports his wife’s leadership, Mark asks about the size and growth of his wife’s church.  He says among other things “You look at your results and you look at my results and look at the variable that is the most obvious.” In other words I have thousands in my church, and you have a few hundred. That proves female leadership is inferior.

To me this is more than blind Driscollian machismo. This reveals something deeper in the Neo-Reformed ethos. There is a tendency in the Neo-Reformed movement to put a large emphasis on the gathering to hear preaching. I believe in preaching! But I see its function differently in the mission of the church. For the Neo-Reformed – correct me if I am wrong – there is a confidence that non-Christian people will still come to church to hear a good sermon. There is therefore a default tendency in Neo-Reformed churches to see success in terms of the numbers of people gathering on Sunday to hear a male preacher preach. This is a missional bugaboo. Success in mission will not always look like big numbers listening to a preacher (has Driscoll ever heard of Fresh Expressions in UK?). I see preaching as formational for a missional people, not a place where mission actually takes place (although I am uncomfortable with making that split). As a result, though often unintentional, the Neo-Reformed movement often devolves into a male led preacher attracting already existing Christians to come hear a good sermon. It thereby mistrains the congregation to think this is what church and mission is all about. That’s perhaps an over-characterization. But is there any truth to it?

Again, I think Driscoll’s question about the size of his wife’s congregation is more than a slip of the Driscollian machismo, I think it reveals something at the heart of the Neo-Reformed movement that will hinder it in the formation of congregations for mission. What say you?

In Conclusion

I see in the Mark Driscoll dust-up with Justin Brierley a revealing of some of the Christendom habits deep within the Neo-Reformed movement although often covered over by the many good things they do. The fact that Mark Driscoll’s flare-up happens in the UK – a very post Christendom place – only reinforces my case.

Some have said in response, that Mark Driscoll’s church is in Seattle, the most post-Christendom city in the US. But here, in this post, he says boldly admits going to Canada or the UK is much harder to do ministry than even in Seattle. He states “You are in a cultural context that is more non-Christian, and even anti-Christian, than even the most liberal cities in the United States. I’ve taught across Scotland, Ireland, and England. Each one is more difficult to reach than my hometown of Seattle, which is one of the historically least-churched and most secular-minded cities in America. I’ve said for years that Britain and Canada are more secular and difficult than the United States.” He basically admits that he himself with his particular approach to ministry would have difficulty succeeding in his own approach to ministry. Does this then not reveal what I am saying here? Driscoll is largely dependent upon the harvesting of already Christianized populations in Seattle area (what’s left of them)? Is this then why he then goes with video churches to go capture other such populations elsewhere? Does this then reveal some things that my Neo-Reformed brothers have to examine about their own theological modus operandi? I genuinely ask these questions for the furtherance of God’s Mission in our times.

It may seem unfair to stigmatize the entire Neo-Reformed movement with the likes of a Mark Driscoll temper flare-up. But I’ve learned that these kind of escapades are the best places to look at the cultural forces at work in theology and poitics. For myself, Mark Driscoll is an irruption of sorts on the skin of the Neo-Reformed movement.  His flare-up, if closely examined, can reveal some of the theology at work and the forces behind these theological allegiances. How other leaders in the movement respond to him, like Tim Challies,  Justin Taylor, Kevin DeYoung, Tim Keller, Collin Hansen,  James McDonald, will reveal perhaps even more. Is Mark Driscoll just an outlier for the Neo-Reformed movement or is he the truth that lies at its core?

Tags: , ,

Filed under Acts 29,Mark Driscoll,Missional,Missional Ecclesiology,Missional Leadership,Missional Theology,Neo-Reformed,Post-Attractional,Post-Christendom,Rob Bell,Soteriology,Uncategorized,Women in MInistry 116 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 23 2011

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

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

—————————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on August 18 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on August 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