Who do you love?

I think we Christians have a case of "bizzaro-world." We've got everything backwards. Jesus said the 'greatest' commandment was to love God and love others; and that we will be "known by our love." Yet it seems we are known more for who we dislike... what we're opposed to... who we disagree with. And I'm not even talking about enemies of the church, but those OF the faith.

We could probably trace this back to the first century and people arguing over which apostle they followed; or the schism dividing Roman Catholics from Eastern Orthodox; or the Protestant Reformation; or the fundamentalists and modernists; right on up to the growing hatred of evangelicals (or liberals); suspicion of the emerging church; and disdain for the church as a whole, even.

And things seem to be getting more and more personal now. Rather than groups, we're hating on individuals. Whether it's Robertson, Macarther, McLaren, Jones, Driscoll, Warren, or the schmuck down the street. It seems we no longer disagree with what someone says (or writes), but instead we disagree with the someone!

I'm sure I am just as guilty as the next person, but I have always tried to learn whatever I could from any book I've read, or sermon I've heard, or person I've listened to. Even with those I may disagree with on a lot of issues, I think there is usually something I can learn from just about anyone.

There just seem to be more and more blogs or Facebook posts I read that are only about who people dislike. They never write about what they like, or who they like... and the negative energy is getting to be a bit much for me. I don't really care who you hate; what I want to know is... who do you love? After all, if you say you're a Christian, I think we are supposed to love somebody (if not everybody). I'm not even sure some would say they love Jesus if they heard one of his sermons on Youtube or read his book!

Even the song... I love The Raconteurs version just as much as George Thorogood's; and George's just as much as the Doors; and the Doors just as much as Bo Diddley's; and...

I don't know... I would like the church to be known more for their love, not their hate. But maybe that's asking too much. Sigh...

1 John 4:11-12
Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

Random is as random does

I'm in one of those frames of mind where... I don't really know what to say. So here are some random randomlies...

• Before writing this I had 1962 posts on this blog. That's the year I was born (or so I've always been told; even though one year my dad got me a silver dollar for Christmas and it was from 1963 - the year he thought I was born).
• I think the emerging church is having a hard time dealing with the fact that nobody really cares about it anymore. If you can't fight with evangelicals, then I guess you have to fight with each another.
• As far as the Olympics... I have to say... I am with Julia Mancuso. I am sick of Lindsay Vonn. I was sick of hearing about her even before the opening ceremonies. And the sob-drama after her first win was enough to put me way over the top. Go Julia!
• I may be in the minority, but I actually like the Olympics this year for some reason. I like some of the new events. Especially the Ski-Cross (and snowboard-cross). That is one of the best events as far as I'm concerned. I also like downhill skiing; but I'm not so into the slalom stuff. I also like speedskating, and some other things I can't remember now. I really didn't care much for the snowboarders where they just go back and forth. That is, until Shaun White went! Man, he was awesome. And I loved how he took his second run even when he didn't have to. That's what the Olympics ought to be about, imo.
• I am feeling quite a bit better than I was earlier in the week. I still have a bit of a weirdness to me, but I'm hoping it will disappear little by little each day. I suppose there will always be a little weirdness, otherwise it wouldn't be normal.
  
• Well, I guess it is Thursday. That's always good. And Saturday is m'Lady's birthday.
  

Missional learning commons 2010

The 3rd annual missional learning commons was last Friday and Saturday in Fort Wayne (I believe it was at Westview Alliance Church on Ill. Rd.). Tom and I rode together, but were only able to be there for the two Saturday morning sessions. Fortunately they have audio of all the talks on their website though.

I took minimal notes, and I will post them at the bottom. The main thing I noticed though... and I actually thought about this when I was getting dressed that day... It seems like so many people wear blue jeans to things like this, so I purposely wore my tan corduroys... and sure enough, I think I was one of only three people (out of maybe 75 or so) who didn't have blue jeans on. Ha!

I did force myself to talk to somebody during the break too. After standing around and having no one come up to me (we were supposed to talk to someone we didn't know), I went up to a guy that looked familiar for some reason. It was Jim, from Chicago, and I finally discovered that he looked familiar because he did the videotaping at last years nonconference (which, btw, he said Bill Kinnon apparently has all the tapes and has done nothing with them). Anyway, we had a good chat.

Overall, even though Tom might not agree, I thought it was a worthwhile morning. To me, any time I can get together with others to discuss church and faith issues it's a good time. So, oddly enough, I'm not as hard to please in this regard as you might think. Next year I hope Jane can go with me again though. I will say this though... "deeper church" is a very relative term.

Here are my notes (from Saturday morning only):

The title of this (non)conference was "Deeper Church: Churches As Whole Communities." The first two speakers were Chris Smith and Ben Sternke.

Chris talked about what it means to be "whole communities," as opposed to simply "religious communities." He says religious communities tend to be more concerned with soul issues (primarily the afterlife); whereas whole communities are concerned more with the redemption of ALL things (ethics). Two key areas where whole communities are distinguished from religious communities are: time (when they meet/don't meet), and money (how resources are used).

Ben then talked about the significance of the eucharist in moving us from religious communities to whole communities. He discussed how even in our physical bodies blood is not allocated just for certain/specific areas, but blood flows throughout. And how pagans of old were drawn to Christianity, not because it made sense, but because of the sense of community; the wholeness of life they experienced. The idea of 'belonging' and then 'believing.' He says "the ritual of eucharist reminds us of the deeper reality of life together."

I also liked how Chris said, "The church is the primary interpreting community for all of life" (or should be). I wish it were truer.

Asked to give their definition of "deeper church," they both gave an answer like... 'church is about more than just Sunday; it extends throughout the week; reconciliation of all things in the world; inviting people into a community way of life.'

The next main speaker was Jeremy Dowsett from Lansing, MI, who pastors Blacksoil. He talked about Evangelism, and I was glad this topic was included. He even stated that those of us in the emerging/missional conversation are often prone to just running evangelism down, but we're not so good at bringing up any new ideas or models. We too often take that "use words only when necessary" phrase to NOT talk about the good news; but it IS "necessary" to talk sometimes.

He started off by giving three criticisms of current/former evangelism practices that no longer seem to work:
1. The Transaction (fire-insurance gospel)
2. Too focused on heaven/hell (afterlife)
3. Everything reduced to God solving the sin problem (substitutionary atonement).

He cited Dave Fitch's "On-ramp" idea of building relationships through many entry points, and suggested three clusters of language for talking about the Good News (from a biblical standpoint):
1. Kingdom language
2. Promises & Inheritance language
3. Powers & Slavery language

That's really all I have for notes. I recommend going to the missional learning commons website to hear the talks and for other info.

peace out; and in.

Civil religion: the enemy of christianity

My wife Jane is taking a Sociology class and in the textbook for the class (Sociology: A Brief Introduction, Alex Thio) there is a chapter on 'Education and Religion.' There is so much to look at, but on pp. 303-304 they talk about "Civil Religion." This, to me, is the crux of the problem in a large number of churches in the good ol' US of A. So many people are adherents of this civil religion rather than Christianity, and they don't even know it (or they don't see anything wrong with it; or they see it as the same thing). I will quote directly from this secular textbook:

CIVIL RELIGION
Rather than a formal separation of church and state, sociologists see full integration of the two in the form of civil religion, a collection of beliefs, symbols, and rituals that sanctify the dominant values of a society. The civil religion is a hybrid of religion and politics. The state takes up certain religious ideas and symbols, and religion sacralizes certain political principals, backing up the government's claim to a right to rule with its own moral authority. Thus, a civil religion can unify the citizens of a country by heightening their sense of patriotism.

The U.S. civil religion includes faith in what is popularly known as the American way of life, with freedom, democracy, equality, individualism, efficiency, and other typically U.S. values as its creeds. The "American way of life," said Will Herberg (1983), is the common religion of U.S. society by which Americans define themselves and establish their unity. Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism are its "subfaiths."

God plays an important role in civil religion. God is cited on coins ("In God We Trust") and in national hymns ("God Bless America"). References to God are made in all oaths of office, in courtroom procedures, at political conventions, in the inaugural address of every president, and on practically all formal public occasions.

But the God of U.S. civil religion is not the god of any particular church. Adherence to U.S. civil religion requires only people's belief in God, however they choose to define the deity - as a personal god, an impersonal force, a supreme power, an ideal, or any other form. Americans do not have to believe in Moses, Jesus, the Bible, heaven and hell, or any other doctrine of a particular religion. They are instead exhorted to go to any church of their choice. As President Eisenhower said, "Our government makes no sense, unless it is founded on a deeply felt religious faith - and I DON'T CARE WHAT IT IS." The civil religion does not favor one particular church but, rather, religion in general. Everyone is expected to pay at least lip service to religious principles, if not to join a church, synagogue, or mosque. It is considered un-American to be godless or, worse, to attack religion.

Like a genuine religion, U.S. civil religion contains symbols, rituals, and scriptures. Its sacred writings are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. George Washington is seen as the Moses who led his people out of the hands of tyranny. Abraham Lincoln, the martyred president, is seen as the crucified Jesus and his Gettysburg Address as a New Testament. The civil religion's holy days are the Fourth of July, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, and Veterans Day, when Americans sing sacred hymns such as "The Star-Spangled Banner" and "America the Beautiful," invoke the name of God, listen to sermonlike speeches, and watch ritualistic parades. The U.S. flag, like the cross, is supposed to inspire devotion.

Oh man... There is more, but I think that paints a pretty clear picture. I don't even know where to begin. In fact, I wonder if one even CAN begin to explain what is wrong with this to someone who doesn't see it themselves. Even just simple things like Christ being superior to government; the Bible being superior to the Constitution; all religions are NOT the same; religion and Christianity are not the same thing; etc., etc., etc. I think the problem is: too much of who we are as the church is wrapped up in preserving our country and/or way of life, and not near enough is about loving God and others.

A radical party

On pp. 82-83 of Frost and Hirsch's book ReJesus they talk about the meaning of the word "radical" and how it ought to apply to Christianity (in the chapter 'ReJesus for the Church and the Organization'). They write:

While many people use the term "radical" to mean a departure from the traditional, it refers to a return to the root cause of a thing. Webster defines "radical" as 'of or pertaining to the root or origin; reaching to the center, to the foundation, to the ultimate sources, to the principles, or the like; original; fundamental; thorough-going; unsparing; extreme; as in, 'radical evils': 'radical reform'; 'a radical party.'"

I like that... "a radical party." I think that's what Jesus' people ought to be about.

They go on to discuss a 'radical traditionalism'... good stuff. On 83 they say...

But we can also learn from educational psychology in this matter. Jean Piaget, the great education psychologist, conducted much of his early research on the streets of Geneva, interviewing children and observing how they played structured games together. He noted that very small children unquestioningly played games according to the inherited rules. They slavishly obeyed the traditional rules of, say marbles, because their older siblings or their parents had taught them how to play that way. Piaget then noted that at a certain stage in the development of the child he or she wanted to throw these rules away. A rule-less game of marbles on the streets of Geneva last century was exactly as you'd expect it to be - chaos! Later in childhood, these same children, fed up with chaotic games that were always won by bullies or the most crafty, rediscovered the original rules of the game. Piaget noted how much more powerfully these rules worked in the lives of the older children. They were the same rules they were taught as tiny children. But the difference now was that they had discovered these rules as an antidote to disorder. They felt these rules were THEIR rules...

What we are advocating is a radical traditionalism. The church needs to follow the same path as the children did with their games of marbles. ReJesus, the refounding of the church, means departing from a blind, slavish allegiance to religious rules inherited from our parents and forebears. It means walking into the turmoil of chaos and daring to trust that at the end of the path will be not bedlam but a rediscovery of the way of Jesus, a rediscovery of the original rules that we can own for ourselves with greater conviction and authenticity. Jesus, as our founder, is our guide on this path. His words and his example are the constants as we leave our old traditions and look to bring the church and the gospel into new contexts of traditional radicalism.

Oh, man... this, to me, is what I liked about the 'emerging church' stuff when it was in its hayday. Good, good stuff. Jesus Radicals.

Post-church perspective

I have not read any of Frank Viola's books, but I recently came across this article: "Frank Viola on the Post-Church Perspective." To be honest, I was kind of surprised that I basically agreed with him, because from the things I'd heard about him and seen from him, I didn't think I would. Granted, I am probably a little biased towards church (as the body of Christ and local faith communities alike), because I happen to LOVE everything about the church (well, okay, maybe not EVERYthing; I am well aware there are some pretty deformed expressions of it out there). I have not always had such a love for her though, and this is why I also care a great deal about those who have been hurt by, or turned off to, the church. Overall, though, while I likely have a much looser definition of what constitutes a church community than Frank does, I think he does touch on some simple hard truths in this article - you can't call just any ol' gathering of people "church." But... I also realize I'm so far in the forest that maybe I can no longer see the trees either. So, I dunno. I think it's a good article nonetheless.

Peace out; and in.

Random links

A variety of things from various places around the internet:

• How good is health care in the USA? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4
• Dave Schmelzer talks about the difference between Bounded vs. Centered-set thinking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWqk1o6bDxA
• Smoking and the emerging church: http://djword.blogspot.com/2009/09/obamas-clove-ban-creates-crisis-in.html
• The Allen County Public Library in Fort Wayne has the Lincoln Collection: http://gotobig.com/acpl/lincolncollection/
• Good-bye to youth ministry: http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/communitylife/discipleship/istheeraofagesegmentationover.html?start=1
• Notes from The Nines (62-page Word document): http://thenines.leadnet.org/NINES_NOTES.doc

7 keys to starting a movement

This is awesome. As they say, it will be the "best 3 minutes of your day."

Go here: http://www.ragamuffinsoul.com/2009/06/youre-bad-idea-may-start-a-movement/

Six characteristics of church community

Dan Sheffield has a post "Do We Need A Missional 'Scorecard'?" I don't know about all that, but I like the list he gave from Lesslie Newbigin's 'The Gospel In A Pluralist Society' of "6 characteristics that should serve as a congregational hermeneutic of the good news." I'm not sure why you can't just say, "6 things I would like our church to be about," but anyway, click over to Dan's blog to read the details. Here are the six things:

1. a community of praise.
2. a community of truth.
3. a community that is deeply involved in the concerns of its neighborhood.
4. a commonity where men and women are prepared for and sustained in the exercise of their preisthood in the world.
5. a community of mutual responsibility.
6. a community of hope.

I like these. And I agree with D.S. that I don't like the idea of a 'scorecard.'

Why we need missional churches

I have stated before my dislike for the word "missional." I think I am starting to warm to it though. I have never had a problem with the *idea* behind the missional church - it's just a funny thing I've had with the word itself. But after reading this short and simple post from Ben... yes, we need missional churches. Count me in.

Ben quoted Kennon Callahan in his post "Goodbye churched culture." Kennon said:

A churched culture is not so much defined as a culture in which a certain statistical percentage of the population is actively participating in church work... Rather, a churched culture is a culture marked by the presence of a persistent, pervasive, major feeling among the people that the church is important.

I couldn't agree more. And I couldn't agree more with Ben's response: "I think it's safe to say that even in Fort Wayne [popularly known as the "city of churches"], this kind of culture is on its way out, and in some places is gone completely. What we have now is a mission field. Thus the need for missional churches."

Amen and amen.

Peace out; and in.

Mystagogy for the missional church

David Fitch has a nice little post, A Mystagogy For the Missional Church, that I want to remember. Mystagogy is basically the post-Easter teaching for those who had been baptized (at Easter). As Dave says, it is learning "how to live the life of the resurrection. We learn how to enter into the mysteries of the faith." I wish I had seen this before preparing my sermon for last Sunday on the difference between an "empty-tomb faith" and a "resurrection faith" (when the disciples had actually seen the resurrected Christ - John 20:19-31).

Anyway, Fitch says the missional church could use a mystagogy of its own. It is essential for discipleship. I will just list his 7 main headings, but you should click the link above and read about them (if you're interested in such talk). Here is his top seven for his church:

1. The Mystery of God Working Around Our Life Rhythms.
2. The Mystery of Meeting in Homes.
3. The Mystery of Worship as Liturgy.
4. The Mystery of Practicing Spiritual Disciplines.
5. The Mystery of the Eucharist and Baptism.
6. The Mystery of Local Politics.
7. The Mystery of Seeding New Communities.

Basically, I like these seven - though, personally, I would be leery of using the word "politics," and I would substitute "communion" for "eucharist," and I have no interest in the missional moniker (again, that's just me; I understand what he means and why he's using it). Innaresting stuff.

Peace out; and in.

Fresh expressions church

This is a very interesting little (or not so little) website: Share - A Guide to Fresh Expressions of Church. I haven't checked it out in-depth, but this looks like something I could use.

According to their site:

A fresh expression is a form of church for our changing culture, established primarily for the benefit of people who are not yet members of any church. It will come into being through principles of listening, service, incarnational mission and making disciples...

Lots and lots of good stuff here, and more to come it would appear.

Via

emerging churches: reasons and warnings

I received my May 2009 "Been Thinking About" from Mart De Haan, and it is on "Emerging Churches." It's really, really good (I think). Mart works for RBC Ministries, which is where our church gets the devotional Our Daily Bread which we give out for free. He also has a blog by the same name, and I don't know if the things I get in the mail eventually make it to the blog or not. I hope so, because I think it would be good for more people to see the entire thing. Hopefully he won't mind if I post a few tidbits here though.

I like how he points out the good things many emerging churches affirm (reasons for):

1. The triunity of God as a basis for valuing community rather than self-centered individualism.
2. Church as a mission, a conversation, and a movement of Jesus' people rather than just an organization.
3. Spiritual leaders who listen as well as teach, and who influence through example rather than authority and control.
4. A willingness to think through together the stories and mysteries of the Bible rather than just taking for granted inherited doctrinal statements.
5. Living and enjoying the Bible rather than just studying and defending it.

He also does a nice job of pointing out some issues in the traditional evangelical church that gave reason for the need to 'emerge':

1. Regarding ideas that are possible implications of the Bible as if they were necessary implications, absolutes, and tests of orthodoxy.
2. Emphasizing theology, favorite doctrines, and the letters of Paul rather than telling the stories of the Bible and of lives changed by Christ.
3. Giving the church a hypocritical reputation by politicizing homosexuality and abortion while ignoring sins of pride, racial prejudice, greed, and the abuse of women.
4. Interpreting and applying the Bible as if it were written to our generation rather than first trying to understand what it meant to the people living when it was written.
5. Seeing church authority as a matter of heirarchy and control rather than the example and servant attitudes of Jesus.

But he doesn't stop there. He also notes some of the opposite extremes the emerging church can go to as a sort of warning:

1. In an effort to honor the mystery of God and not go beyond what has been revealed, they may say less than the Bible makes clear.
2. In an attempt to live out Jesus' story of the good Samaritan, some emphasize social action at the expense of eternal considerations.
3. While talkng about a lifelone journey of faith, some are neglecting the decision that begins the journey.
4. In an effort to experience personally the way God can speak to us, some may forget that all of the New and Old Testament teaching is inspired by God for our spiritual growth.
5. While trying to avoid judgmental and condemning attitudes, some neglect what Jesus said about a coming judgment.

He wraps up by making a comparison to the churches in Revelation 2-3. I thought this was a very good, fair, and balanced look at the positives and negatives of not only the emerging church, but the traditional evangelical church as well. At least he expressed some views I have had (on both sides). I hope he makes this available online sometime. Very nicely done.

Why the emerging/missional church is so white

David Fitch has some very interesting thoughts on this HERE. Perhaps it's more interesting to me because I was at the learning commons he is referring to, and I also know Chris Hunt (who is good friends with my son, and we all had lunch together that day). But I have heard this as an issue on many, many occasions. This is the first time I've seen it addressed in any way other than, "We tried to invite others." I think David makes some good points, along with some really good comments by others that follow.

I also think Chris's post on Thoughts For White Christians is a worthwhile read, maybe from a totally different perspective. Both links are excellent, and if you're interested in such things, I highly recommend them.

Peace out; and in.

Next-wave retrospective on the emerging church

Next-Wave Ezine turned ten, and the January edition features talk on the EC in NA. Shephen Shields gives a nice overview of its history, and a two-part interview with Jordon Cooper, Brian McLaren, Scot McKnight, Tony Jones, Dan Kimball, and Andrew Jones: Ten Years Out: A Retrospective On The Emerging Church in North America, and A Retrospective on the Emerging Church in North America Pt. 1, and A Retrospective on the Emerging Church in North America Pt. 2.

It's funny, because just the other day I was thinking about some of the early discussions on the emerging church, and how it really connected with me, and still does. I can remember getting info on the Young Leaders Network when I was in seminary, and, while I've always felt like a goldfish in the ocean, I've probably been influenced more by many of these people than any other. Even though I have never been officially 'involved' with anything or anyone, I've always felt like we kind of grew together, and started out around the same time (I will have been a pastor for 10 years in August).

Perhaps this is why I feel more connected to the term "emerging" than "missional." I don't know. In all honesty, I still just don't like the word "missional." Not that I don't like what it means, or the people who use the word... I just don't care for the word. It's not that 'emerging' doesn't have its own issues too, but I feel a sort of bond with it.

At any rate, happy anniversary Next-Wave. I really didn't intend to put down any thoughts about this, but more just wanted to bookmark the articles for myself, for posterity more than anything.

ADDED LATER - also a nice post by DD on The Emerging Landscape. Good stuff.

Peace out, folks; and in.

Christmas: the missional holiday?

While trying to decide what to say before we shared communion on Christmas Eve I had this idea pop into my head: Doesn't it seem like Easter is the "big" Evangelical holiday, and Christmas is more the "big" Missional/Emerging holiday? Not that both aren't important in each camp, but Easter centers around the fact that Jesus came to DIE for us, and Christmas is more that Jesus came into the world to LIVE for us.

I realize I am seriously stereotyping, but part of the problem some evangelicals have is they can lean too far towards Easter and only thinking about the implications of what Jesus' death and resurrection meant (atonement for sin; going to heaven when we die). I think it is just as important that God chose to COME INTO the world in the first place... to live among us; as one of us; being 'incarnate.'

I like the idea that God chooses to do things "with" us, and not just "for" us.

I dunno... I haven't really thought this through... but it was a thought.

To emerging and beyond...

I have heard talk lately of Scot McKnight and Dan Kimball spearheading some kind of new movement, sort of for those who are 'emerging' but not necessarily 'emergent' (I think; maybe; I dunno). It has something to do with the Lausanne Covenant, which I have heard of, but am linking here because I don't know that much about it and should probably give it a read sometime.

Anyway, I guess I am interested to see what Scot and Dan work out, because I have a great deal of respect for the two of them. I have actually met Scot, and emailed a few times, and we both came from north-central Illinois; and Dan has been kind enough to comment on my blog before, and we share similar tastes in music, and I have always admired the way he patiently explains things and his commitment to evangelism. So I am anxious to see what they come up with.

I wish we could just be called 'Christians' or 'Christ-followers' though. But I suppose that's a bit too idealistic. Just don't call me Shirley. We'll see what's next.

Church as a natural result

I got this quote from The Tangible Kingdom from Grace. This is the next book I want to read.

Church gatherings were never the intended goal; they were the natural result of people finding others who were living their alternative Kingdom story. The goal of our missional life is not to grow churches. The goal of church is to grow missionaries. The goal of the gospel is not to get people to church. The result of the gospel is that people will find each other and gather because of the deep meaning of a common experience.

This is why we encourage church planters not to start the church by launching a church service. Instead, we advocate that they launch people and add the gatherings as needed. When people are bent on mission first, the gathering takes on different purposes. We have found that when the primary values are outward mission and incarnational life, the gathering becomes more about connecting people, corporate storytelling, vision casting, and celebration.

Kimball's "missional"

I have always liked the way Dan Kimball thinks. In fact, I think he is my favorite church thinker. I wish I could be more like him. Balanced and patient in his explanations, but not afraid to speak his mind. I would rank he, Scot McKnight, John Ortberg and Jim Martin as the top four guys I look up to in my "field."

Scot had a post yesterday asking if the two terms "Emerging" and "Emergent" should be used for two different and differing segments of the larger emerging movement. Personally, I don't really even care anymore. I'm burned out on the whole thing at the moment. But eventually Dan had a long, long comment that included this definition of the term missional:

I personally see missional as meaning you are foremost living as worshipers of God and following the teachings of Jesus, but your whole life blood and decision-making and intentionality as a Christian community is designed around evangelism - that of course includes social activism in helping with the physical and holistic emotional needs of people locally and globally and it also includes the eventual Spirit-produced action in seeing those who weren’t Christians becoming Christians.

Howeber, I am more and more finding it a paradox that in my experience, a significant amount of the missional talk that I personally have been hearing is not including or giving specific stories or examples of people who were not Christians becoming Christians as an eventual result of being missional. I am not embrassed whatsoever to say in as I think of missional and what that looks like in our church - is that we pray, hope, dream and passionately long to see God move in people’s who are not aware of the grace of God and salvation through Jesus and what happened on cross - discover who He is, repent, trust in Him and become Christians (in the healthy definition of “Christian”).

I think he was maybe in a hurry, as the spelling and grammar look like mine, but... I like what he had to say. We're either sharing the Good News or we're not. And there are boatloads of ways we can do it. But whether it's in big ways, small ways, loud ways or subtle ways... we need to be doing it if we're following Jesus.

I think I will start going by the name "Dan" myself, since he's so smart. So from now on please call me Dan. Okay?

Out of shape(ing)

I finished The Shaping of Things To Come. That's probably the quickest I've read a book in awhile (other than on vacation). Two quotes towards the end that really jumped out at me were:

(p.187) One of the best working definitions of poverty is not just the lack of money but the lack of a dream, a vision, hope. Darryl Gardiner, the director of Youth for Christ in New Zealand, believes that one of the core missional tasks when working with the poor is to help them to begin to dream again. The poor, in Darryl's view, are people without a dream. It is the missionary's task to rouse the imaginative abilities that lie at the base of the human soul in order to awaken the possibilities for a new gospel future and to access the deepest sources of human motivation - faith, love, pleasure, and hope. It is to awaken a sense of purpose, of mission, in life. No less is needed to help birth and nurture the missional church in the West. We need to dream again, and to do this we must cultivate a love for imagination. Before we can do it, we need to dream it.

Wow. Yeah. I could apply this in so many different situations and directions. It is so true, but also so troubling (to me, personally). Maybe not as much as this next quote on p. 223. They share a parable from Soren Kierkegaard about how when the wild geese fly overhead, the tame geese on the ground run about flapping their wings trying to imitate them...

The twist in this tale is this: that while it has been observed that wild geese have become tame... it has seldom been observed that tame geese can become wild again. We need to beware of the anesthetizing and stultifying effects that Christendom, the tame, nonmissional church, and our safe middle classness have had on us.

You know, I'm no good at book reviews and things like that. But I'll just say this about this book: It has pissed me off, but at the same time it ticks me off partly because it seems to be saying the exact things I was THINKING when I first had inklings to plant a church. And... this is a leadership-type book, and I am pretty much going to react negatively to any leadership type of stuff. But that doesn't always mean I don't agree with it. It's just how I am. I don't like it, and I don't exactly know why I do it. But it happens.

On the one hand, I think I reacted negatively to some of this stuff because it pointed out how I have been "tamed." I don't dream anymore. The fire's been dampened. I mean, though, it's not like I agreed with everything in the book. But overall I agree with what they're saying.

On the other hand, as I kinda said, it was nice to read stuff that's been in my head for years and years and have it put down into charts and graphs and paragraphs. My mind isn't able to be quantified as such, but this is the kind of movement I've been stirred by since early on in my spiritual journey. And sometimes it's irritating. I mean, I felt I was thrust toward ministry by nothing short of a driving passion for a particular group of people. It was never to be a "pastor" or anything like that. When I went to seminary I had no idea where it would lead... but I knew who I had a heart for! And I can remember talking with church planting people and they kinda steered me away from the notion because... you know... I'm not the most dynamic of personalities, and I had no real visions for how to "grow" the thing, and all the baggage I seem to carry on my shoulder (is that a chip on your shoulder or are you just glad to see me). So sometimes I think I've sold out, you know.

The truth is, though... life is long. And sometimes God takes us on these journeys, and it's not without good reason. I don't particularly know what the reason is... and maybe it doesn't matter. But I believe Jesus can redeem and restore anyone and anything... And sometimes things aren't the way they appear. And sometimes our ways are not his ways. And maybe waste is only something seen in human terms, not in God's economy.

Reading this book reminded me of the days when we had the Friday Night Freaks Bible Study back home. I was all into the Jesus People thing, and going to C-stone, and thinking about communal living, and I'd go to work in the chimney factory and talk about the stories I'd read in the Bible and how cool it was, and... Glenn Kaiser and Darrel Mansfield and Larry Howard... and...

Dang, my office is a pigsty.