Calling and Convictions

I'm in this on-line church planting class called Missio which approaches things from a "missional" perspective. (yes that over-used word again, I know)

Here are my answers to a recent assignment.

1) What is your best understanding to date of what you sense God is asking you to 'be' and 'do?'

I feel called to create communities that worship Christ, love each other, and make the world a better place through tangible acts of service. I still wonder about the extent to which I should do this vocationally. I'm glad my current calling allows me to "work" part time in a way that is highly integrated. I know this is where I'm supposed to be right now, but will I always be a "pastor"? I don't know.

2) What are your top 3-5 conviction statements (Zer0 page 9 worksheet)?

• The world as we know it is not acceptable!
• We need to calibrate our actions for change. We need to operate in a sustainable emergency mode.

• Knowing Christ is paramount.

• Sustainability is paramount
  

• No one lives in a bubble, our actions are interrelated.

• The autonomy and conscience of individuals must be respected.
• In other words, disagree with out being disagreeable. We need to have convictions, but we need to learn to see things from other peoples perspective as well. In theology and politics, people somehow impute "sin" on people that don't see things their way. Pastors in particular have the potential to do great harm in this respect. I want to create a community where people are free to question the status-quo, including my personal convictions, but in a loving and respectful way. No doubt this is a reaction to dogmatic leaders, a problem I see in the missional community as much as anywhere.
  

• An improved Christian understanding of calling, particularly as it concerns vocation, has the potential to radically change the world for the better.
• From a macro perspective, I see governments and non-profits (including the organized "church") as givens when it comes to eradicating suffering. (that's not entirely true, but bear with me.) Google's motto: "Don't be evil", the philanthropy of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, these are examples of a force that if radically multiplied, could substantially improve the quality of life for millions. Therefore, empowering Christians to take ownership of their vocation, and see it as more than just a way to pay the bills, is something I am very passionate about.

• Sin warps the ability of individuals to completely know "the truth". Therefore we ought to operate with a great deal of humility.

• Critical thinking is paramount.

3) How does your understanding of your calling connect or disconnect from your primary convictions (from question 2 above)?

For the most part it connects. I'm very comfortable with where I'm at right now as it relates to my sense of calling. However sometimes I wonder if I couldn't do more good if I was involved in a for-profit (i.e. sustainable) enterprise that also uniquely contributed to making the world a better place, and then sought to join with others in a faith community, possibly taking on some leadership roles, but without the pros and cons of a salary.

Missional Defination in Art and Scripture

Philippians 2:6-7
Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being.

Matthew 28:18
Jesus came and told his disciples, “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go...

John 20:21
As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.

Mark 2:16
But when the teachers of religious law who were Pharisees saw him eating with tax collectors and other sinners, they asked his disciples, “Why does he eat with such scum?

1 Corinthians 9:22
I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.

A word of explanation
Rich over at Blindbegger, as well as many others I am finding, feel that the word missional is loosing it's meaning. Consequently he has called for a synchroblog event, happening today, to discuss the defination of the word missional.

Since I'm sure other people will do a better job than I at putting pen to paper, what you see above is my contribution to a working defination. Those pictures were not chosen randomly, rather, I believe they each carry great meaning. The word missional means the life of we who are the church centered on three things: Jesus, The Mission of God, and a sense of community; meaning an awareness of the interrelatedness of humanity, and the need to be in relationship.

The first picture obviously depicts Jesus, the center of all things, but just as important is the fact that in this picture Christ is incarnate in and for a particular ethnic community. There is nothing wrong with a blond hair/blue eyed Jesus'... in Scandinavia, or any community that is truly that homogeneous. (though I would question how truly homogeneous communities that think they are, are.) Jesus was God made flesh, for a particular community, the Jews in his historical case. We too must seek to reflect Christ in our particular communities, authentically engaging people where they are at.

People should not have to cross cultural boundaries to come to Christ. Unfortunately on it's worst days, the size and weight of the evangelical community has created its own sub-culture, one allian to those not initiated. It is a subculture wholly un-Christ like in that it serves as a barrier to those on the outside. We don't GO as Christ taught us, we say COME; and when your just like me you can belong... if you take this class and pass the test. (Of course there are good days too. Take a look at who is actually rebuilding New Orleans.)

The second picture is meant to convey a sense of "going", or being on the move. It's an added bonus, that in the picture the world seems to be passing the church by. How true. To avoid this we have to evaluate how we spend out time. How many relationships do we have with people outside the church? And how much of our time goes to those people? Jesus left the comfort of church err... heaven, and went to where people were at, usually the "sick" not those who are "well"... (in church?) (This is an area I certainly struggle in.)

The final picture is meant to convey a sense of community and relationship. To love our neighbor as ourselves demands an awareness of our communities both local and global, and an understanding of how what I do impacts others. The teachings of Jesus demand lived beliefs that impact the communities we are a part of.

In contrast, much of the church lives with a dualism that acts as if A) doesn't impact B). Ironically the church often talks about breaking down this dualism, and in some ways does. But several Biblical concepts, justice and equality in particular, have been given very little attention. Instead, we who are the church have reflected a greater commitment to a kind of capitalism which is unencumbered with the ethics of Christ or a concern for those most in need. Sure we give of our time and money. But then our spending and investing habits, and the actions of our elected representatives (on both sides of the aisle) undo all the good we were tying to do, illustrating the dualism we are talking about.

Having said all of this, I am concerned that we who are authentically using the word missional (i.e. not just tagging it on to a very attractional thing.) none the less struggle to live it out. I certainly do, especially in the area of economic justice. There is a real danger that all we are talking about is degrees of separation on the wrong side of the equation. Do we really want to trumpet Jesus as our guide and example if we struggle as much as we do to live up to his over-the-top example?

Take these pictures for what their worth, and by all means, feel free to critique. For a fuller defination see the links below.

Synchroblog Participants

Alan Hirsch . Alan Knox . Andrew Jones . Barb Peters . Bill Kinnon . Brad Brisco . Brad Grinnen . BradSargent . BrotherMaynard . Bryan Riley . Chad Brooks . Chris Wignall . Cobus Van Wyngaard . Dave DeVries . David Best . DavidFitch . David Wierzbicki . DoSi . Doug Jones . Duncan McFadzean . Erika Haub . Grace . Jamie Arpin-Ricci . Jeff McQuilkin . John Smulo . Jonathan Brink . JR Rozko . Kathy Escobar . Len Hjalmarson . Makeesha Fisher . Malcolm Lanham . Mark Berry . Mark Petersen . Mark Priddy . Michael Crane . Michael Stewart . Nick Loyd . Patrick Oden . Peggy Brown . Phil Wyman . Richard Pool . Rick Meigs . Rob Robinson . Ron Cole . Scott Marshall . Sonja Andrews . Stephen Shields . Steve Hayes . Tim Thompson . Thom Turner

What is Missional Church? Ryan Bolger- Video (2)

At the end of the video (see previous post) Ryan asks this question:

"How do we make our way of life and our worship (i.e. church) consistent with both the life of Jesus and with our culture?"

Appropriately a question is the best one line definition of both emerging and missional church. Not that a one line defination is all that useful or appropriate, but none the less...

What is Missional Church? Ryan Bolger- Video

Here is a video in which Allan Roxburgh interviews one of my favorite Fuller profs, Ryan Bolger. They are discussing the definition of missional church vis-a-vis the emerging church, and Ryan's own journey in this direction.

I highly recommend taking the time to watch this. It is very very good. Ryan is an A list pro on the topic and is able to communicate coherently what others, including myself, struggle to articulate.

On Metaphor

Before we continue to examine the scandal of the cross I would like to take a brief look at the concept of metaphor and symbol, as it is important to understanding theological discourse.



This is not a boat

It is just a pile of 1’s and 0’s that most assuredly will not float. It is in a sense a metaphor or symbol for a boat, not an actual boat. Furthermore it is a number of other things all together: a picture, a photograph, in this case a piece of art, it could represent history, it is html code, and maybe a few other things as well. One thing it is not, is an actual floating boat.

So it is with theological language. The language, even the concepts are not the reality behind them. The word atonement, event the concept of atonement is not the same as what Jesus actually did on the cross, especially from his and/or God's perspective.

If we want to talk about boats its nice to have a picture of one, but its not the same as sailing. And like wise, when we need to talk about theology (and we most assuredly do need to talk about it) its nice to have word pictures and concepts to use, but it is not the same as the actual reality.

Secondly, boats change. A dugout canoe and an aircraft carrier, they both float in water, but are slightly different. Over the course of time, depending on the needs of the user, boats and metaphors change.

Thirdly, boats and metaphors are bound up in their time and place, and must be used or at least understood in light of their surrounding culture. No one wants to float an aircraft carrier down a river, and a navy man doesn’t want to go to war with a dugout canoe.

All of this comes into play when interpreting the Bible. We can’t just grab words and or metaphors out of the Bible without being cognizant of the authors surrounding culture and his intent. Additionally while we absolutely want to hold on to the original metaphors, we need to realize that, A, they must be translated, and B, they already have been translated, over and over again through two thousand years of church history. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, just something to recognize and be aware of. (though when done improperly it certainly is a bad thing.)

Additionally, we also bring our baggage to the table. Those of us who have grown up in the church have been raised with X metaphor, or Y metaphor for this or that. Those metaphor’s may have been appropriate to their original audience, (or not) and they may continue to be appropriate in this particular time and place, (or not). (Don’t read too much doubt into that last sentence, I’m just stating that either/or may be true) Consequently, we need to occasionally reexamine if the metaphors we are using, communicate to our audience A, what the original author wanted them to communicate, and B, what we want to communicate. Yes, A and B are often the same thing, but not necessarily. For instance, Paul may address women covering their heads, we may simply choose to only address modesty, or respect.

I say all of this simply to serve as background for the upcoming post on the scandal of the cross, but also for your own benefit in your own future endeavors in Biblical interpretation. I think it also illustrates that though the Bible may be infallible, interpreting it certainly is not.

Do you look at all of this a different way? Please tell me about it.

Mission Midwest

So as regulars to this site know, one of my primary goals in attending seminary was to learn to live a missional life style in the midst of Western culture. Now I’m residing in La Crosse, Wisconsin, and trying to put some of what I’ve learned into action. I’m not doing to well.

Why? Part of the answer is time, with a new son and long work hours, there isn’t much time left for being involved with the community. Another is a lack of discipline. With all the new stuff in my life, I forgot, or actually I should say chose, (not purposefully) to set aside the more important things, the spiritual disciplines, worship, acts of service, Bible reading, fasting, and the like. That's changing now, but I’m still struggling to get my arms around the “culture” of the Midwest, and specifically La Crosse. I’ve met some interesting people so that’s good. And I’ve gotten my co-workers to start recycling so that’s cool, but on the whole, I’m behind the learning curve.

One of the things that is important to living a missional life style and is important to me, are those in need and the relationship between rich and poor. Part of what I’m trying to understand is the relationship between rich and poor in La Crosse. One thing that is true, is that compared to Los Angles, and large cities in general, the distance between the two is smaller in La Crosse. Generally speaking, the poor around here are not as poor as they are in the city, and the rich are not as rich as they are in Los Angles or other cities. Another angle on this question is: what is the relationship between those in La Crosse and those in the nearby large cities, Minneapolis, Milwaukee and Chicago. What I’m getting at is the fact that we are all part of the larger American culture. If the poor aren’t in my neighborhood, as they were for me in Los Angles, or in my county as they are even for the rich in LA, than what is my responsibility to them and they to me? I’m back on track now in terms of the spiritual disciplines, but I’m just beginning to get my arms around the local culture.

So with all of that being said, I'm wondering what you think. Do you have any ideas about missional living in the Midwest and small towns in general? If you do I would love to hear from you.

Some Links

Rick over at the Blind Beggar has some good stuff to say. Check out these posts.

Praying for the soon return of christ - Not

What Missional is Not

I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For

This morning I was spending a little time worshipping and reflecting on Christ before I went to church. I was listening to U2’s “I Still Hhaven’t Found, What I’m Looking For”, and I thought to myself, why does this song resonate with me so much? (cause I’m not a Christian, or Christianity isn’t the answer?) (no, just kidding)

The technical answer sprung to my mind, and it was comforting, sort of…

The technical answer is that we live in both the “now” and “not yet” of the Kingdom of God. Not surprisingly, this side of heaven, not even the best of church services, or pleasure of any kind can compete with what we will have on the other side of this life. Even on our best days, when we are closest to the Father, (as close as we can be that is) we are still so far away, because nothing on this side can compare with the union we will experience on the other side of heaven. Consequently the phrase “I still haven’t found what I’m looking for” resonates with us.

This technical answer is only partially comforting because it means that most likely, this side of heaven, we will never completely experience what we were created for, and if I have my druthers, it will be quite some time before I do.

Now all of this may make me sound a bit holy, but that previous sentence is key, my actions show that obviously, finding “what I’m looking for” isn’t really that important. Though we can’t experience God the way we will in heaven, we can experience him on this earth more fully, though how, if, and why, is a complex amalgamation. Part of the how, if, and why, has to do with obedience, and that is an area I often fail in.

Whats Orthodox?

An excerpt from a post by Kyle Potter.

If I managed to gather in a room, Al Mohler, Brian McLaren, Benedict XVI, John Zizioulas, Rowan Williams, Donald Miller, John Piper, Kendall Harmon and just for fun added Ambrose of Milan, Clement of Rome, Lord Jesus the Christ, Augustine of Hippo, Martin Luther and John Calvin and asked them each to make a list of the absolute boundaries of Christian orthodoxy, it would be a pretty diverse and often (I daresay) mutually exclusive collection of bullet points.

Read the rest here

Emerging Church (2)

Mark 9:38-41 "Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us." "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us."

So about a year ago I was introduced to the Emerging Church (EC) by a class of that name. I blogged about it at the time here. I’m writing now to correct some of my misconceptions I had at the time. (What is the emerging church? Click here, here and here.)

Since then I have read some of McLaren’s work, Church on the Other Side, and A Generous Orthodoxy, and taken a few more classes on related topics, ones such as Doing Theology in Context, and Church as Mission. And during this last spring break (all of one week) I read Gibb and Bolger’s Emerging Church. So now I have a few more things to say about the topic, most of which is just re-hashing things which, if your at all conversant on this topic, you have already seen somewhere else.

This is my take, my present position in the conversation: I love it, I have some critiques, but I love it.

Why? Because it is seeking to missionally engage a group of people (postmodern culture) that would not darken the door of a church, or have, and got burned. Additionally, although postmodern culture has elements that are anti-Christian, I think it is an improvement on modern culture which is itself very anti-Christian, and which the evangelical church is thoroughly in league with. (Granted, not always to the point of being un-Christ like.) Regardless, postmodernity or whatever comes next is where we are going.

The number one thing I have taken hold of while here at seminary is being missional, a word brought to life by the sentence: people should not have to cross cultural boundaries to come to Christ. Arguably, the EC is doing this better than anyone else in the West.

I’m not sufficiently intellectually or culturally postmodern to truly be full-tilt in that camp, which is ok. If there is anything I’ve learned in the past two years, it’s that authenticity is essential! Culturally I’m in a middle morass, too much of a geek to really engage postmodern culture authentically, too evangelical to be the EC, and too relativistic to be evangelical (with a few fundamentalist and un-orthodox streaks thrown in for good measure). And again, all of this is ok with me. I really don’t get too hung up on what label is most appropriate to slap on my forehead.

One of my biggest misconceptions at my original introduction was that art and candles made one an EC. I critiqued this as being simply a Gen-X seeker sensitive thing. I was right to notice that there are indeed such contraptions, but wrong to put these under the rubric of EC.

All of this being said, I still have some critiques.

I’m a bit concerned about possible EC syncretism with postmodern culture, but that is a challenge for the church in every culture. I’m not entirely sure how to draw the line between being missional, and syncretism, but I’m pretty sure that all of us, fundamentalist, evangelical, postmodern, have some challenges in that area.

Another is putting Jesus first, no really. When I play at theology, I have to question if any person of the trinity should be put in front of another. It tends to lead to a cannon within a cannon, which I have also noticed to be true of some elements of the EC (the gospels come first), but they have rightly critiqued the evangelical church for tending to put the Pauline texts first, or the charismatic/Pentecostal church for putting the Spirit first to the exclusion of others. So it’s an understandable pendulum swing, and even a defensible position.

The argument goes that Jesus was the fullest revelation of God, so he should be more normative than God the Father or God the Holy Spirit, who we arguably know less about. I might point out that we are filled with the Holly Ghost, but let's not get into that.

The last is leadership without control. I’m critiquing this mainly from a practical perspective. As the leaders of Emergent pointed out, someone has to figure out who is going to bring the plates and cups, figuratively speaking. This challenge applies to both the local body, and the conversation/movement as a whole. Some, or even most in the group want this to be purely a conversation. But the formation of Emergent, clearly marks it as, if not a movement, something a little more formed than simply a conversation, a fact which really gets under the skin of some in the conversation.

Some groups as detailed in Gibb’s and Bolger’s book have taken this to an extreme, having very little leadership. But others, having gone there, realize it dosn’t work too well, and are now exercising more control. Again, it’s an understandable pendulum swing. Following so many abuses of leadership by the fundamentalist and evangelical church, it’s not surprizing that many want a form of Christian spirituality, devoid of leadership. However, I think that no leadership can result in just as much if not more spiritual abuse as having a strong leader. (Often what emerges is defacto leadership, an un-named power source that everyone is aware of, but does nothing about. This is very dishonest.)

In conclusion, I want space. Space for the EC to do its thing, and space for the evangelical church to continue to do its thing. And space for the two to learn from each other, and stop throwing stones. There need not be so much of this, particularly since both groups share the same body of Christ, and live in glass houses.

Where am I personally going? How will I function? I want authentic, missional communities. That requires dialog. Dialog with the local community of believers, and dialog with the larger local culture, which is daily becoming global. Spiritual Practices, (which arguably everything is) must be, among other things, authentic. I’m more concerned with that process, authentic dialog taking place, than with what that eventually looks like. I’m certainly not going to buy an EC kit and strap it onto whatever congregation I end up in, but to be fair, I am oriented in that direction, so we’ll just have to wait and see.

Rom 14:4 “Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.”

Relativism, Power, and the Need for a Standard

So I like to think of myself as being fairly postmodern, fairly relativistic, but at the end of the day, from a technical philosophical perspective, I am definitely not a relativist or postmodern. Yet at the same time, I abhor the certainty of modernity, something the evangelical church of the 20th century loves.

So I’m kind of in a no-man’s land. Ironically, it’s one of the foundations of many conservative positions, the depravity of humanity, that helps put me in this place. I mean think about, if we are all horribly evil people, entirely dependent on the grace of God, why would we be certain of much of anything?

You can see all of this flushed out to a greater degree by reading one of Amy’s post’s on the A-Team blog, Relativism, Power, and the Need for a Standard - Part Two, which I left a number of comments on. Check it out here.

Blogging the EC Class at Fuller

Kyle is blogging through his Emerging Church Class, which you can check out here. It's very good stuff. The class is being taught by Ryan Bolger and Eddie Gibbs, authors of a book called: Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures which I only mention cause I get $5 for every book puchased through this link.

...just kidding, you take me way too seriously.

Allan had a nice post and comment conversation here.

The post discuses the rule of life (not rules) for his community, the emergence of Emergent (capital E) as a quasi corporate movement, and the emerging churches relationship to Roman Catholicism.

Though it's a bit leangthy, I think it is really worth your time.

Emerging History

So apparently, the emerging church conversation has been around long enough to be looked at historically. I suppose I knew this, but I didn't really know what that history was. Click here to for Andrew’s take on the history, as well as excellant definations of both the word "emergent" and "missional".

I personally am more commited to the concept of missional than to emerging, but frankly I find the emerging paradigm most condusive to what I want in a church; and afterall, when it comes to picking a church, it is all about me isen't it. ; )

The Medium is Not Condusive to the Message

A couple days ago I pointed out that “seeker sensitive: may be more “missional” than some would like to imagine. But today I’ll give you the critique of the “seeker sensitive” model. This post and the previous post come out of a 10 page paper I turned in this past quarter entitled Seeker Sensitive and Missional? In it I offered not only the critiques but the responses as well. If you want a copy of my ramblings, just e-mail me.

So what are those things that are said to be sinful about the “seeker sensitive” approach? Below are two of them. (and here, here, here, and here are a whole bunch more)

The first is that it does not present the “whole” gospel, a critique levied by both conservatives and progressives. A conservative perspective would point out that many of the sermons preached in the Bible were hardly of a seeker sensitive nature. Instead, we have Peter forcefully telling the people of Jerusalem that it is they who are responsible for crucifying Jesus. Whatever part of the Gospel is shared in a seeker sensitive way, it is usually not the part about judgment, and sin. The more progressive in the Church would like to point out that most suburban churches are likely to have a reduced view of what the gospel or “good news” is. “What about the serving the poor and the sick?” they would say. “What about justice, and systemic evil?”

A second critique has its genesis in the person of Marshall McLuhan, who said, concerning communication, "the medium is the message" (This is a huge concept that I’m not going to go into here. Click the link to find out more.) With this in mind, pastors have some serious thinking to do. If it is true that two of the most potent, anti-gospel aspects of our society are consumerism and individualism, what does that say about the mediums we use to communicate the good news of Jesus Christ?

In a seeker sensitive service, nothing is done to confront them. Even if the words of the sermon address it, the medium encourages it. In most mega churches, individuals come with a great deal of anonymity, and effectively consume the worship. They get an emotional high from the professionals up front, without ever participating in a real community. Even for the serious Christian, the format of the mega church worship service is highly individualistic. It is one way, from the professional to the customer; and at best, returned one way, from individuals to God, irrespective of what is happening around them.

How is my neighbor this morning? Do I know their name? Could they tell me if there was a crisis in their life? Would I tell them if there was one in mine? The seeker sensitive worship service is not conducive to what it really means to be the Church.

So what does it “really mean to be church”, I don’t know. But that won’t stop me from telling you what I think in my next post. But before I do, what do you think?

“Every theology has a context...”

“To understand many of the methods in this book, you need to understand the context in which they were developed. Otherwise, you might be tempted to copy things we did without considering the context. Please do not do this! Instead look beneath the methods to see the transferable principles on which they are based.”

“I decided we would make no effort to attract Christians from other churches to _______. We would not even borrow workers from other area churches. Since I felt called to reach unbelievers, I determined to begin with unbelievers.”

“You won’t be able to transfer our context. Every church operates in a unique cultural setting. To artificially plant a _______ clone in a different environment is a formula for failure.”

So which cutting edge, emerging church, missional guru said all this?

None. They are the teachings of non other than the routinely disparaged, Rick Warren, in his much maligned book, The Purpose Driven Church. (at least here at Fuller.)

It’s not even him so much, at least not him as a person, rather it’s his way of doing church, a way that is said to be, on it’s best day, not sufficiently cognisant of its culture, and on it’s worst…down-right evil. More on that tomorrow.

What I’m getting at with these quotes is that while there may be some valid critiques of the “seeker sensitive” approach, I think what happens at many “seeker sensitive” churches may be more missional than some might like to imagine.

Think about it. If your trying to reach culturally Christian suburbanites, many of whom work in a corporate environment, is it any surprise that CEO models of pastoring, combined with a “professional” service flourish?

I like much of what I hear in the “emerging” conversation at Fuller and in blog land, and I’ll probably end up being involved in some of it. But I think that all too often there is a bad case of group think going on. What is being suggested is good, but it’s not gospel, and I believe that many that don’t speak emergingese or missionese are doing it none-the-less.

The emerging church does not have a corner on being missional in the west.

Missionaries Get the Emerging Church

Ryan had this to say about his conversations with missionaries on the emerging church.

"...What resonated with him? A focus on Jesus stories, yep. All of life sacred, no split -- yep. Church service replaced by hospitality as the primary connecting point, check. Dialog in humility, acknowledging errors, yes. Recognizing truths in the host culture and religion, yes. Holy Spirit was there before the missionary, yes. Indigenous local, almost pagan looking worship, yes. Leadership in teams, yes. Lots of prayer and spiritual activities outside the service, yes, yes, yes..."

Read the whole post here.

Missional Small Groups

There is a church in Las Vegas in which only 14 of their 25 small groups are listed in the church service directory. Why? Because the other 11 don’t have a start/stop time.

Instead they function as a family, 2’s and 3’s getting together several times a week, most of the group getting together once or twice a week for whatever, celebrating birthdays and anniversaries, just generally being a family, being the people of God. Not that they are totally insular, plenty of new people come; the friends of the people that are already a part of it, in fact at any given time, as many as 50% of the people might not identify themselves as Christians.

Got any thoughts, what might the pros and cons be?

Saddleback Critiques

So I visited Saddleback Church this past Sunday. It was part of an assignment for which we have to visit a church and ask two questions based simply on our observance of one service, what does this community understand the word “church” to mean, and what does it understand the word “gospel” to mean?

There are no shortage of critiques of the “seeker sensitive mega-church” model. They are generally along the lines of wattering down the gospel, being too individualistic, not being critical enough of the corporate jargon it is swalling, and on the whole being a fairly singular model. (i.e. white, suburban, middleclass)

I think many of these are valid, but I’m starting to tire of all the complaining I hear. (some other time we will have to talk about the difference between a “critique” and a “complaint” if there is one)

If my favorite model (this month), the house church, was sweeping the nation, no doubt there would be no shortage of critiques of that, probably along the lines of also being too individualistic, possibly cultic, power abuses, no accountability, etc...

So in response to the critiques of the mega church model I’m starting to ask questions like:

Would a missional community with high church sympathies look a lot like saddleback?

or

How would a church in Orange County that is "true to it’s zip code" be different than Saddleback?

Got some thoughts? Go ahead and leave a comment.

McLaren at Fuller

On Tuesday I attended a lecture given by Bryan McLaren. Here are a few of his points in no particular order.

Many are rightly against various dangerous risks in postmodernism.
What about modernity? What are the dangers there?
If we are going to complain that postmodernism has terrible side affects, will the church offer an alternative, or will it continue to protect excessive confidence.

This modernity vs postmodernity debate is the tale side of the coin.
Instead lets talk about colonialism and post-colonialism.
How have the things that led to colonialism infiltrated our own churches?

We often package the “West” with the Christian faith.
People of the 2/3 world are trying to figure out how to un-bundle JC from the “West”.
The “gospel” of the west is entirely too thin.

We can say unequivocally that the world is changing, period! Epistemology and postmodern debates are the past; they are a “Western” debate that has nothing to do with where we are emerging to. They can only be useful if they help us move into the present.

My reaction: cautious acceptance. I have no doubt that the way the world and people see themselves has already changed and will continue to do so. What to do about it is the big question. In one sense I have the answer, “be missional”, don’t just do stuff, stuff at times called missions or evangelism, stuff divorced from our regular lives, but rather be something, be missional, be the church, be who Christ created you to be.

Now…what does that look like? I have no idea…ok I have some ideas, but I wouldn’t call them facts, and I certainly wouldn’t prescribe them for your use, what “being” looks like is something you and your community in conjunction with the Holy Spirit will have to decide, and not just once, but maybe everyday.

ok...not really everyday ; )