The Chick-Fil-A day on Wednesday, followed by the kiss-in yesterday--whew, boy, I'm glad both sides were able to effectively show their love for chicken! Dan Cathy answered a question accurately and well, then many who disagree with what he said (or thought he said) overreacted, then many who agreed with what he said (or thought he said) overreacted in response to the first overreaction.
It's been fun, challenging and disheartening to read all of the flapping about this plucky issue. (Sorry, couldn't resist...) All in all I'm still not sure what I believe about it, other than both (or multiple?) sides in this issue got many things wrong. But this post isn't really about CFA, it's about something I read as I perused the news. One blog I read (www.matthewpaulturner.net) got a response from someone at Biola, and there was a quote the responder said that I couldn't resist giving a little bit of a rant about.
In response to Turner's statement that a bunch of Christians heading to CFA last Wednesday may say a lot of things, but it doesn't say "I love you" to someone in the gay community, the responder disagreed, hinting that it might have been "tough love", and suggested, as his first alternative way of showing love to homosexuals, to "warmly invite them to church..."
I know a lot of people who love Jesus and love his community of saints, but still wouldn't see a warm invitation to church as the first way they think of to show love to people they disagree with. I know solid believers that wouldn't necessarily feel loved if THEY got invited to someone's church, warmly or not.
How about warmly invite them to dinner?
Warmly invite them to a round of golf?
To coffee?
To your kids' birthday party?
Surely there could have been a better way to show love than invite to church. Or to have headed to Chick-Fil-A.
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Sunday, August 05, 2012
Monday, January 02, 2012
Book Review: Going Deep by Gordon MacDonald
I first read Ordering Your Private World by Gordon MacDonald while still in college in the late 80s, and I've been a fan ever since. From early pastoral success to public sin to healing and restoration, I've enjoyed his writing and been inspired by his life. I still remember a somewhat heated "discussion" I had with a now well-known pastor/evangelist at an FCA retreat about whether or not someone caught in adultery had forfeited the opportunity to pastor, and Gordon was my exhibit A for "yes, God uses broken people." (NOTE: I wanted to say God ONLY uses broken people, but that's for another post.)
Now, in his newest book, Going Deep, Gordon once again impresses me. The 3.5 consistent readers of my blog know my struggles with the modern-traditional church in the US. I teeter on the line between emergent and irreligious, while still basically staying connected to my church. My ecclesiology leads me to see many of today's US churches as too large, too unrelational, and too trapped in "where would you go if you died tonight?" programs OR so far moved away from biblical truth that they've become irrelevant. I've always wondered what it might look like for a modern-traditional church/pastor to adopt wholeheartedly a biblical view of community and discipleship and work to reform his/her local church.
Enter Going Deep. I don't know enough about MacDonald's church to know how accurate the book is on implementation, but from the standpoint of how it might look, it's right on. Written in the same semi-fictional style as Who Stole My Church? and Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christian series, Going Deep tells the story of a fictional New England congregation pastored by GMac (Gordon) and his wife Gail, who he says are the only two non-fictional characters in the story. The plot revolves around Pastor GMac's engagement with his neighbors, his Bible, and his own congregants about becoming "deep" people. An overarching early theme is that teachability is important, but growability is key. Like plants, we all need to grow deep roots in order to flourish outwardly. We need to be deep people.
The congregation goes through a 1 year process that takes a group of willing believers and challenges them in weekly gatherings of community to become deeper men and women. There are difficult commitments that are asked for and made (could "take up your cross" not involve difficult commitments?). Prior to the group starting, Gordon explored what it means to be a deep person, connecting with people from various walks of life, including a Jewish rabbi and an HR leader tasked with training "up & comers" in her company. All in all, this little group becomes what in my ecclesiology IS the church--a small group of people living life together and seeking to participate in and expand the kingdom of heaven.
But the most amazing thing about the book is how Gordon puts in the context of the modern-traditional church (which I define as the prototypical late 20th century evangelical USAmerican church) and shows how this might work. I've said many times that most large churches today are NOT churches, they are weekly gatherings of many smaller churches, along with some religious people, some bystanders, some outsiders, and some lone-wolf Christians. The senior pastor is often not pastoral at all, but a gifted communicator and leader. This book codifies that thought, and works to build one deep church within the congregation (including some outsiders), and then after that first year the members of that church will start their own churches, with new members from within and without the original congregation. It's a phenomenal concept that I'd love to see more current churches try.
I highly recommend this book. I give it 5 out of 5 bellybuttons in the Phatter book club.
Now, in his newest book, Going Deep, Gordon once again impresses me. The 3.5 consistent readers of my blog know my struggles with the modern-traditional church in the US. I teeter on the line between emergent and irreligious, while still basically staying connected to my church. My ecclesiology leads me to see many of today's US churches as too large, too unrelational, and too trapped in "where would you go if you died tonight?" programs OR so far moved away from biblical truth that they've become irrelevant. I've always wondered what it might look like for a modern-traditional church/pastor to adopt wholeheartedly a biblical view of community and discipleship and work to reform his/her local church.
Enter Going Deep. I don't know enough about MacDonald's church to know how accurate the book is on implementation, but from the standpoint of how it might look, it's right on. Written in the same semi-fictional style as Who Stole My Church? and Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christian series, Going Deep tells the story of a fictional New England congregation pastored by GMac (Gordon) and his wife Gail, who he says are the only two non-fictional characters in the story. The plot revolves around Pastor GMac's engagement with his neighbors, his Bible, and his own congregants about becoming "deep" people. An overarching early theme is that teachability is important, but growability is key. Like plants, we all need to grow deep roots in order to flourish outwardly. We need to be deep people.
The congregation goes through a 1 year process that takes a group of willing believers and challenges them in weekly gatherings of community to become deeper men and women. There are difficult commitments that are asked for and made (could "take up your cross" not involve difficult commitments?). Prior to the group starting, Gordon explored what it means to be a deep person, connecting with people from various walks of life, including a Jewish rabbi and an HR leader tasked with training "up & comers" in her company. All in all, this little group becomes what in my ecclesiology IS the church--a small group of people living life together and seeking to participate in and expand the kingdom of heaven.
But the most amazing thing about the book is how Gordon puts in the context of the modern-traditional church (which I define as the prototypical late 20th century evangelical USAmerican church) and shows how this might work. I've said many times that most large churches today are NOT churches, they are weekly gatherings of many smaller churches, along with some religious people, some bystanders, some outsiders, and some lone-wolf Christians. The senior pastor is often not pastoral at all, but a gifted communicator and leader. This book codifies that thought, and works to build one deep church within the congregation (including some outsiders), and then after that first year the members of that church will start their own churches, with new members from within and without the original congregation. It's a phenomenal concept that I'd love to see more current churches try.
I highly recommend this book. I give it 5 out of 5 bellybuttons in the Phatter book club.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Book Review: "This is My Body: Ekklesia As God Intended" by Keith Giles
I struggle with the organized church.
I'm not sure where it all began, but somewhere after pastoring a traditional church myself, then being involved in a so-called parachurch ministry, I began to get quite a bit jaded about the organized systematic religious church in the US.
My friend Keith went through some similar experiences, I think. Today I read his new book "This is My Body: Ekklesia as God Intended." And I highly recommend it, not just because he's my long-time friend, but because the book raises some great questions about the religious Christendom that I struggle with so much.
And I think we're not alone.
Keith too has been a senior pastor of a traditional church. In fact, our pastorates were just minutes from each other in El Paso. One time there was even talk of merging our two churches together (postponing the inevitable death of two churches struggling to maintain their very "southern anglo" culture in the midst of a nearly 100% Hispanic part of El Paso, but that's another story for another time). Keith takes you through the Old Testament processes of worship, then shows well how there are both similarities and distinct differences in the New Testament church. Most importantly, Keith hits the nail on the head about Jesus being the fulfillment of the OT shadows, and how that affects the methods of organization of Jesus' new "body", the fellowship of believers.
Keith digs into some of the core doctrines of New Testament faith. Probably my favorite discussion is on the priesthood of individual believers, something that shatters the current focus on the professional clergy of our modern churches. And his call for churches that spend millions and cumulatively billions on salaries and buildings and many other unnecessary accoutrements of "worship" instead of caring for the poor, the widows, the orphans, etc of the world, is a call that needs to be heard indeed.
Ultimately, every believer has to make the call--can I find real community, can I be the NT body of Christ with other believers, within the organized church of the US. Not that long ago I was ready to give up trying. But the truth is Jesus died for the church, in all it's goofiness. Keith challenges us well to consider how the church needs to be in our culture, and I for one hope that many hear the Voice of the One who is speaking through Keith, and follows not into an organization, but into the very body of the One who made the universe. Great read on not throwing away the church just because it's been warped in our culture.
I'm not sure where it all began, but somewhere after pastoring a traditional church myself, then being involved in a so-called parachurch ministry, I began to get quite a bit jaded about the organized systematic religious church in the US.
My friend Keith went through some similar experiences, I think. Today I read his new book "This is My Body: Ekklesia as God Intended." And I highly recommend it, not just because he's my long-time friend, but because the book raises some great questions about the religious Christendom that I struggle with so much.
And I think we're not alone.
Keith too has been a senior pastor of a traditional church. In fact, our pastorates were just minutes from each other in El Paso. One time there was even talk of merging our two churches together (postponing the inevitable death of two churches struggling to maintain their very "southern anglo" culture in the midst of a nearly 100% Hispanic part of El Paso, but that's another story for another time). Keith takes you through the Old Testament processes of worship, then shows well how there are both similarities and distinct differences in the New Testament church. Most importantly, Keith hits the nail on the head about Jesus being the fulfillment of the OT shadows, and how that affects the methods of organization of Jesus' new "body", the fellowship of believers.
Keith digs into some of the core doctrines of New Testament faith. Probably my favorite discussion is on the priesthood of individual believers, something that shatters the current focus on the professional clergy of our modern churches. And his call for churches that spend millions and cumulatively billions on salaries and buildings and many other unnecessary accoutrements of "worship" instead of caring for the poor, the widows, the orphans, etc of the world, is a call that needs to be heard indeed.
Ultimately, every believer has to make the call--can I find real community, can I be the NT body of Christ with other believers, within the organized church of the US. Not that long ago I was ready to give up trying. But the truth is Jesus died for the church, in all it's goofiness. Keith challenges us well to consider how the church needs to be in our culture, and I for one hope that many hear the Voice of the One who is speaking through Keith, and follows not into an organization, but into the very body of the One who made the universe. Great read on not throwing away the church just because it's been warped in our culture.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The de-churched...
Check out this Skye Jethani post on "De-Churched Christians."
Most of the 3.5 of you who read this know that I personally would count myself within this group--the 2nd kind as Skye defines them--although as a family we still attend the more institutional version of church too (in fact Matt Chandler's church The Village, who Skye has a video of in this article). But it's a great discussion to have.
In some ways I fit into all 3 categories of authentically de-churched. Relationally I agree that most institutional churches today are really large gatherings of a bunch of churches in one place. Missionally, I'm amazed at what smaller, organic churches can do, like my friend Keith Giles' church in Orange County, which gives 100% of tithes and offerings to the poor. And finally I wholeheartedly agree that the best, deepest and truest transformation happens in groups of people who are relationally living life together, not by listening to great sermons or singing great music.
Most of the 3.5 of you who read this know that I personally would count myself within this group--the 2nd kind as Skye defines them--although as a family we still attend the more institutional version of church too (in fact Matt Chandler's church The Village, who Skye has a video of in this article). But it's a great discussion to have.
In some ways I fit into all 3 categories of authentically de-churched. Relationally I agree that most institutional churches today are really large gatherings of a bunch of churches in one place. Missionally, I'm amazed at what smaller, organic churches can do, like my friend Keith Giles' church in Orange County, which gives 100% of tithes and offerings to the poor. And finally I wholeheartedly agree that the best, deepest and truest transformation happens in groups of people who are relationally living life together, not by listening to great sermons or singing great music.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Tough times
Here is an amazing article from Ralph Winter, a pastor in California. There are times when life is just plain stinky (I want to use another "s" word that is stinky, but I'll refrain). God, however, is good, just and loving. We can abandon ourselves to him, and he cares for us.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Who is to blame for more non-church-going pagans?
Skye Jethani had this editorial on the Out of Ur blog today...apparently it seems that Al Mohler believes that liberal government is to blame. Read the article here...
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Church and Politics Quiz
A few months ago CT did a Hermenuetics Quiz to help you see what you really think about the Bible.
Today I took the Church and Politics Quiz. I found it really interesting. It takes a few minutes, but take the quiz and see where you might fall.
Today I took the Church and Politics Quiz. I found it really interesting. It takes a few minutes, but take the quiz and see where you might fall.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Shopping for churches
Having now gone through our 2nd move in 5 years, we're church-shopping again. Fortunately, we're not the kind of people who church shop without moving (that's a whole 'nother thing, the sheep-swapping that goes on between today's consumer-driven congregations), but still, when you move to another town 350 miles away, it's hard to stay connected with the same church community.
So, we've been visiting churches. Evaluating worship styles (I'm a rock-n-roll kinda guy, but not so much the 100% energetic positive pump-you-up-before-preaching kind; prefering instead the acoustic authentic kind), critiquing preachers (I prefer a guy who says it like it is but with good communication skills), people attending (I'm telling you, it's tough after 20 years in El Paso and 5 years in San Antonio to be in the same room with SO MANY white people), youth groups, children's ministries, etc.
Throw in the mix that I work for a denominationally founded ministry that would strongly prefer I attend a church in that tradition. Finding a church is tough.
So I posted on my Facebook page that I thought there should be a better way. Someone asked me what I meant. So I'm thinking through the options. Since it's never sufficient to just curse the darkness, here's some potential candlelighting ideas...
1. Automatically attend the nearest congregation to our house. We Americans love choice, so this doesn't necessarily sound like a great option. Sort of has the feel of an arranged marriage (what if we're not compatible?). But let's be honest. Do our choices typically work out that well? My cynical side says just look at the people we elect to office and you can figure out we don't choose well. Even something as important as marriage still ends in divorce almost half the time. Surely leaving the choice to chance or Providence or God or whatever can do at least that well. I could even factor in the tradition and say that I will go to the closest [insert denomination here] church. Period. It's an option.
2. Go the route of my friend Keith Giles (click the link at left to see his blog--well worth reading) and live out my ecclesiology. Whether you call them house churches, small groups, life groups, whatever, I believe these communities of people who actually know each other and live out life together are churches. Most of what we call churches are actually just collections of churches at best, and just gatherings of unconnected people at worst. Neither is technically a church. But a few things keep me from doing this. One, I'm not sure my family is ready to make the leap. Youth and children's ministries that are hopping with activity are exciting. And they can make a great impact on kids. That's definitely something to consider. Two, I'm naturally lazy. The habits I've developed are comfortable, and doing some sort of house church thing would mean changing some of those habits.
3. So we're left with church shopping. I'm thinking of developing some sort of matrix that maps out our criteria and an evaluation of each area, so that we can see each place compared to the others. My wife would love that (not). And I think we'll pray about it all too...
So, we've been visiting churches. Evaluating worship styles (I'm a rock-n-roll kinda guy, but not so much the 100% energetic positive pump-you-up-before-preaching kind; prefering instead the acoustic authentic kind), critiquing preachers (I prefer a guy who says it like it is but with good communication skills), people attending (I'm telling you, it's tough after 20 years in El Paso and 5 years in San Antonio to be in the same room with SO MANY white people), youth groups, children's ministries, etc.
Throw in the mix that I work for a denominationally founded ministry that would strongly prefer I attend a church in that tradition. Finding a church is tough.
So I posted on my Facebook page that I thought there should be a better way. Someone asked me what I meant. So I'm thinking through the options. Since it's never sufficient to just curse the darkness, here's some potential candlelighting ideas...
1. Automatically attend the nearest congregation to our house. We Americans love choice, so this doesn't necessarily sound like a great option. Sort of has the feel of an arranged marriage (what if we're not compatible?). But let's be honest. Do our choices typically work out that well? My cynical side says just look at the people we elect to office and you can figure out we don't choose well. Even something as important as marriage still ends in divorce almost half the time. Surely leaving the choice to chance or Providence or God or whatever can do at least that well. I could even factor in the tradition and say that I will go to the closest [insert denomination here] church. Period. It's an option.
2. Go the route of my friend Keith Giles (click the link at left to see his blog--well worth reading) and live out my ecclesiology. Whether you call them house churches, small groups, life groups, whatever, I believe these communities of people who actually know each other and live out life together are churches. Most of what we call churches are actually just collections of churches at best, and just gatherings of unconnected people at worst. Neither is technically a church. But a few things keep me from doing this. One, I'm not sure my family is ready to make the leap. Youth and children's ministries that are hopping with activity are exciting. And they can make a great impact on kids. That's definitely something to consider. Two, I'm naturally lazy. The habits I've developed are comfortable, and doing some sort of house church thing would mean changing some of those habits.
3. So we're left with church shopping. I'm thinking of developing some sort of matrix that maps out our criteria and an evaluation of each area, so that we can see each place compared to the others. My wife would love that (not). And I think we'll pray about it all too...
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Heading Home
I am very ready to be back with my family, but what an eye-opening trip to Guatemala! On Wednesday we started off the morning by meeting a pastor in a poor part of Guatemala city, the pastor of Iglesia Bautista Jerusalen. It's a neat church and building. The city reminds me a lot of some of the places I've been in Argentina. Across the street the church helps support a small junior high school, where indigenous kids ride buses for 2 hours and then walk for 20 minutes to come in the afternoons. The building is falling apart, but they have school every day. It would be great to figure out how to help build them a new building. We had lunch at a hotel with the president of the Baptist Convention here. Then we drove to Antigua, a beautiful old town. It's become a tourist hotspot for Europeans and Americans. We checked into the hotel and changed clothes, then drove up to Ajotenanga. It was about 30 minutes up the mountain, past a dormant volcano. There is a live volcano not far from here that hopefully I can see the next time I come to the country. In Ajotenanga we met at a church--really just an open air structure with sheets of tin for the roof. It was raining softly when we arrived, and about 60 kids and adults were already waiting there for us. We had a bag full of cookies and crackers and candy, which we distributed first, then we have away a bunch of rice, beans and sugar, plus toothbrushes and toothpaste--appropriate I guess after the candy and cookies. We sang and played and everyone hugged. It was now pouring rain, but probably more than 100 kids were there. It was very inspiring. We had to run about a block in the driving rain to get back to the vans, and everyone was soaked, but laughing and having fun.
I should probably tell you who "everyone" is--Chiqui is the in-country director, and a neat lady. Her husband is a doctor in Guatemala City. Amed is also on staff with Buckner. Tina is Chiqui's daughter and was a translator, Aida is another Buckner staffer. Then in addition to me, Josh and Albert Reyes there were 3 women from Texas. Karen Perry is a member at Park Cities in Dallas, and this was her 28th trip to Guatemala in the last 4 years. She's a great lady. In fact, you should go to Albert's blog at http://www.pandulce.typepad.com/ and read about Karen as the model for 21st century mission specialists. This time she brought two of her friends, Joyce and Patty. The three of them were fun to watch, especially Karen. As Patty said at dinner tonight, the kids in the orphanages and churches here treat her like a rock star. And 2 of Joyce's daughters are here, Monroe and Quincy.
On Thursday we visited Manchen, the girls orphanage run by the government but where Buckner does some humanitarian aid. We met several members of Christ Church in Tyler, who were building a new pergola in the yard of the orphanage. There are about 100 girls here, many with special needs. A bunch of them asked me to play futbol americano with them--I need to bring them a ball when I come back. Virtually all of these girls were there either because they were orphans or because their family abused them. Tragic stories.
In the afternoon we did a little shopping, then drove back to Guatemala City. We had an impromptu staff training session with the in-country staff and interns, with Albert and I sharing various aspects of leadership, teamwork, and the vision of Buckner. That was both fun and challenging, as the group was split into thirds--1/3 speaking only Spanish, 1/3 only English, and 1/3 bilingual. But we laughed and talked and strategized about what might could be in Guatemala.
All in all it was a great trip. I can't wait to go back.
I should probably tell you who "everyone" is--Chiqui is the in-country director, and a neat lady. Her husband is a doctor in Guatemala City. Amed is also on staff with Buckner. Tina is Chiqui's daughter and was a translator, Aida is another Buckner staffer. Then in addition to me, Josh and Albert Reyes there were 3 women from Texas. Karen Perry is a member at Park Cities in Dallas, and this was her 28th trip to Guatemala in the last 4 years. She's a great lady. In fact, you should go to Albert's blog at http://www.pandulce.typepad.com/ and read about Karen as the model for 21st century mission specialists. This time she brought two of her friends, Joyce and Patty. The three of them were fun to watch, especially Karen. As Patty said at dinner tonight, the kids in the orphanages and churches here treat her like a rock star. And 2 of Joyce's daughters are here, Monroe and Quincy.
On Thursday we visited Manchen, the girls orphanage run by the government but where Buckner does some humanitarian aid. We met several members of Christ Church in Tyler, who were building a new pergola in the yard of the orphanage. There are about 100 girls here, many with special needs. A bunch of them asked me to play futbol americano with them--I need to bring them a ball when I come back. Virtually all of these girls were there either because they were orphans or because their family abused them. Tragic stories.
In the afternoon we did a little shopping, then drove back to Guatemala City. We had an impromptu staff training session with the in-country staff and interns, with Albert and I sharing various aspects of leadership, teamwork, and the vision of Buckner. That was both fun and challenging, as the group was split into thirds--1/3 speaking only Spanish, 1/3 only English, and 1/3 bilingual. But we laughed and talked and strategized about what might could be in Guatemala.
All in all it was a great trip. I can't wait to go back.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
God called, he wants his church back...
Another prophetic piece from my friend Keith Giles...
http://subunderground.blogspot.com/2008/05/god-called-he-wants-his-church-back.html
http://subunderground.blogspot.com/2008/05/god-called-he-wants-his-church-back.html
Intentional Diversity or Quotas?
A few weeks back I had a brief but good conversation on the Strong Coffee blog with longtime Texas Baptist leader Ken Coffee about the approach churches or Christian orgs should/could take in hiring diverse leaders. The basic discussion centered around the phrase "hiring the best person for the job" regarding of ethnic or cultural background. I tried to articulate that sometimes this phrase doesn't work, in particular on the basis of generational training up of minority leaders. I basically said that it was unjust of us to not allow minority leaders (and by minority I am thinking of ethnic, socio-economic, and more, not just country of origin) to have access to proper training and then overlook them for ministry leadership roles because they weren't the best for the job.
Here's an article from CT about a church in Little Rock of all places, not far from where the "Little Rock Nine" were denied access to school in 1957. This church takes intentional diversity as a biblical mandate. What do you think?
Here's an article from CT about a church in Little Rock of all places, not far from where the "Little Rock Nine" were denied access to school in 1957. This church takes intentional diversity as a biblical mandate. What do you think?
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Stuff Christians Like
One of my new favorite funny blogs to read is www.stuffchristianslike.blogspot.com. It's a play on the satirical StuffWhitePeopleLike blog, but hysterically funny for those of us who have grown up in the church making fun of all the funny stuff going on.
My friend Texas in Africa linked to one I hadn't read yet. Can you imagine making a mural on your children's ministry wall of Elisha cursing the teenagers who called him baldhead? Two bears bolting out of the woods to kill 42 of the teens?
Check out the whole blog here...
I especially agree with the guy who says that "you better be glad I don't have access to bears..."
My friend Texas in Africa linked to one I hadn't read yet. Can you imagine making a mural on your children's ministry wall of Elisha cursing the teenagers who called him baldhead? Two bears bolting out of the woods to kill 42 of the teens?
Check out the whole blog here...
I especially agree with the guy who says that "you better be glad I don't have access to bears..."
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Against the machine
I hate being sick. For more than a week now I've been fighting off a stupid sinus infection. I seem to get them relatively frequently compared to friends. Some think it's because I wasn't breast-fed as a baby, but I don't know anything about that...
I usually think that Christianity Today does a pretty balanced job of presenting, well, Christianity today. A recent post on their blog "Out of Ur" is another good example. I wish I had written it myself, but it definitely reflects some of my thinking. We've talked before here about the machine that is the local evangelical church in the US. And my own way of describing it often sounds to those who know me well that I don't like the church. But the writer of this blog describes my dilemma. I love the church, but the church is not the institution, not the machine.
What I don’t love is the 501c3 tax-exempt institution we incorrectly refer to as “the church.” For decades we’ve heard the old adage, “the church isn’t a building, it’s the people.” We’ve come to recognize that the brick and mortar structure isn’t the church, but somehow we haven’t had the same epiphany about the intangible structures of the institution. In many peoples’ imaginations the church remains a bundle of programs, committees, policies, teams, ministries, initiatives, budgets, and events. Most people speak of “the church” the same way they refer to “the government”—it’s a hierarchy of leaders managing an organization that they engage but remain apart from.
That's it, that's what I've been trying to say. But the question then becomes, how do I serve the church, love her the way Jesus intends, without becoming a part of the institution?
In the second part of the post it gets even better. Here's another quote:
Without doubt there are numerous factors behind our exaltation of the church institution above the community of saints that created it, but one critical component may be cultural. In our consumer culture we’ve come to believe that institutions are the vessels of God’s Spirit and power. (The reason for this is a subject I explore in more depth in my book due out next year.) The assumption is that with the right curriculum, the right principles, and the right programs, values, and goals, the Spirit will act to produce the ministry outcomes we envision. This plug-and-play approach to ministry makes God a predictable, mechanical device and it assumes his Spirit resides within organizations and systems rather than people
Now that's a great metaphor for this generation, the "plug n play" approach to ministry. He later goes on to talk about Dallas Willard's description of what often happens when a great leader starts a spirit-filled ministry that God blesses, then at some point retires, dies, or otherwise moves on. The followers assume that God wants the ministry to continue, and they work to copy the power of the former leader through the institution. But the spirit-fuel that fed that ministry was in the heart of the leader, and as Dallas says, those people would be much better off trying to reproduce that personal fire within them instead of within the institution. But that is not easy to do. The fire--although coming from the same Spirit--burns differently within each of us.
The articles are worth reading.
I usually think that Christianity Today does a pretty balanced job of presenting, well, Christianity today. A recent post on their blog "Out of Ur" is another good example. I wish I had written it myself, but it definitely reflects some of my thinking. We've talked before here about the machine that is the local evangelical church in the US. And my own way of describing it often sounds to those who know me well that I don't like the church. But the writer of this blog describes my dilemma. I love the church, but the church is not the institution, not the machine.
What I don’t love is the 501c3 tax-exempt institution we incorrectly refer to as “the church.” For decades we’ve heard the old adage, “the church isn’t a building, it’s the people.” We’ve come to recognize that the brick and mortar structure isn’t the church, but somehow we haven’t had the same epiphany about the intangible structures of the institution. In many peoples’ imaginations the church remains a bundle of programs, committees, policies, teams, ministries, initiatives, budgets, and events. Most people speak of “the church” the same way they refer to “the government”—it’s a hierarchy of leaders managing an organization that they engage but remain apart from.
That's it, that's what I've been trying to say. But the question then becomes, how do I serve the church, love her the way Jesus intends, without becoming a part of the institution?
In the second part of the post it gets even better. Here's another quote:
Without doubt there are numerous factors behind our exaltation of the church institution above the community of saints that created it, but one critical component may be cultural. In our consumer culture we’ve come to believe that institutions are the vessels of God’s Spirit and power. (The reason for this is a subject I explore in more depth in my book due out next year.) The assumption is that with the right curriculum, the right principles, and the right programs, values, and goals, the Spirit will act to produce the ministry outcomes we envision. This plug-and-play approach to ministry makes God a predictable, mechanical device and it assumes his Spirit resides within organizations and systems rather than people
Now that's a great metaphor for this generation, the "plug n play" approach to ministry. He later goes on to talk about Dallas Willard's description of what often happens when a great leader starts a spirit-filled ministry that God blesses, then at some point retires, dies, or otherwise moves on. The followers assume that God wants the ministry to continue, and they work to copy the power of the former leader through the institution. But the spirit-fuel that fed that ministry was in the heart of the leader, and as Dallas says, those people would be much better off trying to reproduce that personal fire within them instead of within the institution. But that is not easy to do. The fire--although coming from the same Spirit--burns differently within each of us.
The articles are worth reading.
Monday, January 21, 2008
The Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Today the papers are full of memorials to Dr. King, and rightly so. Few people have truly allowed the teachings and lifestyle of Jesus himself impact how they affect change in the world, working from the position of servanthood and nonviolent stance for truth.
I'm not a fan of political leaders and candidates preaching from church pulpits. In this year's race, religious progressives are having a stronger impact on the race than in the past, where it's mostly just been religious conservatives. I wouldn't want to see the progressives make the same mistakes as conservatives by having their cause tied to closely with the Democratic Party.
Having said all that, Barack Obama preached yesterday at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. My friend Texas in Africa has the full text of the speech here, and it's worth reading regardless of how you feel about politics.
I'm not a fan of political leaders and candidates preaching from church pulpits. In this year's race, religious progressives are having a stronger impact on the race than in the past, where it's mostly just been religious conservatives. I wouldn't want to see the progressives make the same mistakes as conservatives by having their cause tied to closely with the Democratic Party.
Having said all that, Barack Obama preached yesterday at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. My friend Texas in Africa has the full text of the speech here, and it's worth reading regardless of how you feel about politics.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
The Privatization of Culture Part Deux
There is a multitude of impacts that culture privatization has on the US. Certainly we see it in politics, in entertainment, in economics. But I think the most devastating thing for the message of Jesus has been the impact on religion, especially the "christian" religion.
USAmericans are religious people. 86% believe in God. Huge numbers attend religious services every weekend. And while there is no question that religion is less of a socio-cultural influence than it was say 50 years ago, I would still put it in the top 2 or 3 cultural powers.
However, Jesus didn't come to establish a religion, even the "christian" one. So Evangelicals, responding to the privatization of cultural expression (among other things) have pushed for certain religious symbols and expressions to be unprivatized: prayer in school, "under God" on the pledge, nativity scenes, etc. We look for political candidates who thank God, entertainers who praise God. We allow just enough "God" to get back into public that we've created a caricature--not unlike those drawings of my kids when we go to Sea World--and that caricature has come to pass for the real thing. So "god" becomes an important aspect of the US allowable public expression of culture.
But it ain't God.
USAmericans are religious people. 86% believe in God. Huge numbers attend religious services every weekend. And while there is no question that religion is less of a socio-cultural influence than it was say 50 years ago, I would still put it in the top 2 or 3 cultural powers.
However, Jesus didn't come to establish a religion, even the "christian" one. So Evangelicals, responding to the privatization of cultural expression (among other things) have pushed for certain religious symbols and expressions to be unprivatized: prayer in school, "under God" on the pledge, nativity scenes, etc. We look for political candidates who thank God, entertainers who praise God. We allow just enough "God" to get back into public that we've created a caricature--not unlike those drawings of my kids when we go to Sea World--and that caricature has come to pass for the real thing. So "god" becomes an important aspect of the US allowable public expression of culture.
But it ain't God.
Friday, January 11, 2008
The Privatization of Culture
In talking about my last post with a friend, we discussed the difference between what Donald McGavern talked about in the pivotal book "Understanding Church Growth" as planting and building churches that reflect the cultural aspects of a people group versus the niche-marketing of many American evangelical churches.
There is one large cultural aspect that is not often discussed in the Evangelical US world--mostly because it is not much discussed in the broader US world either--and that is what my friend called the "privatization of culture." By and large, Americans demand (sometimes subtly, sometimes overty) assimilation to certain cultural norms. Those could be as big as language, perceived work ethics, and relationship styles; and as small as public mannerisms and modes of dress. This is one of the key reasons that Hispanic immigration is a big issue. Moreso than the immigrants of the past, Hispanics tend to keep their cultural distinctives when they come, assimilating at a slower pace. There are some churches that attract people from different cultures, and again, that's a far sight better than the country club deal. But does that truly make a church multicultural, in the sense described in Revelation, or do those people who do come simply understand that they need to become a part of the dominant culture? Are they people who have already committed to assimilation, or are already assimilated? I would submit that they are at least assimilated in one key factor--economic--if they attend and stay at the typical USAmerican Evangelical church. Like my bro-in-law stated in response to my last post, the biggest cultural obstacle most churches never cross is the level of wealth one. But there are a lot of cultural baggage issues, and unless someone sheds their baggage that isn't like the dominant culture of the church they are attending, they aren't going to stay and may not even be welcome.
Is there a way to celebrate and practice true multicultural community? From the standpoint of public, consumer-oriented church programming, I'm not sure it can be done.
I would also submit that the "predominant obstacle" to doing this is almost always the predominant culture. This is vividly displayed in Kenya right now. I think it's one of the reasons that for 2000 years Christianity has thrived in places where it is not the dominant culture and struggled when it actually becomes so (yes, I'm sure this statement is simplistic, but worth thinking through...). So yes, here in the US, whatever American culture is (I'm not fond of "Anglo" but have yet to find a good sub; even "American" is not too good, considering that every other country in North and South America does not like USAmericans usurping sole use of that word) is the primary obstacle. No matter how hard we try, non-conformity to the USAmerican cultural values is ostracized.
The really bad stuff happens when the dominant culture's values are equated with God's values--the typically pattern when Christianity becomes the dominant culture of a people-group. Jesus' message was about so much more than getting your sins forgiven. When he talks about the kingdom of heaven he's challenging the cultural values of the kingdom of earth--even the American ones, and even (maybe especially!) the religious ones--when they function according to the world's system. Jesus came not just to destroy sin's power over my life/death, but to destroy systemic sin as it operates in the world, and this includes the tribalism of Kenya or the US.
There is one large cultural aspect that is not often discussed in the Evangelical US world--mostly because it is not much discussed in the broader US world either--and that is what my friend called the "privatization of culture." By and large, Americans demand (sometimes subtly, sometimes overty) assimilation to certain cultural norms. Those could be as big as language, perceived work ethics, and relationship styles; and as small as public mannerisms and modes of dress. This is one of the key reasons that Hispanic immigration is a big issue. Moreso than the immigrants of the past, Hispanics tend to keep their cultural distinctives when they come, assimilating at a slower pace. There are some churches that attract people from different cultures, and again, that's a far sight better than the country club deal. But does that truly make a church multicultural, in the sense described in Revelation, or do those people who do come simply understand that they need to become a part of the dominant culture? Are they people who have already committed to assimilation, or are already assimilated? I would submit that they are at least assimilated in one key factor--economic--if they attend and stay at the typical USAmerican Evangelical church. Like my bro-in-law stated in response to my last post, the biggest cultural obstacle most churches never cross is the level of wealth one. But there are a lot of cultural baggage issues, and unless someone sheds their baggage that isn't like the dominant culture of the church they are attending, they aren't going to stay and may not even be welcome.
Is there a way to celebrate and practice true multicultural community? From the standpoint of public, consumer-oriented church programming, I'm not sure it can be done.
I would also submit that the "predominant obstacle" to doing this is almost always the predominant culture. This is vividly displayed in Kenya right now. I think it's one of the reasons that for 2000 years Christianity has thrived in places where it is not the dominant culture and struggled when it actually becomes so (yes, I'm sure this statement is simplistic, but worth thinking through...). So yes, here in the US, whatever American culture is (I'm not fond of "Anglo" but have yet to find a good sub; even "American" is not too good, considering that every other country in North and South America does not like USAmericans usurping sole use of that word) is the primary obstacle. No matter how hard we try, non-conformity to the USAmerican cultural values is ostracized.
The really bad stuff happens when the dominant culture's values are equated with God's values--the typically pattern when Christianity becomes the dominant culture of a people-group. Jesus' message was about so much more than getting your sins forgiven. When he talks about the kingdom of heaven he's challenging the cultural values of the kingdom of earth--even the American ones, and even (maybe especially!) the religious ones--when they function according to the world's system. Jesus came not just to destroy sin's power over my life/death, but to destroy systemic sin as it operates in the world, and this includes the tribalism of Kenya or the US.
Monday, January 07, 2008
What's the model for the church?
A good friend and missions pastor at my church wrote some thoughts before Christmas:
Subject: Reaching the younger generations
A friend was telling me about going to a Christmas concert recently at one of the more traditional churches in town to see a friend who was involved in the production. He said everyone was dressed to the max and most of the crowd was over 60 and the music was targeted at that audience. My friend, a visitor to the church, said he couldn't find a seat. He was there plenty early but everyone had programs, coats and various articles of clothing strewn about to save seats for family members and apparently whole Sunday School classes. No one said much to him and very few stayed around after the program to fellowship. Based on my friend’s experience, it doesn’t seem like the church was much concerned with the visitors or the lost but mainly interested in pleasing their members.
It reminded me of the experience on our recent vacation cruise to the Caribbean. We were with mostly older people (older than Barbara and I and that is old) and had the same kind of trouble finding seats at the big shows. It dawned on me how much the traditional churches and cruise lines have in common. Like many churches, the cruise experience has stayed virtually the same for the past 50 years. And like most churches, the cruise ships are filled with mostly older people. Until just recently on most all large cruise lines there has been a strict dress code for the meals at night and always two formal nights when you absolutely had to wear a coat and tie. The shows generally were song and dance type of entertainment, to suit an elderly audience. Most of the shore excursions catered to the older crowd also. I don't know if the ships just program for the elderly because the elderly are more inclined to cruise or younger people don't cruise because many ships seem to cater only to the older crowd. But it has been my experience that 80% of those on the cruises are retirement age and up.
But that seems to be changing. Barbara and I were curious about a cruise ship line that we noticed in the Caribbean that we had never seen before. It was the Ocean Village line. I looked them up on the internet and found that they are a new cruise line targeting the 30 - 50 something age. I found it interesting that the cruise line business is just now making an effort to reach out to the younger generations. The Ocean Village line has no dress code for meals and no formal nights at all. The shows have more rock bands and comedians that appeal to the younger group. The shore excursions are more about activities than site seeing.
I can see the traditional cruiser complaining about how the cruises are changing and just going to hell. But the cruise line knows that there should be no reason why younger people don't take cruise vacations. They are a cheap, convenient and very practical way to vacation.
Theologians also know that the young need Christ as much as the old. They have asked some of the same questions about why so many churches have so few young people. Do young people stay away from church because the church caters so much to the older generations or do church leaders feel compelled to program for the elderly because their members are mostly old?
Grace Point is much like the Ocean Village Cruise Line. We purposed several years ago to reach the young and hopefully we will continue to be a vibrant church that is open, evangelistic and concerned about those who do not know Jesus Christ. There is a reason for our style of worship, the encouraged casual dress and the application oriented preaching. We want to reach the lost and the next generation of Christians. Let’s continue to strive to be a church always willing to change its methods without ever compromising the message of the Gospel.
Have a merry and Christ-filled Christmas. And bring your unchurched friends to our Christmas services. They are designed for them.
Here's my response:
These are good thoughts! I have been out of the country during the holidays, and only now getting a chance to dialogue a little about what you say here…No doubt the Ocean Village Cruise Line is a great model for reaching my generation with cruises! I’ve only been on one, and it was a lot of fun, but it sounds like I would really enjoy Ocean Village!
Some questions arise for me though when we compare the two cruise line models to the church. Don’t get me wrong, I think that the GP model is vastly superior to the country club model of so many churches in the US today! But some of these questions still nag at me, and I’d love to hear your and other’s thoughts:
How does a church decide what its target audience is going to be? Is the selection of programming for 30-50 year olds with kids mean that churches are excluding those outside the target? Certainly these are the realities of the business model that you are talking about, commonly called “church-growth”. If you market a product to the young, the old won’t want it. If you market for adults, teens and tweens won’t want it. Etc.
Should we band together as churches, and everyone pick a different market? GP can have the 30-50 group, but someone else has to take the 55+ group, and someone else the 20s, etc. Or should individual churches try to offer something for each group (probably a challenge for the average church)? What about different ethnic groups, or different languages; can we market something for everyone (okay, that would be challenging even for large churches!)?
And probably my most naggiest question: how come so many evangelical churches in the US, especially those who have the church growth model, end up picking middle-class families 30-50 as their target? How come the business-like church growth model doesn’t have a lot of examples of working among the working-class poor? Does the model work without funding?
It seems to me that models are used to get people in the door, or not. But only authentic community both attracts and keeps people in a church. “Look how they love each other” was the lost person’s exclamation of the early church. Is there a model for that?
Subject: Reaching the younger generations
A friend was telling me about going to a Christmas concert recently at one of the more traditional churches in town to see a friend who was involved in the production. He said everyone was dressed to the max and most of the crowd was over 60 and the music was targeted at that audience. My friend, a visitor to the church, said he couldn't find a seat. He was there plenty early but everyone had programs, coats and various articles of clothing strewn about to save seats for family members and apparently whole Sunday School classes. No one said much to him and very few stayed around after the program to fellowship. Based on my friend’s experience, it doesn’t seem like the church was much concerned with the visitors or the lost but mainly interested in pleasing their members.
It reminded me of the experience on our recent vacation cruise to the Caribbean. We were with mostly older people (older than Barbara and I and that is old) and had the same kind of trouble finding seats at the big shows. It dawned on me how much the traditional churches and cruise lines have in common. Like many churches, the cruise experience has stayed virtually the same for the past 50 years. And like most churches, the cruise ships are filled with mostly older people. Until just recently on most all large cruise lines there has been a strict dress code for the meals at night and always two formal nights when you absolutely had to wear a coat and tie. The shows generally were song and dance type of entertainment, to suit an elderly audience. Most of the shore excursions catered to the older crowd also. I don't know if the ships just program for the elderly because the elderly are more inclined to cruise or younger people don't cruise because many ships seem to cater only to the older crowd. But it has been my experience that 80% of those on the cruises are retirement age and up.
But that seems to be changing. Barbara and I were curious about a cruise ship line that we noticed in the Caribbean that we had never seen before. It was the Ocean Village line. I looked them up on the internet and found that they are a new cruise line targeting the 30 - 50 something age. I found it interesting that the cruise line business is just now making an effort to reach out to the younger generations. The Ocean Village line has no dress code for meals and no formal nights at all. The shows have more rock bands and comedians that appeal to the younger group. The shore excursions are more about activities than site seeing.
I can see the traditional cruiser complaining about how the cruises are changing and just going to hell. But the cruise line knows that there should be no reason why younger people don't take cruise vacations. They are a cheap, convenient and very practical way to vacation.
Theologians also know that the young need Christ as much as the old. They have asked some of the same questions about why so many churches have so few young people. Do young people stay away from church because the church caters so much to the older generations or do church leaders feel compelled to program for the elderly because their members are mostly old?
Grace Point is much like the Ocean Village Cruise Line. We purposed several years ago to reach the young and hopefully we will continue to be a vibrant church that is open, evangelistic and concerned about those who do not know Jesus Christ. There is a reason for our style of worship, the encouraged casual dress and the application oriented preaching. We want to reach the lost and the next generation of Christians. Let’s continue to strive to be a church always willing to change its methods without ever compromising the message of the Gospel.
Have a merry and Christ-filled Christmas. And bring your unchurched friends to our Christmas services. They are designed for them.
Here's my response:
These are good thoughts! I have been out of the country during the holidays, and only now getting a chance to dialogue a little about what you say here…No doubt the Ocean Village Cruise Line is a great model for reaching my generation with cruises! I’ve only been on one, and it was a lot of fun, but it sounds like I would really enjoy Ocean Village!
Some questions arise for me though when we compare the two cruise line models to the church. Don’t get me wrong, I think that the GP model is vastly superior to the country club model of so many churches in the US today! But some of these questions still nag at me, and I’d love to hear your and other’s thoughts:
How does a church decide what its target audience is going to be? Is the selection of programming for 30-50 year olds with kids mean that churches are excluding those outside the target? Certainly these are the realities of the business model that you are talking about, commonly called “church-growth”. If you market a product to the young, the old won’t want it. If you market for adults, teens and tweens won’t want it. Etc.
Should we band together as churches, and everyone pick a different market? GP can have the 30-50 group, but someone else has to take the 55+ group, and someone else the 20s, etc. Or should individual churches try to offer something for each group (probably a challenge for the average church)? What about different ethnic groups, or different languages; can we market something for everyone (okay, that would be challenging even for large churches!)?
And probably my most naggiest question: how come so many evangelical churches in the US, especially those who have the church growth model, end up picking middle-class families 30-50 as their target? How come the business-like church growth model doesn’t have a lot of examples of working among the working-class poor? Does the model work without funding?
It seems to me that models are used to get people in the door, or not. But only authentic community both attracts and keeps people in a church. “Look how they love each other” was the lost person’s exclamation of the early church. Is there a model for that?
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Terry Mattingly's Postmodern/Emergent thoughts
This column was syndicated by Scripps Howard News Service on 11/28/2007
Every half a millennium or so, waves of change rock Christianity until they cause the kind of earthquake that forces historians to start using capital letters.
"What happened before the Great Reformation, we all know," said Phyllis Tickle, author of "God Talk in America" and two dozen books on faith and culture. "We know, for instance, that some sucker sailed west and west and west and didn't fall off the dad gum thing. That was a serious blow."
So Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 and then a flat, neatly stacked universe flipped upside down. Soon, people were talking about nation states, the decline of landed gentry, the rise of a middle class and the invention of a printing press with movable type. Toss in a monk named Martin Luther and you're talking Reformation -- with a big "R" -- followed by a Counter-Reformation.
Back up 500 years to 1054 and you have the Great Schism that separated Rome and from Eastern Orthodoxy. Back up another 500 years or so and you find the Fall of the Roman Empire. The transformative events of the first century A.D. speak for themselves.
Church leaders who can do the math should be looking over their shoulders about now, argued Tickle, speaking to clergy, educators and lay leaders at the recent National Youth Workers Convention in Atlanta.
After all, seismic changes have been rolling through Western culture for a century or more -- from Charles Darwin to the World Wide Web and all points in between. The result is a whirlwind of spiritual trends and blends, with churches splintering into a dizzying variety of networks and affinity groups to create what scholars call the post-denominational age.
Tickle is ready to call this the "Great Emergence," with a tip of her hat to the edgy flocks in the postmodern "emerging church movement."
"Emerging or emergent Christianity is the new form of Christianity that will serve the whole of the Great Emergence in the same way that Protestantism served the Great Reformation," she said, in a speech that mixed doses of academic content with the wit of a proud Episcopalian from the deeply Southern culture of Western Tennessee.
However, anyone who studies history knows that the birth of something new doesn't mean the death of older forms of faith. The Vatican didn't disappear after the Protestant Reformation.
This kind of revolution, said Tickle, doesn't mean "any one of those forms of earlier Christianity ever ceases to be. It simply means that every time we have one of these great upheavals ... whatever was the dominant form of Christianity loses its pride of place and gives way to something new.
What's giving way, right now, is Protestantism as you and I have always known it."
It helps to think of dividing American Christianity, she said, into four basic streams -- liturgical, Evangelical, Pentecostal-charismatic and old, mainline Protestant. The problem, of course, is that there are now charismatic Episcopalians and Catholics, as well as plenty of Evangelicals who are interested in liturgical worship and social justice. Conservative megachurches are being forced to compromise because of sobering changes in marriage and family life, while many progressive flocks are being blasted apart by conflicts over the same issues.
In other words, the lines are blurring between once distinct approaches to faith. Tickle is convinced that 60 percent of American Christians are worshipping in pews that have, to one degree or another, been touched by what is happening in all four camps. At the same time, each of the quadrants includes churches -- perhaps 40 percent of this picture -- that are determined to defend their unique traditions no matter what.
The truly "emerging churches" are the ones that are opening their doors at the heart of this changing matrix, she said. Their leaders are determined not to be sucked into what they call "inherited church" life and the institutional ties that bind. They are willing to shed dogma and rethink doctrine, in an attempt to tell the Christian story in a new way.
"These emergent folks are enthusiastically steering toward the middle and embracing the whole post-denominational world," said Tickle. "We could end up with something like a new form of Pan-Protestantism. ... It's all kind of exciting and scary at the same time, but we can take some comfort in knowing that Christianity has been through this before."
Terry Mattingly (www.tmatt.net) directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.
Every half a millennium or so, waves of change rock Christianity until they cause the kind of earthquake that forces historians to start using capital letters.
"What happened before the Great Reformation, we all know," said Phyllis Tickle, author of "God Talk in America" and two dozen books on faith and culture. "We know, for instance, that some sucker sailed west and west and west and didn't fall off the dad gum thing. That was a serious blow."
So Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 and then a flat, neatly stacked universe flipped upside down. Soon, people were talking about nation states, the decline of landed gentry, the rise of a middle class and the invention of a printing press with movable type. Toss in a monk named Martin Luther and you're talking Reformation -- with a big "R" -- followed by a Counter-Reformation.
Back up 500 years to 1054 and you have the Great Schism that separated Rome and from Eastern Orthodoxy. Back up another 500 years or so and you find the Fall of the Roman Empire. The transformative events of the first century A.D. speak for themselves.
Church leaders who can do the math should be looking over their shoulders about now, argued Tickle, speaking to clergy, educators and lay leaders at the recent National Youth Workers Convention in Atlanta.
After all, seismic changes have been rolling through Western culture for a century or more -- from Charles Darwin to the World Wide Web and all points in between. The result is a whirlwind of spiritual trends and blends, with churches splintering into a dizzying variety of networks and affinity groups to create what scholars call the post-denominational age.
Tickle is ready to call this the "Great Emergence," with a tip of her hat to the edgy flocks in the postmodern "emerging church movement."
"Emerging or emergent Christianity is the new form of Christianity that will serve the whole of the Great Emergence in the same way that Protestantism served the Great Reformation," she said, in a speech that mixed doses of academic content with the wit of a proud Episcopalian from the deeply Southern culture of Western Tennessee.
However, anyone who studies history knows that the birth of something new doesn't mean the death of older forms of faith. The Vatican didn't disappear after the Protestant Reformation.
This kind of revolution, said Tickle, doesn't mean "any one of those forms of earlier Christianity ever ceases to be. It simply means that every time we have one of these great upheavals ... whatever was the dominant form of Christianity loses its pride of place and gives way to something new.
What's giving way, right now, is Protestantism as you and I have always known it."
It helps to think of dividing American Christianity, she said, into four basic streams -- liturgical, Evangelical, Pentecostal-charismatic and old, mainline Protestant. The problem, of course, is that there are now charismatic Episcopalians and Catholics, as well as plenty of Evangelicals who are interested in liturgical worship and social justice. Conservative megachurches are being forced to compromise because of sobering changes in marriage and family life, while many progressive flocks are being blasted apart by conflicts over the same issues.
In other words, the lines are blurring between once distinct approaches to faith. Tickle is convinced that 60 percent of American Christians are worshipping in pews that have, to one degree or another, been touched by what is happening in all four camps. At the same time, each of the quadrants includes churches -- perhaps 40 percent of this picture -- that are determined to defend their unique traditions no matter what.
The truly "emerging churches" are the ones that are opening their doors at the heart of this changing matrix, she said. Their leaders are determined not to be sucked into what they call "inherited church" life and the institutional ties that bind. They are willing to shed dogma and rethink doctrine, in an attempt to tell the Christian story in a new way.
"These emergent folks are enthusiastically steering toward the middle and embracing the whole post-denominational world," said Tickle. "We could end up with something like a new form of Pan-Protestantism. ... It's all kind of exciting and scary at the same time, but we can take some comfort in knowing that Christianity has been through this before."
Terry Mattingly (www.tmatt.net) directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Great definition from Eugene Peterson
From today's devotional reading from Peterson writing for Howard Butt's ministry:
The Pharisees and their scribes were complaining to his disciples, saying, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners? " [Luke 5:30] The error persists: despite very clear evidence to the contrary, men and women insist on thinking of Christians as the good people whom God likes. But Jesus said that Christians are the bad people whom God calls to salvation. The church, like a hospital, is full of sick people in the process of being healed, not well people displaying their prowess.
The Pharisees and their scribes were complaining to his disciples, saying, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners? " [Luke 5:30] The error persists: despite very clear evidence to the contrary, men and women insist on thinking of Christians as the good people whom God likes. But Jesus said that Christians are the bad people whom God calls to salvation. The church, like a hospital, is full of sick people in the process of being healed, not well people displaying their prowess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)