You play to win the game

For fun

Nice quiz

Authority

An online discussion got some juices flowing:

The church, as a collective outside the individuals, has no authority. Bold statement? Yes, I agree. It flies into the face of much we've been taught, or we've caught, from church leaders, but it is true scripturally. Properly understood, church should be merely a community of individuals, not an institution or organization, but a community. Churches which are institution or organizations demand authority, and many do submit to the churches rather than the proper place - to God and to other individuals.

Authority is typically associated with power. But power is limited when it comes to authority as the word is used in scripture. Authority is from the Greek for a word that may be better translated "authorship". We typically think of author as a writer, but the original meaning is more to do with creativeness or creating. To bridge the gap from the original Greek meaning and the modern meaning, an author "creates" a written piece. Authority, in the original language the word originates, is to have the function to create or foster in others. A father is an authority in his household for the purpose of creating fully realized children and helping his wife fully realize her potential. He is not a ruler, but the authority. Some amount of "power" comes with that, but only in exercising a kind of discipline meant to foster growth and development. If this power is exercised to "keep things in line", it's an abuse of authority. When I submit to another, it is in the hopes they will exercise the authority I permit them to help me grow.

Authority within the church (not "of the church" but within the community) comes not because of a role, but because one recognizes in another the ability of that other to help one grow. In practice, it is almost always only for a season.

So authority comes by submission to one another for the benefit of creating in one another what we are meant to be fully as God's creation. We allow others to mold us, to shape or hone us, but submitting to them, by granting authority. We do not "recognize" another's authority - the only authority to be "recognized" is God. Authority within a community of believers does not come from a role, but from recognizing the ability of another to help one become more fulfilled as a child of God.

Credibility and integrity

The amount of bs spouted by Christians is incredible, and many don't even know they are espousing the equivalent of urban legends. I did an extended blog post on integrity on Christmas before. Now that I've caught myself in an urban legend, it is time to return to the topic.

[To kill the curiosity before it distracts you, I got caught in my belief of the stat that only 1 in 1150 couples who pray together end up divorced. A friend quoted a similar stat with those numbers for a slightly different set of actions, and I thought I was correcting him in commenting. Even a quick search found a citation of the version I had heard. Digging deeper later, however, I found the whole thing is just an urban myth. Various versions are out there, but so is the research from "Smart Marriages" who spoke with each of the various cited sources for such statistics (Gallup, Barna, Harvard) and no one at any can verify any such study or poll was ever done. I've been busted.]

There are numerous urban legends (we'll be generous in our terms) are out there, pushed by Christians and cited in blogs, books, and worst of all sermons. They are just so numerous one could spout one a day for years. What happens to our credibility, our integrity, when we cite them, oft repeating them, without verifying them? You may have heard them from "the pulpit", but that doesn't mean we trust them blindly - as it we who pay for being caught in the lie, not that preacher.

If the message of Christ has the power and restoration capability we believe it does, we need not exaggerate, need not grasp at straws to prove it. A part of me is glad the 1 in 1160 divorce figure is a lie - it shows the power lies not in a magic formula of praying together (or as my friend heard it - studying the bible, praying, and going to church together), but in grace and reliance on Jesus. So what if the origin of the candy cane was not the mythical symbolism of stripes of red representing blood, etc (heard that myth?). So the Easter Bunny and eggs is purely pagan in origin, along with the other traditions around Easter and Christmas. That is not where the power is anyway.

In seeking God's truth, let's pursue truth in what we say, what we repeat. Let's not allow a false sense of need to trust professional clergy undermine our integrity. Let's trust instead in God.

Recommended reading - "The church is NOT a building"

Recommended reading

Passivity and the church

Frequent readers of my blog will remember the oft-quoted Alan Hirsch phrase: 'the method is the message'. This past weekend I was at a Ransomed Heart Boot Camp, and the tendency for Christian men to be passive was, as always, brought up in the opening session. This isn't how God intended men to be. But it is the message they get from the typical church model of a worship service with optional small group appendages.

When the church is seen as a worship service, that worship service invariably sends the message to all who attend, men and women. The typical service consists of filing in, staring at the back of heads, and for all but a small handful, sitting down and shutting up. Except when you get to read words off a screen. And even for that handful, for all but one or two of them, they are stuck following a script. Sounds like a formula for teaching passivity, doesn't it?

(bonus point - the other thing it teaches is that we aren't capable enough to engage God on our own. We've got to follow the script with the presence of the pastor/priest intermediary)

This all gets justified as being the way God intended it. Hardly. There are no letters or secret books of the Bible which have a Paul writing a Timothy saying - "in your sermons ... ". The examples in Acts of a dominant figure in meetings are limited to a visiting apostle, not a regular figure. Historically, there is evidence this continued on as such into the late 2nd century before there was a new trend to having a regular preacher, and even then, it wasn't in a majority of churches until the early 4th century (and, interestingly, the trend began and was solidified in part, some speculate, due to a popular form of entertainment - going to listen to an orator).

In fact, the instructions on meeting all lack any mention of worship or sermons - they talk of encouraging one another, equipping one another (not being equipped by a professional), spurring one another on to love and good deeds. All very non-passive activities in their contexts. Our most detailed instruction of what happens in meetings says everyone has something (I Corinthians 14:26ff). EVERYONE. What better way to encourage an active faith, one unique to as the individual, than to have them contribute UNIQUELY to the meetings!!! With an expectaion in the meetings, the expectations of involvement beyond the meetings spills out into life. No Sunday only faith of sitting down and shutting up with what life gives you.

The method is the message. If the message of the method doesn't mesh with the message of the gospel, maybe we need new interpretations of what we think are biblically mandated methods (and typically aren't). If the method we discern from scripture doesn't match the message, maybe we need to stop justifying our methods by reading them into scripture.

Two interesting blogs I read this week

Came across two very interesting blogs this week, each which fit well from another angle with my last post.

The first was by an old friend, Ronnie. Ronnie's one of those guys you either love or hate, with no lukewarm. Kind of like Jesus if you really know what he's about. In a recent blog entry, he spoke of how scripture talks if a seed doesn't die, there is no growth. He made the excellent point of how a church too must be willing to risk death to see the kingdom advance. Ronnie, who is the senior minister of a church (near equivalent of senior pastor to most who live in that matrix), is in process of leading a body into an adventure that may kill, literally or figuratively, the current makeup of a church. At least that's the criticism he must be getting. Churches too often are more about their survival than advancing the kingdom. If the individual is to die to self, shouldn't the corporate body be willing to do the same for the sake of the kingdom? Great thoughts!

The other blog post I came across is one on the "movement" of multi-campus churches sweeping the US. The idea is that one preacher is somewhere, beaming or tape delaying his sermon to multiple sites. There are numerous examples of this within many urban areas, and at least one multiple state one based in Atlanta - with a campus here in Colorado! I have found this concept disgusting, as it is commonly building on a cult of personality around a man from my perspective, and assumes God doesn't provide enough talent to his people to advance the Kingdom. Interesting that the blogger, Neil Cole, has found no evidence that these churches are effective in planting new ones. Many have planted other multi-campus churches, and some of those have planted, but there is no fourth generation church in this movement yet. While only recently growing in popularity, it has been around for quite some time, long enough for there to exist even a fifth generation of planting, but there is no fourth generation. Rather than growing the kingdom, this suggests limiting it.

I've long thought megachurches are a selfish manifestation of the church, driven by consumerism more than kingdom advancement (see Skye Jethani's book The Divine Commodity for more on how consumerism is devouring the church). I foresee as the original "personalities" that build these megachurches die off or stumble, a few of these megachurches may manage to "pass the torch" to a new personality, but most will collapse or lose all passion for mission becoming hollow shells of themselves. Within two generations, the individual megachurches will die, perhaps replaced by others, perhaps (hopefully) not. This multicampus phenomenon seems like McChurch, and when the preaching pastor driving one stumbles, retires, or dies, the structure will crumble, maybe leaving only the original campus intact.

Two interesting blogs, nice contrast. These multicampus churches are another form of a spiritual tower of Babel, IMO. What we need is not selfish churches looking to be the biggest thing on the block and define kingdom advancement as "market share", but rather are willing to die to self to advance the kingdom.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've told some that my next blog post was going to be likely very controversial one whose title gives the preview in itself "Purpose Driven Bondage". It's still coming. But when you chase the wild goose ...

Spiritual Towers of Babel

Looking back on a couple of church splits I've been up close to and the outcomes from them, and stories of other splits, well, while recognizing God can make good come of anything, I wonder of God engineered the splits as he saw those churches as spiritual towers of Babel.

One of those in particular I remember in the year before the split, they started "testimonials" in the service (funny how you call it service with so little serving going on in them). Each testimony seemed to talk about how great the church was, how the church did this or that for them. How the church was like their extended family. Rarely if ever was there a mention of God. And the catalyst to the split was a meeting of a handful of those recognized as the next generation of leaders of the church and a couple of their mentors to discuss how to reach the lost in the area more effectively. In that meeting one idea was to plant a different kind of church not so obviously consisting of members whose parents, grandparents, great grandparents etc were Christians. That idea got around and drew flack as "you need to stay here and build this church".

How many churches are spiritual towers of Babel? How many of those is God plotting redemption of, possibly even planning its split? Does God do such?

New site

Just to let followers of this blog know ... I've started a ning (social networking) site for topics related to much of what I post here in the blog.

It's Christianity without the BS. On the website, the "bs" is spelled out, so you may want to keep the kiddies away. The name kind of says it all. I'm hoping for it to develop to a site for those who need to vent about the system, those who need healing from the wounds the religious systems out there inflict on people, a place to detox from addiction to religion and learn to become addicted to Jesus instead, and maybe even a place where constructive dialogue on practicing a BS free following of Jesus can occur.

Religion is easy

Religion is easy, relationship is hard.

Christ intended for us to practice relationship, not religion.

The word "religion" in the NT

Stuff discovered looking up other stuff ...

James in James 1:26-27 appears to using a bit of sarcasm when using the closest Biblical Greek word for "religion". The word used there is "thraskeia" (closest transliteration of the word from the Greek I'm capable of). Interestingly, the word thraskeia is used twice more in scripture (and interestingly, never used in Greek translations of the OT that predated Jesus' earthly life) -- In Acts 26:5 it refers to the formal system of Pharisaism. Col. 2:18 is a warning against avid the worship of angels. So, what is the story behind the word?

According to Thomas de Quincey in 'Memorials and Other Papers', to the classical thinkers (classical in this sense of the Greeks and Romans from the rise of Greece to the fall of Rome), religion, whether thraskeia or the word cultus, meant simply ritual - no morals, no teaching, no transformation. Simply ritual in the name of appeasing the God who motivated it. (Now admittedly, Thomas de Quincey is no theologian, but he wasn't writing about theology. He was writing about the ancient culture that James was -- it gives context to James use of the word).

With this background, when James used "thraskeia", he would have seemed to have chosen it carefully given its nuances of meaning. He didn't say those who claim to be more godly, pious, spiritual, etc. But more bound to keeping a code, a set of rituals. He points to the rituals these religious types of their day should be practicing.

Hmmmmm.

Embedding is blocked on this version (do watch it!) but here is one I can embed:



I think it has a lot of why I don't go to traditional church anymore embedded into this song. I think of singing it to the institutional church. .

What is the church to be?

For regular blog readers, I feel like I almost should be apologetic with the stuck themes here. It's just something that is stuck like a bad song in my mind.

It's hard to argue with what people say the church should be, but I do anyway. It is amazing how little is said in scripture about the purpose of the church, but so many do impose a belief on it. Some common ones:

A vehicle for spreading the gospel. Absolutely no scriptural basis for this. The early church commonly hid its gatherings, and carefully screened those who came before they came, due to the persecution common the first few centuries of the existence of the movement of Christ. The whole "seeker friendly" modern concepts would be foreign to the first century Christian. One did not bring them to church to convert them; one introduced the new disciple to the church.

When Paul and Barnabas were sent by the Antioch church - they weren't funded by them, the church in Antioch did not set up the tour, etc. They laid hands and sent them out. They had before hand perhaps did some training, then just sent them. No program, no infrastructure. They equipped them, encouraged them, and sent them on their way. Paul wrote of accepting no money - he was a tentmaker where he went.

The result of such thought makes Amway representatives. Not well rounded disciples. Such an approach results in a church which is considered a failure if it is not growing numerically, or seeing numeric growth in some way if the focus is in making "disciples" over there, where ever over there is.

The church is a place of healing - a hospital for sinners. Very common thought. Also no basis in scripture. It is another case of how examples or commands in scripture to disciples get cast off to the "church", which then makes a "program" to handle the issue/concern/command.

The result of such thought makes a place that doesn't expect or at least not welcome the "healthy". If healing happens, suddenly there is no point for a person to be there. It is as if we do not expect healing to occur if this is how we define church.

The church is a place of worship. Scripture never mentions that the church ever gathered for worship. I'm not counting those "headers" injected into most translations around I Corinthians 14. No, the church is said to have gathered for "encouraging and exhorting one another" or "to spur one another on to love and good deeds". Worship produces Jesus admirers, not Jesus disciples.

The church is a gathering for us to learn about God.
A variation on the church as an evangelical tool. Interesting history on this one - it is a perception of the church that emerged about the time the Bible became readily available for the masses due to the printing press. Knowledge replaced discipleship. Knowing replaced doing.


The church is a humanitarian organization. (or a place to impact the world, or that sort of thing). Closer I think, but still not too well grounded in scripture. The result is a place of goody-goody people at best. A reaction in the wrong direction from the knowledge emphasis crowd so dominate in Christian society.

What is it that the church should be, then? Scripturally, we see the church gathering as a community, not a sit down and shut up and follow the clergy. We see Paul instructing on the gatherings being centered on being a community and equipping one another. It's not about a vision for the church - the church had its vision and lost it. It's vision is to be a community of believers seeking to be Christs - the original meaning of "Christian" was "little Christ". Christ listened to the Father for his mission, not a pastor, not a church board. The early church, from what we could tell, commissioned the called to the work they were called to, not recruited its members to those programs the leaders were called to "lead". The leaders were servants, they were ones called to equip.

A church following its commission is one that equips its members for what they are called to. Not letting a clergy class define what the church is called to and recruiting to those programs.

Environments

Remember, churches produce church members.

Recently I was watching some Andy Stanley sermon video. Normally I don't do that sort of thing, but it came to my attention with its intriguing promo. Talk about bait and switch. Stanley was talking about why his church does the things it does, in the way it does. It was all about introducing "seekers" to Jesus Christ, by creating environments with the church for people to get involved with Christians or to "experience" faith first hand - try it on in other words.

This is a buy-in to the myth that the purpose of any church involves making disciples. But churches make church members, disciples make disciples. Biblically, a church is simply a community of disciples who encourage and equip one another. The disciples do the work, not serve as volunteers for church programs. The disciples are to answer the call of God, not the assignment to a church function. The environments that a church creates are ones to spur its members on to love and good deeds. The church of today has assumed the role of the disciples. The church is to be about equipping, not doing.

What we commonly see is churches whose leaders turn this on its ear, who talk like a business - we pool resources to maximize impact. They justify taking over the roles meant to be born by disciples for various 'efficiencies' reasons. Or in older line churches, it's about not trusting the laity, but bringing in the 'professionals'. But maximum impact is not made by programs, but by relationships. Relationships are not between a church and someone, but between two someones.

Church leaders who are interested in evangelism shouldn't come up with programs, but equip and encourage the disciples among their membership. They should get out of the way, at best facilitating ways for the disciples to interact meaningfully with their neighbors, which probably means just cutting back on the programs so disciples have time to be neighbors, co-workers, and/or friends.

Nation building

I was recently reading The Rabbit and the Elephant: Why Small Is the New Big for Today's Church by Tony and Felicity Dale and George Barna, and one chapter prompted a thought.

The book was discussing the wording of the Great Commission (commonly mistranslated as I've posted before) and talking of how it says "teach the nations". The Greek underlying "nations" is where we actually get the word "ethnic" from. In saying teach the nations, it is actually teach each ethnic group, or each culture. As noted in the book, the number of individual cultures in the world is multiplying. Alan Hirsch has observed that for much of recent history, the number of cultures in the world had been actually dropping (culture defined by tradition, lingo, group-speak, etc), from more than 20,000 world wide in the early part of the 20th century to about 12,000 around 1990. This was due to mass communication and a consolidation of entertainment in the form of TV and movies.

The trend though reversed in the late 20th century, with an explosion of emerging cultures. The economics of culturalization became cheaper, particularly with the internet. Digital technologies have made producing and distributing TV shows cheaper, to the point of an explosion of choices. Getting ideas out there no longer requiring publishing on paper. Thus cultures have fractured. The number of nations has exploded.

What has the church done? I look at most churches, and from the viewpoint of nation building, the church has tried to do what amounts to building another nation. The Great Commission says wherever you go, teach the nations. The interpretation of it by Christianity seems to be "build a nation and add the others". The Great Commission is not about building a nation, but rather about seeding the nations that exist. The communities that exist are to be "converted", not stolen from to build our community. We need to think in terms of creating church within the communities, not building our community by robbing the others. Most churches are about building their nation, not discipling. In a world of multiculturism, the churches try to sap life out of the world by attempting to create large monocultures.

The method is the message/Going to church to learn about God heresy

On Sunday we visited an institutional/traditional church for the first time in some time. I've been led by God to think in terms of making an impact, so trying a little "this Lord" asking in prayer and action, and seeing how God responds to see where.

My son decided to go off to Sunday School, bored with the main service (funny how it's called a "service" when no service happens). And he got even more bored.

I'm sure the teacher was well-intentioned, but she had the chairs lined up like a classroom, all facing forward to her. Since it was this church's first service in a new location, with them moving from two services to one in the larger facility, she introduced them all to each other and welcomed visitors (Sit down, shut up, I'll do the talking). And there was only 7 kids! Seven kids and the class is lined up in rows. She proceeded with a lesson, and my understanding is all the kids were obviously bored out of their gourds. The method was teaching these kids that church is a boring place of learning. My son said later that the whole experience was more boring than the most boring time he's had at school!

Somewhere along the line, this attitude that "church is where we go to learn about God" crept in. A totally unbiblical concept. For one, church is a community, not a location or event. We do not go to it, we are it. Second, church is not for learning about God -- the Great Commission was issued to disciples, and it is disciples who teach others. Church is for community, for encouraging one another to love and good deeds. Church is not a place to distribute knowledge. Early church history shows us that sermons weren't "popular" until the late 3rd century, and barely known beyond an out of town apostle visiting or a need to address a special issue until the late second century. For centuries, people were taught about God then joined into the community, not the other way around.

I'm convinced that the reason so many people are flooding out the back door of churches, that there is so much church hopping, that as Reggie McNeal says "[people] are not leaving the church because they have lost their faith. They are leaving to preserve their faith" is in fact this heresy that the church is a place you go to learn about God. The teaching always ends up at the same level at a given church - to the new believer, or an intermediate one. Once someone has heard what one church teaches or emphasizes, after some time you've got to move on to grow. Thus the church hopping. The believer who has been caught up in the knowledge myth then eventually finds no place to go, unless they rise to a place of power and finds a way to fire a preacher in order to hire a new one. It's been there, learned there, bought the T-shirt.

Rethinking church planting

The Great Commission commands us to teach the nations (disciple all nations). But what does scripture mean by "nation".

It's always good to question the meanings of words we find in scripture - they are translated from another language after all, and sometimes for the flow of a passage a word rather than a descriptive phrase is given as a translation, to keep the translation from sounding awkward. Sometimes another word is given just to prevent it from sounding "weird" - for instance, baptism is a transliteration rather than a translation, it actually means "burial" or dipping.

Others, like the word "nation", is generally first thought of in other meanings, and thus often a bad word for the translation, but remains due to tradition or other reasons. The Greek word translated "nation" most commonly from Matthew 28:19 is the same word that we get the word "ethnic" from. It is actually a word that can translated "people-group" or "culture" or "subculture". And perhaps the latter choice is more appropriate in today's world in order to convey the original meaning to modern readers.

Thinking in these lines, imagine what it means to modern missionology. Today's society with its lack of unifying elements has splintered to thousands of subcultures, all spurned on by hundreds of entertainment options many catering to smaller and smaller niches, with the internet spurring even smaller subcultures. According to the new book The Rabbit and the Elephant: Why Small Is the New Big for Today's Church by Tony and Felicity Dale and George Barna, the University of Texas (Austin) consists of over 1000 subcultures - over a thousand little "nations", meaning each averages less than 50 members.

I see two ramifications of such a view of "nation" - first, mission work becomes as much a domestic issue as one for overseas. Taking the case of the University of Texas and extrapolating to the whole of the United States, that could mean between that the US is a "nation" of hundreds of thousands to millions of "nations". Reaching those little subcultures is a herculean task without God, and forces us to rethink missions.

Second of all, think of the size that means to the average "church". To reach each of those little nations at the University of Texas, for most you are talking at reaching populations less than 50 each, and its easy to see that many would be less than 20. To form churches within those "nations", most churches are going to have a max possible size of less than 50.

God's call is not to make a nations of disciples, but rather make disciples of nations. Yet most mission techniques and approaches we have inherited from previous generations are in effect requiring us to take on the near impossible task of making nations of disciples to reach every nation. These approaches that involve making churches that support vast infrastructures involving paid pastors, etc invariable require us to pull disciples out of nations to form a new nation, to change their culture.

Would it not be better to redeem these cultures, to form churches within them, training up these smaller churches to reach those cultures close to them and forming other small churches within those cultures? Would it not be better missionology to think small? To make disciples within new cultures, and leave them in those cultures to make other disciples?

I think it would. But I still wonder what it would look like in detail and what it means to me to think this way.

Another Father's Day in America

And another day of calling men to not let fatherhood end at conception.

Another day of calling men to be leaders in their homes.

Another day of ... calling men to some sort of responsibility.

One of my first blog posts addressed the "real" issue here. The problem with all this call to men to "step up" is that to quote again the movie Fight Club, "We're a generation of men raised by women". To quote myself, it is worse - "We're a generation of men descended from a generation of men descended from a ... each raised by women". With each passing generation, this is increasingly true, with another generation added.

So the "call to arms" to men kind of echoes hollow ... what does it look like? Isn't it more than just "involvement" of any kind?

Our churches are worse. They call hollow, hurting, wounded men to fill roles, that of father, without offering to make them whole. Jesus' ministry was to restore and make whole his people, something churches have neglected to call people, especially men, to "responsibility and accountability". It's like telling a man with a broken leg that hasn't even been set and who's never run a 5K to get up and run a marathon. No offer of healing, no real offer of training, just a call to "do it".

Jesus started his ministry (as recorded in Luke) by quoting Isaiah 61. Look at the original source and keep reading - the audience of the time would have been aware of this context ...

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor;
he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
2 to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor,
and the day of vengeance of our God;
to comfort all who mourn;
3to grant to those who mourn in Zion—
to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness instead of mourning,
the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit;
that they may be called oaks of righteousness,
the planting of the LORD, that he may be glorified.
4 They shall build up the ancient ruins;
they shall raise up the former devastations;
they shall repair the ruined cities,
the devastations of many generations.

Healing, liberty, freedom, then they will be "oaks of righteousness". The work of Christ is first, then the work of men will flow from that restored wholeness.

Churches and leaders need to stop preaching at men to step up, and instead start being "little Christs" (the original meaning of "Christian") and help heal and free men.

Someone explain to me this ...

I have a hard time understanding denominationalism as it is traditionally practiced.

Maybe it is because I grew up with and as an adult always attended independent churches - ones where the line of earth bound authority ended locally, within the congregation ... though I did attend a church plant once were there was a oversight board consisting of several about the country. But once a local board of elders was established, that oversight board was abolished.

If "our method is the message", then traditional denomination practice is sending a message contradictory to the Bible. Clearly, with the temple curtain torn with the cross, the barrier of a priesthood between God and the common man is gone. Hebrews explains as much. Peter expresses it as "the priesthood of all believers". We approach Jesus directly, and his Holy Spirit is our guide and counselor. The New Testament is clear - there is no mediator between God and the common man anymore other than Jesus. The priesthood as being separate from all believers is dead.

But the method of denominationalism seems to contradict. Decisions locally are limited, and direction is typically from another city, another state, or even another continent. There are layers of hierarchies and intermediates. The message is that the common man is not to be trusted to hear God - and for that matter, neither is the local pastor in "important matters".

The message of this method seems to so contradict the work of Christ. What am I missing in this equation?

How churches can facilitate growing disciples

In 2004 (according to Skye Jenathi in Divine Commodity - I thought it was more recent), the "flagship" of megachurches Willow Creek CC near Chicago got back the results of a study commissioned to look at the effectiveness of their ministry. Their philosophy had been to create a variety of programs and services for people to participate in, with the belief that frequent participation would produce disciples - as characterized by increasing love for God and other people.

In other words, do institutions produce disciples? Can programs ignite love? The study encompassed the 15000 member Willow Creek and 25 other churches that use similar strategies.

The answer was a resounding no.

What did they find that did work?

Personal Bible reading, prayer and meditation, meaningful relationship with a friend or mentor, and serving others.

Of that list, the first half of the list is best learned to be done in the context of a meaningful relationship with a mentor, not a program. The last one, probably can be done in a "program" but finding one's best spot to serve is from my experience best done with a mentor or friend to bounce things off with.

Why do so many hate going to church? It's just frustrating wanting to grow and with church programs and services all focused on the wrong things, it consumes time away from productive growth time.

Churches, IMO, would best serve and reach out through more "match-making" like activities, so men and women can find those meaningful relationships. Church's role should be to foster relationship. Willow Creek was not the first to discover that fostering knowledge or how-tos is not effective in producing disciples. We can hope they are the last.

Corporate worship a "delusion"?

Men invent means and methods of coming at God's love, they learn rules and set up devices to remind them of that love, and it seems like a world of trouble to bring oneself into the consciousness of God's presence. Yet it might be so simple. Is it not quicker and easier to do our common business wholly for the love of him?

That was Nicholas Herman, aka Brother Lawrence. At another time, Lawrence referred to those who thought corporate worship brought one closer to God as suffering a "great delusion". I think he might be on to something there to an extent. Following another person's script, I cannot recall when that has drawn me closer. Ignoring what has gone on around me and practicing solitude and silencing my thoughts of what's happening - yes, then I've sensed God's presence. And in corporate worship that was unscripted - as a group I was in did some in TX on a Friday night once a month - there were times then.

If corporate worship is a time to be in God's presence, Nick and I are in an agreement - nothing that is actually a part of scripted corporate worship brings God's presence more obvious, or in any way makes me more aware of it than when I came into the room. And if worship is to be us praising God and such, scripture makes it clear, dating back to the Old Testament, that what God wants from us is not the praise of our lips and to hear us sing about him, but rather "to do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with" him (Micah 6:8).

Rebranding

I'm continuing to reread Skye Jenathi's Divine Conspiracy, slower this time (last time I read whole chapters at a time), and I'm in the middle of the chapter on branding.

Branding is something that has taken over marketing - rather than good products, you establish a solid name. When ValuJet went into the swamp, they rebranded as AirTran and are relatively thriving. McDonald's found that if you slap a McDonald's label on carrots or milk, kids think it tastes better.

Skye brings up much about branding in the churches, but misses just as much I realize in reflection. One of his big points is about the way worship is our major branding of churches - not theology or doctrine, but rather what is the music styling.

But he misses some major possible points (maybe as editor of the christian magazine Leadership he had to play it slightly cautious and avoid the obvious?). An example of branding - in much of our nation, when a new Southern Baptist congregation opens its doors, the "Southern Baptist" part is deeply buried. It is the new local "community church" or some other non-descriptive name, hiding itself to look like a non-denominational church. I've seen others do the same. Nearby at an elementary school, there's an Anglican church meeting as "Trinity Church" - never knew it was Anglican until visiting another Anglican church and they mentioned in announcements about a joint Thanksgiving dinner with them.

Another one more daring to make - the brand "Christian" is tainted. Biblically, disciple is a much more common label for the believers. Christian is actually mentioned all of what, once? in all the Bible. We've adopted it as a universal community, but with the label tainted, do we need to hold onto it as tightly as we do?

More over, other labels would be more descriptive of what we are to be anyway. I prefer disciple, as by definition a disciple follows the master in order to learn at the master's feet and become like the master. "Christian" has almost become a political word. "Friends" or "Friends of Christ" would be another we could use, as Jesus did use it to refer to his closest disciples. "Followers" would be as justifiable from the Bible as "Christian". They are a lot of terms we could use that are just as justified from a single Bible reading than "Christian".

If we could drop the use of "Christian", with its baggage, and use "disciple" or "friends of Jesus" or "Christ follower", would we find an easier time in our mission(s)?

It worked for ValuJet.

Too much talk

An observation - amazing that so many talk the talk of wanting God to show up at their "worship services" but there is so little listening?

Silence is rare, silence is so brief. It takes so long to quiet one's soul at times, so even if we have silence, it is almost never long enough.

Another aspect of too much talk is in dealing with others and their issues, wounds, and hurts. We quickly want to talk at them about what is hurting, rather than listening. Like Job's friends, we are quick to fill the time with our words rather than listen to the hurt and just be present.

For God to move, silence is a necessary discipline. Not a "20 minute quiet time" as is so common in evangelical circles, but real, long silence. And sadly, our silence is often practiced only in solitude. We've long lost, it seems, the practice of silence practiced in a group. We're in such a rush. When's the last time you attended a "Sunday service" where they opened with even 5 minutes of silence to allow all to calm and steady their souls for the time together?

And our teachers and preachers - so quick to do "how to" lecturing rather than instructing and equipping others to listen to God. So quick to give the fish to fed you for the day, rather than teach you to fish, and find real life with God.

There's just too much talking ...

Lack of imagination

Imagination truly lacks in our churches. I noticed that having spent some time on a board about church and men (61% of church attendance is women, and under 30 it is much higher). The solutions proposed always lack real imagination - all about sermon length, song choice, -- all more about slapping a coat of paint on the facade rather than real change.

I think this lack of imagination traces back to various church "reforms" over the centuries. We nearly killed it nearly 5 centuries ago, with the reformation and the enlightenment period. Knowledge became king, and for centuries our churches were down a path of pursuing knowledge of God rather than God. Just look dispassionately at our churches and their activities - the emphasis in meetings, Sunday School, etc is all about study, the pursuit of knowledge. And as Skye Jethani observes in Divine Commodity, for all the dominance of Christianity in the Western world in that time, how much real transformation do we see evidenced?

This pursuit of knowledge as a failure has been admitted to in action. In the late years of the last century, the shift went in 'cutting edge' churches to skill development. Twelve principles of financial management. 5 ways to a better marriage. 7 steps to obedient kids. On and on it goes. But look at the outcome - by imitating the self-help section of your local bookstore, we cheapened the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit. The result is that the migration out the door has accelerated. Why go to church for that stuff, when you can get it elsewhere? The church became just another self-help outlet, and if the vibrancy of the movement of Christ can be measured in church attendance, well, it's in trouble as attendance is dropping, especially for those under 30 and they aren't returning after marriage and kids, and the church is losing a grip on society.

And I think it all traces to a lack of imagination. We copy what was done in the past by churches of old. We copy society, repackaging what is popular in the marketplace in the Christian bookstores and in our churches (seen the diet books and programs?). It is considered radical to call the pastor by another name like "coach", or to let them wear jeans when they preach.

Another evidence on the lack of imagination is to look at the results when the imagination is engaged. For example, John Eldredge's Ransomed Heart Ministry purposely engages it. They retell the gospel as an Epic story, treat life as story. They point out that the language of the heart is story. In speaking, John and his team use film clips to illustrate story, recasting movies as modern parables. They engage the imagination by showing how modern movie heroes like William Wallace, Maximus, Neo, and many more are reflections of Jesus. And it works. The fruit of transformed lives that result is incredible.

But the need of imagination goes beyond what and how we teach. We need it in reconsidering how to "do church". We need to look to the past, but not to the past history of the church. We need to look to Jesus. Jesus didn't leave us with a pattern for doing church - he said follow him. Church is to be an outgrowth of the community that forms around Jesus. We can't even look to those few decades right after the Resurrection. No, that was what was right for that time. We cannot return, but we move forward with the same principles. Paul didn't "plant churches" - he went to new city to teach and train disciples. Church was pretty much the afterthought. Yes, he helped organize them, or perhaps rather recognized where the Spirit was organizing them and helped facilitate the work of the Spirit. We need to let our imagination flow, let God inhabit that, and see what forms it takes today. And in 10 years, let that continue. Keep going back to the source, recognize how we've changed, how culture has changed around us, and as Alan Hirsch says "reJesus" the church again.

We need Godly imagination, not repackaged history mixed with repackaged worldly consumerism and its marketing and business principles.

We need FREEDOM.

Organizations

People in any organization are always attached to the obsolete...the things that once were productive and no longer are - Peter Drucker

Church hospitality

Hospitality is a word that comes from a Latin word for "guest". A Christian that worships God does so in part by practicing hospitality (see prior post). But do we do a good job?

In the movie Patch Adams, Patch obtains a home and uses it to practice hospitality to the sick and ailing. This gives insight on why the same root word for hospitality gives us the word for hospital. The powers that be in Patch's world accuse Patch of practicing medicine without a license, but his defense is he is just practicing old fashion hospitality, helping the others as they help him.

Jesus Christ said he came to heal the broken-hearted (a poor translation giving the modern meaning - perhaps better to say "wounded at their core"). The author of Luke thinks this so important that Jesus saying that is a part of Jesus' first recorded statements in his ministry. So sad that this is so little a part of church life.

In the early years, the meetings of the disciples were for the disciples. Today, many churches practice "evangelism" by making the meetings the place they encourage the membership to invite people to. If that is the case, shouldn't the meetings be a place of ministry, as Jesus modeled, rather than a "worship service"? Luke describes the purpose of Jesus ministry by opening with the quote from Isaiah 61 about freedom and healing. But most services I've seen are about "get in, sit down, keep quiet, sing along if you want". It's not a very hospitable atmosphere.

To model Jesus, we need to concern ourselves more with healing and freedom. Jesus and the apostles said precious little about "worship" of God, but much about continuing the mission of Jesus. He came to seek and save what was lost (not the lost, but what was lost). It's about life, healing, and freedom. If we practiced and pursued that, I believe in this day and age, we'd have no need to spend an extra dime on "evangelism". More to come on that latter point ...

Worship

About 25 years ago, I went to look at what biblical "worship" is, doing my best to avoid the "popular" definitions and look strictly at what scripture says. I've returned often to that.

More precisely, I initially looked at what just the New Testament said what our 'corporate' worship was, understanding that Jesus death, burial and resurrection was the fulfillment of the old covenant and the introduction of the new (read Galatians and Hebrews for a full explanation of that).

Interestingly, the New Testament says nothing about corporate worship short of what is in Revelation (!). Worship is rarely used in the letters of the apostles, appearing most often in the gospels and in its appearances in Acts, only in the context of an apostle or two being mistaken for a living god.

[note - some will reply no doubt with examples trying to counter this claim. Most will be from translations done through the bias of modern understanding = paraphrased translations and such. Others are legit - but use words often translated in different contexts into different words - words that mean "serving" in other context]

In the New Testament outside of book of Revelation, the mention of gathering never specifically mentions worship as a reason for the gathering. The closest exception occurs in Acts 2 - among the many activities mentioned is "praising God" - but look closer there. That was mentioned in the context of the disciples, in modern terminology, "living life together" - they were together daily. And it was the second to the last activity the writer mentions. First up was devoting to the apostles teaching and activities of life together, including eating together.

Paul writes instructions in the Corinthian letters about gatherings, and there it is about "encouraging and exhorting one another", not worship. The oft cited Hebrews 10:25 about not neglecting gathering together - look at 10:24. The context is clear that we don't neglect gathering together as it gives an environment for us to "spur one another on toward love and good deeds". In Ephesians 4, the roles of pastors (along with apostles, evangelists, prophets and teachers) is clearly to equip the saints for works for service (v12), not to conduct or lead worship services.

And what does worship entail in the age we live? Only one passage seems to address that for the new covenant age we live in - Romans 12. Sadly, modern translations cut that off with the added "headers" so we are mislead to break Paul's thought:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

In short, our worship is - transform your mind, to use our gifting and give room to others to use their gifting, to love and abhor evil, to honor others, rejoice, practice patience, pray, help others, practice hospitality, bless others and not curse others, empathize with others, live in harmony, practice humility, practice kindness to your enemies.

In short, Jesus introduced worship as a lifestyle, not a meeting. The writers of the New Testament never referred to the gatherings of the disciples as "worship service", nor ever even implied that the gatherings were anything other than to encourage and exhort one another to works of service. The "roles" defined within the church were there to aid the equipping of the disciples for works of service, not facilitate "worship" in the modern sense - though if we accept worship as a lifestyle, we could say in that sense they facilitated worship by equipping the saints for works of service.

Leadership

Alan Hirsch had some interesting thoughts this week in his blog (see here)

In the swirling world of living systems thinking there are comparison of two types of leadership: between what is called operational and adaptive leadership. Essentially, operational leadership is suited for organizations that are in relatively stable environments where maintenance and development of current programming is the core tasks of leadership. This form of leadership is built on the assumptions of social engineering and is thus built squarely on a more 'mechanistic' view of the world. And it does work, and is entirely appropriate for some organizations. Adaptive leadership on the other hand, is the type of leader who develops learning organizations and manages to help the organization transition into different forms or expression where agility, responsiveness, innovation and entrepreneurship are needed. Adaptive leaders are needed in times of significant threat or considerable new opportunity, or both. This has direct relevance to our situation at the dawn of the 21st century.

I'm going to disagree a bit on that last statement - I think the church should have always had adaptive leadership - but we settled for operational leadership. I will agree, however, that it is more crucial than ever to have bold new leadership that is adaptive. We need leadership that is equipping, the primary characteristic of adaptive leadership I believe, rather than commanding and authoritative. We need leadership that shows the way, rather than leadership that maintains and preserves.

Jesus said he who tries to save his life will lose it. I think that is true today of the church, that the church leaders who try to save the church as they know it will lose the church altogether ...

A whole gospel

What we focus on defines what we ignore? -- Brian M.

In the rush to summarize, in the rush to "keep is simple", we focus and lose something. The opposite often happens too - in "criticizing" someone's overemphasis on a point and following ignorance of another, we also force the loss of something.

It is hard, isn't it? No matter what we try we end up losing something, often without realizing it.

So, here I go, risking missing something in summarizing a "whole" gospel.

One could do this "doctrinely", and the closest I've ever seen referred to the gospel as being about:
1) relationship
2) forgiveness
3) healing
4) calling

In short, relationship is relationship with God, Jesus and others, forgiveness - forgiveness of sins, healing - most neglected, but about the healing of the brokenheart, and calling about finding a place in the world and the kingdom (often neglected, or twisted into 'filling in a role at church').

But there is a problem with such doctrinal approaches. They still fixate on items, and if a doctrinal approach was biblical, why isn't such a presentation in the bible itself? No, the bible presents it as story. Story is the language of the heart, not some dry doctrine. What sort of story are we in?

In the story of the gospel, we see the hearts of people of central - Jesus was concerned with the emotions and feelings of the hearts of people. He said he came to heal the brokenhearted - literally translated, this is "shattered in the heart" - in their very core. This story, you see, is a romance. Read the bible cover to cover again, and see it as such. The language is that of pursuing the heart, of a romantic adventure.

And there is an enemy in this story - so many presentations of the gospel neglect this part, or ignore what Paul wrote (I Cor 15:20-25) about the battle still ongoing, ignore the instructions to believers to resist the devil, on and on it goes.

Our approaches, our teaching, our methods, etc, betray this.

I write this to set the stage - I wanted to do a series of posts, probably one a week early in the week (I might do other posts mid-weeks on other topics), on how our methods betray this. Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost have written how our methods are the message - they recognize that our actions speak louder than our doctrinal words. We need to live it. So our methods speak differently. We'll look at that.
4)

What does it all mean?

Sorry for the lapse. Not sure when I will regularly post.

I saw this on Alan Hirsch's site, with the question "What does it all mean?". My thought - it means that the movement of Christ cannot possibly move forward in this kind of culture without getting grassroots in nature.

There is no way a set of institutions can keep up. We need to get grassroots in our methodologies - which means letting go. Apple's iPods didn't reach 50 million in sales so quickly through traditional methods - I for one bought mine not when i heard what it was, but after seeing one in the hands of friends. And our churches most resemble with their forms old school structures that have virtually no influence in today's culture.

We need to focus on equipping. We need to focus on discipling, plain and simple, and let God lead the rest.

I've pointed it out before, and you know I'll say it again. Jesus said he would build HIS church. His instructions to us was to teach. We need to let go of building churches, planting churches, organizing churches, etc and do what we were originally instructed to do - teach. Not one guy teaching hundreds, as is typically in modern churches. But all of us. And the focus needs to be on teaching to follow Jesus. To hear his voice, to follow close. He will form his churches. He said he would.

Freedom

This was a great thing I saw online:

.. the speaker mentions some things essential to any healthy relationship be it spouse, friend, church, etc. Three of those things are freedom to think, freedom to speak, and freedom to feel.

Does your church give you that freedom? And how is your relationship with your church?