Restoring Heart

Another brick in the wall (draft)

2010-09-05T17:03:00.002-06:00

I'll get back to continuing the series, but today listening to Korn's cover of the classic Pink Floyd song Another Brick in the Wall, I thought how some may turn the words to apply to the institutional church. What do you think of this as a first draft -- (remember, to the music of Another Brick in the Wall):

[Part 1]
Churches hidden by their boardrooms
Leaving just a memory
A snapshot in the family album
Churches, what else did ya leave for me?
Churches, whatcha leave behind for me?
All in all I was just a brick in the wall
All in all we were all just bricks in the wall

[Part 2]
We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No brainwashing in the Sunday Schools
Pastors, leave us all alone
Hey, Clergy, leave us all alone

All in all I was just another brick in the wall
All in all you're just another brick in the wall

We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No brainwashing in the Sunday Schools
Pastors, leave us all alone
Hey, Clergy, leave us all alone

All in all you're just another brick in the wall
All in all you're just another brick in the wall

[Part 3]
I don't need no covering over me
I don't need no hymns to calm me
I have seen the writing on the wall
Don't think I need anything from you
No, don't think I need anything at all
All in all we are all just bricks in the wall
All in all you were all just bricks in the wall

[Goodbye Cruel Church]
Goodbye, cruel church
I'm leaving you today
Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye

Goodbye, all you people
There's nothing you can say
To make me change my mind
Goodbye

This is trying to catch the sentiment of many compatriots - not all is an accurate reflection of own feelings. I know a lot of folks this does reflect fairly accurately - not necessarily directly wounded, but repressed from expressing themselves fully as God's creatures by that which masquerades as God's creation.

Originally posted as http://restoringheart.blogspot.com/2010/09/another-brick-in-wall-draft.html

The New Populism

2010-08-07T16:47:00.002-06:00

Matt Bai notes (according to a Michael Medved opinion piece in USA Today on August 5th) that there is an underlying shift in American Populism. Traditionally, it's been about the struggling worker vs. his corporate master. But the threat today isn't the corporate master, but those creations used to "check" the corporate master. In the point of the piece, that was questioning government, as populism is shifting to "the individual vs the institution, not only in business but also government and large media and elite universities ...".

I think Bai missed one. The institutional forms of churches.

It is interesting to view what Barna has referred to as the "Revolution" in these terms. The new populism. I actually like that as a way of relating it to others. It is only when we think of it in that way will some get that in their efforts to "recreate" church to appeal, they're not getting to the roots of the issue. Some will not trust the church and its pastors/staff/leaders any more than they trust corporations, elite universities, or government leaders. Just as people in such new populism movements as the "Tea Party" don't trust the institutions to reform themselves, they won't trust the church.

There is only one these new populism disciples trust. Jesus.

It is time for the church as it is understood to get out of the way and let people connect to Christ. The failed human methodology of connecting people to a man made church as a means of connecting to God needs to go (you know it -- invite people to church or church events and will take it from there mentality). It is time to get back to the biblical approach - connect people to Jesus Christ then let community form where Christ then goes. The church has never made disciples, only members. Disciples make disciples.

Viva the new populism.

Originally posted at http://restoringheart.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-populism.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a note - I've decided to create some posts that provide some more back drop on Part I of "out of the matrix" - at least two, and the part II promised. Call it Part Ia and Part Ib. Not sure what order they will come out - but the first one will be in the next couple of days).

Out of the Matrix, Part I

2010-07-27T20:37:00.001-06:00

More than two years ago, I wrote this blog post called The Red Pill:

"The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you to the truth."

"what truth?"

"That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind."
So states Morpheus in a famous scene from The Matrix. After opening a small silver box and pulling two pills from it, Morpheus continues.

"This is your last chance. After this, there is no going back. You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

and Neo takes the red pill.

But before the pills decision, Neo faced another choice. Kidnapped, Neo is offered the chance to leave, but Trinity asks him to trust. Neo asks why he should. Looking down a street being pounded by rain, Trinity says "Because you have been down there, Neo. You know that road. You know exactly where it ends. And I know that's not where you want to be".

slowly Neo gets back in the car.

Looking down the road of conventional church in America, you are looking down a soggy street. How compelling is it, really? More vision statements, shows called worship, building and capital fund raisers. Is this really what Jesus died for?

You read the New Testament, the account of Acts especially, and wonder why the conventional church pales so in comparison. You hear stories of the church in China, India, and underground in Muslim nations, and wonder at the power. Why not here, where you are?

to adapt what Morpheus says at one point in the movie "Let me tell you why you are here. You are here because you know something. What you know you can't explain. But you feel it. You've felt it your entire life. There is something wrong with the church. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind"

Lately, I’ve thought on how I can relate to those who accuse me of being “wounded” when I discuss with them the many ideas I’ve expressed in this blog. They are quick to dismiss those who take these stances. I thought the way to do it is to tell my story, to tell how the splinter rose in my mind, while at the same time, refuting this “wounded” talk.

In the beginning

Ok, a bit pretentious, but to start …

My family was the “Sunday” only church types only. Typically went, but only for “service” on Sunday AM. My dad had been raised among the Southern Baptists, my mom with “church of Christ”. Around 1977, shortly after moving to a small town in Florida, that switched. We were befriended by a church of Christ minister, who doubled as a Red Cross water instructor, as well as volunteering as a Boy Scout Scoutmaster. In short order, we were the “every time the doors were open” types.

For those not familiar with coC, it is one of the most heavily “bible study” bible only types of churches you will find. I remember in college at Florida State going to a leadership luncheon for denominational college outreach ministries, and our table of coCers had all but one raise their hand when asked “who’s read the entire Bible?”. The only other hands up in the place belonged to the “professionals” and one other. And the bible may be a two edged sword, but in the hands of the coC, it can be a club as well. And I wielded that club myself at times.

The coC would pound you with biblical reasons for everything it does. But thanks to a coC preacher who was a bit more open minded taught me to challenge the “party line” to verify it. The more I read (I’ve read the bible cover to cover probably more than 25 times in a dozen translations, and the NT more than 40 times), the “splinters” arose. This is the roots of much of my challenging you’ve read in this blog. I am in part a creation of the form of corporate church referred to as the “church of Christ”. At first this lead to a more ecumenical approach to spiritual life. Other than some questions about the whole “Sunday service” thing, it was all challenging of the coC. But I did stay with the CoC, just less judgmental and with more grace.

“Model” citizen of the corporate church

In a lot of ways, I was the model corporate disciple. Once a settled married man with a permanent job, I threw myself in being a good “Christian”, in that corporate sense. Substitute Sunday school teach for adults (did it for high schoolers for the summer while in college), benevolence committee, small group leader, on my way to being a deacon. That church suffered one of those “grow our church” v. “grow the kingdom” “splits”, and we left to be a part of a church start. I was soon on the leadership board of that church (this time a non-affiliated church).

Northeast was a great church (may still be, but since I can't testify first hand of the current state …). The attitude was in growing disciples, including freeing them to serve as God made them. My role there was very much as a coach. I had oversight in benevolence, and if someone wanted to do something in those areas, I had the role of equipping and encouraging. We saw tremendous growth in disciples by freeing them to be who God called them to be, rather than being cogs in the machinery of another’s vision.

North Carolina

A job change led to a move, and in North Carolina, ended up with a non-denom church type of place, about a year and half old place meeting in a movie theatre. Attitude on serving was everyone was to serve in the way God gave them vision for first, but also in a way that helped corporately (no one is envisioned with the mission of “sweeping” – but it has got to be done). I was given the room to gather some men and cast a vision for men’s ministry. Great attitude by the pastors in the whole thing. It was really the first sort of large ministry not started by the pastors, so it was a learning curve for the church as we lived out the value of letting people serve as God led, not as pastors envision.

Maryland

Little did I know that this was a pair of rare experiences. Unemployment led to a move to where jobs were (Maryland). Tried a large non-denom with three services first. Seemed promising, but there were a lot of growing pains being experienced by that church, and other issues, so after six months we tried again elsewhere. Stayed at the second church for three years. It seemed open at first to those with their own visions, but that turned out to be in words. We saw that church grow more and more bureaucratic, more and more ministry controlled by the staff instead of freeing the people to live out how God plants vision in the lives of his people.

For reasons other than churches, we decided not to stay in MD long term. Just wasn’t “us” to be there. But while we left for Colorado, we would have left that church anyway. Partly I had bucked hard against the shackles for long enough, partly all our closest friends there were “deserting ship” as a new pastor came in and cast a new “vision” for the church. Kind of sad, as the church had an incredible mix of slightly conservative (politically and in “faith” values/beliefs) to quite liberal; this allowed for quite invigorating discussions in a “safe” manner. But in the “new vision” process, there was quite the shift toward liberal, and the openness kind of died. It became more of a toe the line sort of place. Despite the lack of freedom to serve, it was a time of growth.

The start in Colorado

So we ended up in Colorado. And we were checking out churches again. Must have visited a dozen or more. Talked to others about theirs. It seemed each one I visited the entire conversation with anyone was about a marketing survey. You know, ‘is this your first time?’ and then when you answered yes, it was ‘how did you hear about us?’ (that is, what of our advertising/marketing worked). That’s if anyone talked to you.

Then there was the church that had you doing the typical staring at the back of heads, with the irony of the sermon being on how we are a family. Understand, this was a church of about 25 people, in a room with folding chairs. We could have turned this into a circle easily, but got to have those rows of chairs. Finally gave up looking at corporate churches, aka institutional churches.

Part of the reason for giving up was a growing of one of those initial splinters of the mind. I alluded to before in mentioning the whole "Sunday service" thing. In "verifying" what the coC was trying to teach, I looked hard at what New Testament church worship services looked like. And couldn't validate it from scripture. You have to look Old Testament to find anything resembling it. The first century seemed to gather to "encourage and spur one another to love and good deeds". The gatherings, other than when a (visiting) apostle was in town, seemed more like a family gathering. Yet modern churches center around a scripted praise service. As Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost observed, it seems centered around making Jesus admirers, not Jesus followers. And another aspect is this feeding of a corporate (aka pastor) vision rather than the equipping of the saints for the work they find.

In part two (assuming only two parts), I’ll talk of the “detox” from the church culture, the false alternative of many “organic” churches (not all – there is much good there), discussions with those of like mind and experiences, detail some of the most disturbing "splinters", etc.

Originally posted at http://restoringheart.blogspot.com/2010/07/out-of-matrix-part-i.html

Sowing seed and church emergence

2010-05-16T17:04:00.000-06:00

Was Paul a church planter?

I don't think so.

Heresy? No. If we look at the pattern in scripture, Paul preached Christ. He went to a new city, and he and any partner taught and discussed Jesus. There is no scriptural proof to any claim that he started churches. He taught about Jesus, then left town after leaving that foundation. ONLY on return trips did he do anything with structure - and an open honest reading of the scripture would seem to say he recognized the structure that emerged, not set it up.

So he taught Jesus, left the disciples to their own, then returned to see how they were doing and recognize the structure that grow up.

And speaking of that ...

The Structure

What was the structure of the early church?

Does it matter?

If Jesus builds his church, is it our concern? If the early pattern was to simply be disciples in community, what emerges would be what He wants, wouldn't it?

This thought, and the growing ramifications of it, have been on my mind more and more. The conflict with it was all the thoughts of what we see in Paul's letters of structure, and a background in the descendants of the Restoration Movement (a frontier faith movement from the time when the frontier of the U.S. was Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, etc.)

But reading yet another church's website on trying to be "culturally relevant" made me pause: what if what Paul (and to some extent, Peter) was what would be expected of the church where and when they saw the seed of Jesus was planted. Some quick research and recollection of studies of the synagogues of Jesus time confirmed my suspicions.

The synagogues were overseen by councils of elders, much like the elders oversaw the communities Paul and Peter ministered to. Since the early churches emerged initially alongside Jewish synagogues, it would make sense that the church reflected (in a neutral way) the culture the seed of Jesus was planted in.

Where the church has in the past broken free from the restrictions of "doing it like them over there" or "them back then", we see similar patterns emerge. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, resembles the Roman Empire a lot, right or wrong (the way it sets up a hierarchy between Jesus and "the royal priesthood of believers" is an issue, for example). Instead of an emperor, one has a pope; instead of regional governors, cardinals; instead of local heads, bishops; etc. This pattern of reflecting predominant cultural elements continues to the modern day "non-denominational" churches reflecting modern business - the CEO is the senior pastor, any associate pastors are the vice presidents, there is a board of directors (sometimes called the board of elders for churches), etc.

So this concept is not new to even institutional churches, though I would argue (and have) that their implementation has strayed from some fundamental principles of following Christ with the dichotomy of "professional class" Christians and the laity.

So if we were to accept that what we see in the epistles is a reflection of what the church emerges as from the seed of Jesus in the first century, what does it look like today?

I think there are literally hundreds if not thousands of answers to that, one for each culture in the world. The key is freeing ourselves of being like what we've seen in the past in order to be free for what Jesus wants to build among our community.

I think it begins by not "rushing" to form "something" because we feel "disobedient" for not having "church". Church, in the truest sense, is community. It is community that encourages and equips one another. We all have contributions to that. It doesn't have to be formal gatherings, though it may include that. It doesn't need to rush to find leaders (as Jesus is the head anyway). Just as Paul didn't anoint leaders on his first trip anywhere he went. It doesn't require a formal staff, a building or the trappings that require balancing budgets or capital campaigns.

We've lost something in our rush to "plant" churches. We've discovered churchianity when we rush to form a church, rather than finding Jesus Christ.

Community

Think free of church as you've known it. What has your circle of friends, your communities, looked like? Maybe that's what the seed of Jesus planted in your arena looks like as church.

Mere Churchianity

2010-05-13T20:20:00.000-06:00

What would it be like if Christianity were about Christ?

Nice question by the late Michael Spencer. http://multnomahemails.com/wbmlt/pdf/SneakPeek_Mere%20Churchianity.pdf

washing the inside of the cup

2010-05-09T17:17:00.000-06:00

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

What was Jesus speaking of in terms of washing the inside and the outside of the cup? The Pharisees had put an emphasis on outside appearances, on moral behavior and looking right. They had rules and regulations on top of rules and regulations all in order to appear "godly".

It was all with a big emphasis to look moral and upright.

Sound familiar?

Dallas Willard refers to the modern day versions as a "gospel of sin management". It is all about controlling behavior through outside forces. Accountability, attendance, all the going through the motions of systems.

A few moments before the cup analogy, Jesus noted that everything the Pharisees did was "done for men to see". This gives us a great insight to what Jesus meant by washing the outside. Accountability relies on holding someone to a standard by observing what we can see in them. How does that not encourage doing for others to see?

It's amazing how so many have been duped by outside the cup washing. One young man in a facebook discussion told me how he needed "accountability" in order to keep to worshiping God. He needed the outside pressure to make sure he attended church. huh? In the same conversation, a pastor said he needed his congregation to keep him accountable. How, will someone explain to me, is this not washing the outside of the cup?

Jesus is recorded in Luke 4 as saying he came to give freedom, to free us from oppression. A system that enforces "morality" and "behavior" by a system is counter to what he was speaking of. Accountability and other systems are ultimately oppression, a removal of freedom. Transformation must come from the inside. From relationship with God. From walking with the most holy. From healing, not behavior modification and discipline programs.

Ready, Set, Go

2010-05-02T15:20:00.000-06:00

(link) This entry at Free Believers Network awhile back got me thinking a bit about why I haven't blogged much lately. I think it is in part due to how in part I've moved on, but I also kind of focused this blog in another direction than I moved.

Like the author of that piece who got branded on relationships and wasn't allowed to speak elsewhere, I've let myself self-brand this blog in a direction, but my thoughts have been in another. Yet that's no reason to limit it. I let the idea of "restoring heart" be limited to trying to break the bonds that the institutionalism that crept into expression of church brought with it. That's limiting. It doesn't cast a view of alternatives, of hope, of what freedom means.

I also note that I slowed down in blogging drastically around the end of October. Interestingly, that coincides with a few events in November. One was returning to a Gary Barkalow event on finding one's calling. I did this as a refresher; I originally did one in December of 2006. Great freedom in these (for more on Gary's ministry, visit http://www.thenobleheart.com). At this event, I met some who've found freedom from the bonds so often imposed by institutional forms of church, some despite still being involved in institutional forms, as well as others who've walked away from it. There was one younger man who was a former associate pastor who had found his freedom from institutionalism. Others intrigued by the concept of freedom we experienced, but didn't quite get what the alternative looks like. They felt interested, but couldn't see what they were walking toward.

Then in early December, I had some couples over to my house. Couple of couples actually. One pair were intrigued by the concepts of freedom we discussed. Another was simply trapped. This other couple was actually accusative, claiming that without offering people a "church", one doesn't love people. They just couldn't see this is about offering God without the intermediary.

All this is to say, it set me to thinking about how do you get men and women to see church as something God builds, not something we "plant", not something we strategize about on God's behalf. I find it refreshing that the younger generation, and those who work closely with 20 somethings, see this so easily, but the older generations don't. The younger who remain faithful can take or leave the institutional trappings so easily. Yet there are fewer and fewer of that generation who remain faithful, or who ever become faithful, burned by institutionalistic trappings. How can we ever simply present Jesus, without imposing what church looks like?

It is interesting that really, if we look at the first century church in a more chronological fashion, they presented Jesus, crucified, buried and resurrected, first. They presented to non-religious folks a Jesus who accepted before he called for repentence. Jesus came first. We see the churches that arose, and speak of Paul and his like as church planters. But they were no such thing. They preached Jesus. They fostered community among those who accepted the offer and promises of Jesus. And Paul - on return trips - recognized what was already present. No appointment of "pastors" upfront. If one examines the "qualifications" of elders and deacons in context, Paul was speaking of recognizing the leaders and servants already there. They didn't step into the role; Paul recognized the role they were already performing. Community/church arose organically - the apostles merely identified and recognized what God had done.

This is the challenge we need. To step back, simply love and disciple, and let community arise. We need no grand plan. Jesus presented none. Peter, Paul, and the rest didn't either. They merely loved, accepted, and preached Jesus. They recognized and identified the work God did from there.

So, I think I want to speak more of a vision of God. An old one. The true one. Not a God that one gets to through a professional class, or through an institution, but rather a God one relates to directly, and a church that forms when walking in the footsteps of Jesus. That's not to say I won't ever speak against the trappings of institutionalism. Sometimes, some need to be riled up. As Michael Douglas recently said, a man needs to be able "to see the absurdity of [a] situation, which ultimately allows you to solve it" (Men's Journal, May 2010 issue). In order for me to fully comprehend it myself, I've given some thought of writing these words in a book form, to organize it. If I do this, much if not all will find its way into the pages of this blog.

This blog "reposts" to my facebook page. If you read this there, I invite you to come comment at the original posting at http://restoringheart.blogspot.com/. Links, pictures, formatting etc often get lost when they get reposted on facebook.

The coming collapse ...

2010-03-22T20:19:00.000-06:00

One aspect of the heart is in guarding it. A great number of disciples have their hearts tied with institutional churches ...

But the signs are everywhere, to those who can see them, that what many see as "the church" will disappear. Tony Dale in The Rabbit and the Elephant goes so far as to say it will disappear within 10 to 15 years. Neil Cole writes of Church 3.0 (church 2.0 being the institution we know now, dating back to Constantine). Some of the signs:

1) the shrinking numbers
2) a growing number of professed Christians not involved in churches as we've known them (documented in George Barna's Revolution)
3) the financials - Reggie McNeal documents in Present Future that 85% of the finances for churches comes from the 55 and over - and that data was from 2003.

The financials are big. Further evidence comes from more and more churches going the "efficiency" routes. A single senior pastor, for instance, for a "franchised" church - churches with multiple locations on a single town or region, with all but one location being a "videocast" of the main. Cheaper (and less personal) than staff for each location. It's gone so far that there is at least one multi-state church - one senior pastor, more than 25 campuses, spread from California to Florida and north to Canada (two locations in Ontario!). It's come to using business like strategies to stay afloat.

And google on "tithe". Doesn't take long to find very biblical arguments that the tithe is strictly an old covenant issue. A long guilt trip of manipulating people into thinking it is commanded is busted, and many are catching on. With no scriptural "mandate" to give 10%, many are following their passions and giving to non-church based missions and ministries, leaving churches with the scraps of many, and even more who don't give anything to churches.

I can see it spiraling down just on the financials. Churches have for years benefited from low interest rates on mortgages, as they've generally been very secure and reliable. But as churches declare bankruptcy and otherwise default on mortgages, rates will rise and qualifying for loans will become harder.

So while I don't agree with Tony Dale's 10 to 15 years prediction, the forms will certainly shift radically.

Yet, don't let that discourage you. Jesus said he will build his church - so much of that which falls away is man's attempt to build church. It pales compared to what Jesus can build.

Seeing the church as a reality instead of an activity [or building or organization] will allow you to celebrate the church however she expresses herself around you -- "John" in So You Don't Want To Go To Church Anymore

If the collapse of an institution or two saddens you, perhaps your church is too small.

You play to win the game

2009-12-27T10:32:00.000-07:00

For fun

Nice quiz

2009-11-04T14:58:00.000-07:00

Authority

2009-10-30T16:43:00.001-06:00

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

2009-10-19T16:48:00.000-06:00

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.

Passivity and the church

2009-10-06T07:28:00.000-06:00

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

2009-09-29T07:49:00.000-06:00

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

2009-09-24T07:16:00.000-06:00

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

2009-09-16T08:16:00.000-06:00

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

2009-09-14T08:55:00.002-06:00

Religion is easy, relationship is hard.

Christ intended for us to practice relationship, not religion.

The word "religion" in the NT

2009-09-12T14:03:00.000-06:00

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.

2009-08-24T15:57:00.002-06:00

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?

2009-08-23T16:39:00.003-06:00

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

2009-08-11T07:12:00.002-06:00

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

2009-07-29T07:08:00.002-06:00

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

2009-07-09T07:34:00.004-06:00

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

2009-07-05T13:17:00.002-06:00

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

2009-06-22T07:30:00.004-06:00

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 ...

2009-05-28T07:31:00.002-06:00

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

2009-05-21T12:46:00.001-06:00

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"?

2009-05-18T07:23:00.002-06:00

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

2009-05-13T08:06:00.001-06:00

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

2009-05-11T07:43:00.004-06:00

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

2009-05-08T07:21:00.004-06:00

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

2009-05-05T17:50:00.001-06:00

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

Church hospitality

2009-05-04T07:25:00.002-06:00

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

2009-04-27T07:01:00.003-06:00

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

2009-04-22T07:54:00.002-06:00

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

2009-04-19T17:05:00.002-06:00

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?

2009-04-04T14:34:00.002-06:00

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

2009-01-14T07:18:00.001-07:00

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?

The Image of God

2008-12-29T06:46:00.003-07:00

We are in the image of God. Genesis 1:27 states so, and while some heretics will claims that the fall removed that quality of us, but Genesis 3:22 states that after Adam and Eve took of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

implying that man and woman became even more like God with the knowledge of good and evil. The banishment from the garden was to keep them from eating of the tree of life. If that wasn't enough to show we are still in the image of God, see that Genesis 9:6 speaks of murder being wrong on the basis of us being in the image of God.

But that's not my point today. Rather, think of the ramifications that we are made in the image of God. First of all, there is nothing in the scriptures to make a claim that this is true only for those who are in Christ. This is true for all. How should such knowledge impact evangelism and discipleship? Does the knowledge that something of what God is is written on everyone, from the honored to the lowest of us all, impact how we treat one another? Does it impact how we "do church"?

If we come with the mindset that the image of God is on everyone, shouldn't an emphasis then be on seeing that image revealed? Doesn't it increase the honor we give one another, the respect?

Integrity on Christmas

2008-12-17T07:05:00.004-07:00

I've debated for a couple of weeks even doing this post, but the issue of integrity among followers of Christ is a growing concern. Particularly, the integrity of intellect.

It's a post for another time all the anti-intellectualism and anti-science sentiments among many Christians. But if, as many claim, Christianity is reasonable, let us act with integrity on many common practices and beliefs.

First of all, the assumption is that all Christians celebrate Christmas. Not so. I grew up in a Christian faith system that did not set aside special holidays (for as Paul writes in Galatians 4: "how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years!" ESV). The Puritans, who were an influential part of English and American history, thought Christmas as too pagan. There may be many others I'm not aware of, denominations that don't celebrate.

Second is the perception that Christmas is fundamentally a religious occasion and has been since the day of the apostles. Yet:
>In 245, the theologian Origen of Alexandria stated that, "only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod)" celebrated their birthdays. ("Natal Day", The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911.)
>In 303, Christian writer Arnobius ridiculed the idea of celebrating the birthdays of gods, which suggests that Christmas was not yet a feast at this time. ("Christmas", The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913.)
> More recently, Christmas celebration was banned in England from 1647-1660, and was banned in much of the New England colonies in the 17th century, including Boston from 1659-1681

Christmas was "out of favor" in the early years of the U.S. where after the American Revolution it was seen as an English custom, not a religious obligation. Congress actually convened on Christmas day in 1789. The first state to make Christmas a holiday for its workers was Alabama in 1836 -- it wasn't a federal holiday for DC workers until 1870 and didn't become a holiday for all federal workers in 1885. And it wasn't until 1893 that all U.S. states and territories had made it a holiday for all its workers.

So what led to the "return" of Christmas in the 19th century? Some big religious revival? Nope. Christmas literature become popular in the U.S. and England in the 1820s and 30s. This was the time of much of our Christmas themed stories and poems, most famously Charles Dicken's A Christmas Carol (1834) and Clement Clarke Moore's A Visit From Saint Nick (1822). Most of this literature had no or only passing mention of religious motivation for Christmas. Even then, Christmas was largely a non-event for most Americans until the 1860s (Daniel Boorstin, The Americans). And some actually credit department stores like Macy's of New York for that popularization of Christmas. So the tradition of retail stores "creating" reasons to buy gifts is tied to Christmas (consider that the next time you complain about the commercialization of Christmas).

There are other aspects of Christmas celebrations that we need to watch - the date itself is fairly random.

The Roman Catholic writer Mario Righetti candidly admits that, "to facilitate the acceptance of the faith by the pagan masses, the Church of Rome found it convenient to institute the 25th of December as the feast of the birth of Christ to divert them from the pagan feast, celebrated on the same day in honor of the 'Invincible Sun' Mithras, the conqueror of darkness" (Manual of Liturgical History, 1955, Vol. 2, p. 67).

And De Pascha Computus, a calendar of feasts produced in 243, gives March 28 as the date of the nativity.

You know the fable for the three wise men -- check the bible, the true story is they arrived months later (the shepherds weren't still there like many of our nativity scenes), scripture mentions that the wise men arrived at a house (not a barn, in other words, Joseph and Mary went home w/Jesus), and there were three types of gifts. No mention that there was three wise men -- the number is actually unknown.

The need for integrity is great. Many churches use Christmas as a time for evangelism and revival. If the integrity on the facts are poor, what does that say of our witness? If we are sloppy about the history and practice of Christmas, if we are to practice it at all, what's that say when we teach about why Jesus came? We need integrity about it all.

Systems

2008-12-11T07:11:00.002-07:00

There's a saying: "your system is perfectly designed for the results you are getting".

I look at churches that struggle for volunteers, while all the creative and resourceful duties at church belong to the professionals. "Your system ..."

I see churches that overmanage, requiring spiritual gift assessments and meeting with potential volunteers to counsel them on involvement, then they wonder why so few members initiate action. "Your system ...."

I see the vast majority of churches having as their most resource intensive activity being Sunday "worship", where the majority of the crowd sits in the pews being entertained. Then you have those who wonder why so many of the church members don't evangelize their neighbors or serve in some capacity in the community, why they don't seem to be growing in Christ. Essentially why they aren't "active" members of the church. Well, you teach passivity on Sunday. Your system is perfectly designed for the results you are getting.

Training Circles

2008-12-04T07:09:00.003-07:00

Sorry not to be "around" much. I keep thinking of this site for one set of thoughts, but God has been clear that there are interconnections where I don't see them at the time. So I should have been posting here more, perhaps, but not seeing the connections.

In this journey to restore my own heart, see others restore theirs, to find more specifics on my calling, one theme has continuously resurfaced -- church. A few months ago, I tried to walk away from thinking so much about church and how it impedes people from walking in their calling, and how it could help, just to go and act. To move toward what I thought was more my calling, to help others find theirs.

Wasn't sure exactly how that looks. If you saw The Mask of Zorro you may remember the scene with the training circles. The circle started out large, but as the new Zorro was gaining skill, the circles shrank. "This is your world" the old Zorro said. And each new circle represented his world shrinking.

As you journey into calling, discovering your calling is like that. You get a general idea, and act in that. As you learn and experience, the circle shrinks. It's like knowing you want to teach, and in walking in that the circle shrinks and you discover you want to teach adults, then it shrinks again and you find you want to teach young adults, then college students, then it's teaching literature, and on it goes until you discover you want to teach 19th century English literature to seniors in their final semester. The circles shrink as you discover yourself.

All that to say that I wonder if I forced my circle to shrink around the wrong center. After trying to move away from "church" (see some of my posts around August), I wonder if I should have moved more away from "institutions" and more toward community. One key on this was the last few weeks (the 'distraction' that took some time from blogging) is working with some friends on "Redemptive Tribe" (I put the link there for those reading this a few weeks from now, but for now I believe the settings are still "private" while we build some content). This is a collaboration site for those "friends of Ransomed Heart interested in redemptive community". I'll probably write more on some of the thoughts it has stirred as we seed the site.

Is all this God drawing me back in a circle with the center he knows is my deeper desire?

So, how was your Thanksgiving?

Yesterday

2008-11-27T07:54:00.001-07:00

Yesterday, I had coffee with another man.

"David" has an adult son and daughter. His son works for an internationally known ministry in North Carolina. Dave himself has worked for a number of Christian ministries over his career, mostly in community development and CD consulting, dealing with places in Africa and Asia mostly.

Dave, age 54, doesn't go to church anymore.

You see, Dave was active in church for years, but as he grew to know what God made in him, what made Dave unique in his father's eyes, he stepped toward that. But the churches he was a part of wanted to plug and play him in what they wanted to do. Dave has grown and matured and knows his part in the kingdom, but apparently that's a threat to local churches he just need someone to feel their predefined roles. Dave was even told "we know you don't like doing this, but you are good at it so it must be what you are to do here". It was killing his heart.

So he left.

Online, in ministry (I've volunteered with Ransomed Heart and The Noble Heart ministries) I've come across dozens of men like Dave. Men called by God in a direction that brings them in conflict with their churches. Some stay for their families' sake. Some stay as their ministry creates the church as a kind of mission field for them. Others leave.

The "church" was meant to equip. Somewhere along the way it placed itself in the place of God. If the church returns to equipping men, then the work done by the church will be the work the members are called to do. Not what some committee decides.

How to settle disputes

2008-11-23T19:23:00.001-07:00

Core beliefs

2008-11-19T07:15:00.003-07:00

I posted last week's "why some theology matters" to a social network site I'm helping to seed before we open it up to like-minded others to join. A friend Reggie posted a good reply, including this list of core beliefs that matter:

The Good Heart (Core)
The Larger Story
God's heart (The Prodigal, The Shack, etc.)
Warfare (there is an enemy)
The need for healing (the wound)
Uniqueness of our Calling
The value of Relationship
Hearing God (This does happen)

And actually within a couple of days I was rereading from John Eldredge's Walking With God the section entitled Not Every Gospel is Equal (page 164ff). He makes a similar point. Now, he spends most of his time undoing the damage done by "judge not lest ye be judged" mentality (in context, that is a statement about making right judgments), but in the end he has his three core points: the heart is central, intimacy with God is the goal, and restoration of the person matters.

If restoring heart is a goal, if it is the mission, then understanding your beliefs on the matters of the heart, God, and relationships are key. Understand that, then understand who your allies are, and what your mission is. If your heart matters, then who you allow close matters as well.

Above all else, guard your heart,
for it is the wellspring of life.

See you next week!

2008-11-15T14:12:00.000-07:00

Why some theology matters

2008-11-13T07:20:00.004-07:00

I know I got on a theology kick this week, but let me bring it around.

Our belief in who God is, how he made us, and view of the relationship between God and us matters. It matters to how we view God, how we view ourselves, and how we interact with God. God created us as freewill creatures (I know, now I'm risking circular logic here). If we have freewill, our choices matter, and our views matter. They influence how we act and interact.

These things are worth debating, especially if a group is to be a long term community. How the community views these matters helps form what the community is, what it does, and how it relates. While a group that wants to be a redemptive community does not need to agree on all theology, I think it does need to agree on these fundamental points. Thus the need for discussion, even debate on these matters.

But of course, the individual needs to know their own viewpoints. This effects how one interacts with God and others. If I see all who don't know Christ as fundamentally depraved, that effects how I interact with them. However, if I see them as a worthy human in need of healing, wholeness and holiness, that causes me to act more gently and tenderly towards them.

And it is interesting that when two who profess Christ get together and differ on these matters, I think some of the most heated discussion can occur. It is because I think we put so much of our security into our view of our identity, and these matters get to the core of our identity. Let God or another shake it, and we become scared -- who are we if we aren't x? But letting go of false teaching on these matters and embracing the truth allows us to become more fully who we are.

I don't know how a person can become all that they are meant to be without the divine truth in these matters, nor do I believe a group can become community without a basic like-mindedness in these matters.

In the Image of God

2008-11-11T07:18:00.004-07:00

Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.
-- Genesis 9:6

We are in the image of God.

Some, surprisingly, would dispute that. They would say that with the fall, the image of God upon us, or in us, (or whatever the appropriate vocabulary), was removed.

Interestingly, Genesis 3 says, that with the fall, we were even more like God

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." -- v22

With the fall, we became more like God. One of the earliest forerunners of the law, the instructions on murder (Genesis 9:6), was put in place due to humanity's stance as being in the image of God.

That is a powerful piece of knowledge. That implies the capacity within us for great good, or in our corrupted state, with our free will, the power for great evil. That is a great responsibility we have. But many of us don't realize our power. Our authority. So evil runs almost out of control in our world, the defeated Satan has his way because we don't realize our authority in the name of Jesus. We sit on our butts often not knowing our power to do something about it, both physically and in the spiritual realm.

You have a place. You have a role. And you have the authority to create change. Paul writes in Ephesians that God had something for you to do prepared in advance of you. Will you seek it out and discover it?

The Noble and Good Heart

2008-11-10T07:15:00.006-07:00

I was in a discussion a couple of days ago about the nature of man before Christ, and the philosophies even spilled into what one believes about our nature after we are within the body. Since the story we believe effects the story we live, I thought I'd shoot down some of these mythologies this week.

While these mythologies come from a proof-texting and out of contexting of scripture, all these false teachings can be shot down with just a single passage of scripture.

Jesus teaches the parable of the sower, and this is one of the few we have recorded his explanation of it in detail to his disciples. Look at the explanation in Luke 8:11-15.

This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. 12Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. 13Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away. 14The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life's worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature. 15But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.

Whether your theology holds here the "word of God" is Jesus, or the written or spoken word of the good news, it still holds. Those with a noble and good heart receive it.

Psalm 139 tells us that we are in the womb we are wonderfully made. By God. In other words, if there wasn't a basic goodness to us then that would have been the way God made us in the womb. So if there is nothing good about us, before we hear the word of God, then that would be the way God made us? That would mean that God made evil.

But no, God doesn't make evil, he makes free will. God wanted community, wanted love from others, so he created others. But love and community from others without the freewill to choose otherwise is hollow, so he created freewill. It was a freewill creation that betrayed him and led 1/3 of the angel armies in rebellion, and freewilled creations that betrayed him in the Garden. Evil was the consequence of the freewill.

So as freewilled creatures, even before we hear the word, we have the choice of picking between good and evil. Typically, we pick some of both, and most of us from the evil table pick things that "aren't that bad". This I don't deny. But there are a number of honorable men among atheists even. There are a lot of legalists, who try to follow a law rather than rely on the grace of God, who do a lot of good in this world.

I think if this were not true, this world would have become a living hell a long time ago.

And yes, there's a difference between us being righteous before God and us doing some good. I do not deny that, and I'm not saying we can win God's favor through our attempts at being good. But as God's creation, as God's beloved, as people knit in the womb by God, we have a freewill to choose. This is true even of those who've never heard the word. We are not evil, yet neither are we righteous without God.

But with God, we can be considered fully good and righteous:

But the Scriptures speak often of good works and do not hesitate to apply such terms as "good," "blameless," and even "worthy" to mortals:

He [Barnabas] was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith (Acts 11:24).

Both of them [Zechariah and Elizabeth] were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly (Luke 1:6).

Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man (Luke 23:50).

You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed (1Thess. 2:10).

But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke 20:35).

Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy (Rev. 3:4).

Leadership

2008-11-06T07:50:00.004-07:00

My thoughts lately have turned to leadership.

I've been what some would say is the leader -- sometimes, that's just really the manager. I was in Boy Scouts and served as a patrol leader, senior patrol leader, and as a chapter chief in the Order of the Arrow. In the latter, I put together the first camporee for our district in a few years. Except for that latter one, in many ways I was in the role but not so much in the function perhaps. I was probably more of a leader at the National Boy Scout Jamboree in 1981, doing the function without a role.

Since high school, I've had a number of leadership roles, and many times functioned in those roles, and functioned as a leader outside of the role. When I try to function as a leader, I usually end up trying to manage more than lead.

I've tried to repress the leadership the last couple of years, however. Some of it is due to control issues, sometimes on my part, often with someone else feeling usurped. And maybe for a season that was right.

Clarifying my thoughts on leadership more this past week has been Seth Godin's book Tribes. The challenge is to be a leader in the way you are, not as a role. Modern leadership is in bringing together communities, and typically standing back and letting it happen. The community may have a mission, or simply a common interest. This kind of thought toward leadership is kind of fitting with some "apostolic" gifting some in the last few months have said they see in me. I try to see what that means ...

Now is the time

2008-11-05T07:55:00.002-07:00

Men of God, this is our finest hour! I remember the day Bill Clinton was elected. I was totally depressed as were all of my friends. But I also remember this nagging thought that maybe this was God's way of awakening His Church. And yes it was. Over the next 8 years a massive movement of prayer and fasting began. Well over one hundred thousand people did 40 day fasts. Over 1 million men met in Wash DC to publicly repent and to our hearts and eyes back to God.

I believe we are experiencing the fruit of those years today. Look at what is happening in the Church today. George Barna says millions are leaving churches because their passion for Jesus has reached a level that the churches can't support. Worldwide, people are coming to Christ at a faster rate than ever before in the history of man. Movements like Ransomed Heart are seeing men awakened, coming alive and learning to fight for freedom.

I believe this is another step in the progression God is taking with His Bride. He is getting our eyes off politics and inviting us to "Real Change", that which only comes from a heart that has been redeemed, restored and is now fully alive. When a man's heart comes alive, and He walks in the love of His Father, that changes him beyond recognition. We have all seen this personally in our own lives and in each other.

So I say it again, this is our finest hour. We who have experienced this heart level change are to be the leaders/warriors in this movement of God. We will see more and more people become dissatisfied with politics, churchianity, etc and they will be looking for the real thing. So let's go get 'em, Sons of Scotland!
-- John Hard, Birmingham, AL

I hear the bemoaning of the election results from my friends and allies, but a couple, including John (quoted above) have the right mindset. So many have spouted off by electing who we have, we will reap what we sow (allowing the election of Obama), but the truth is the results are reaping what we have sown.

By focusing on the battles the church has chosen, she is losing the war. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not about society transformation by effort, but it is about life transformation. Lives transformed becomes the salt and light that in great enough numbers transform society.

But don't misunderstand "numbers". It is about one man, or one woman, whose life is transformed, standing in the gap. Churches have focused for so long on numerical growth, but how many of their converts stand in the gaps? They've focused on turning out numbers to support a cause, but one man, or one woman, standing by another is what it takes to transform another.

Let me put this perspective on what I mean -- I know a group of six or eight men in Arizona who support a village in Nigeria. They find out about this village when it was "dropped" by a large church as it "realigned" its budget. These six give more money and visit this village more often than that large church.

In other words, we don't need a hundred million warehoused in churches. We don't need hundreds of thousands receiving a newsletter. We will create more change with hundreds with passion.

God created within you something special. What has he called you to do, not what your pastor or some Christian activist rallies you to? Be who God calls you to be.

Growing churches

2008-10-30T07:17:00.003-06:00

The Gospel is like a seed, and you have to sow it. When you sow the seed of the Gospel in Israel, a plant that can be called Jewish Christianity grows. When you sow it in Rome, a plant of Roman Christianity grows. You sow the Gospel in Great Britain and you get British Christianity. The seed of the Gospel is later brought to America, and a plant grows of American Christianity. Now, when missionaries come to our lands they brought not only the seed of the Gospel, but their own plant of Christianity, flower pot included! So, what we have to do is to break the flowerpot, take out the seed of the Gospel, sow it in our own cultural soil, and let our own version of Christianity grow.
–Dr. D.T. Niles of Sri Lanka

Imitation is the bane of modern Christianity.
- Reggie Britt

Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost make the point in The Shaping of Things to Come that in their native Australia, the form of Christianity that is prevalent relates to at most 35% of the population, and about 45% in the United States. And both numbers are shrinking. The typical method of church planting is too much like trying to plant cuttings from previous plants. A plant may take in that situation, or it may not. Studying church history, this method seems to have been pretty much used since the 4th century.

While Niles speaks in terms of national churches, his final comment on culture is right. And wrong in some ways too. Rather than culture, the individuals who join into a church need to shape that church. If the body consists of its parts as Paul writes, shouldn't the arrival or departure of an individual impact that church? Shouldn't the growth of an individual impact it? Too often, people come and go from a church and it just goes on as before -- short of the coming and going of the clergy class.

If the church is to be the body, the individual has to matter. Corporate and individual must intertwine tightly. If the church is to have impact in a culture, then the shape and form of church must grow from seed within that culture -- holding to truth -- but letting form and to an extent function be shaped by its environment.

Why Men Hate Going to Church

2008-10-21T15:52:00.004-06:00

David Murrow wrote a book by the name Why Men Hate Going to Church a few years back. There was a short burst of interest in Christiandom, but like so many fads, the interest faded and the problem continues: men don't go to church. Statistically, only 40% of those in churches on a given weekend are men. Some denominations the numbers are worse, some better, but in no case do men outnumber women in any denomination.

As a former men's ministries director of a church, as a member of the leadership team of another, and as a member of a men's ministry leadership team at a third church, I'd like to offer some perspectives on the issue.

First of all: wrong issue. The concern shouldn't be if men are or aren't going to church. It should be about a relationship with Jesus Christ. Are men becoming disciples of Jesus? If the women's numbers are padded by "social" Christians, the problem is quite different -- like who do you move those "social" Christians to a truer faith? Let's consider the right issue. Sadly, there are no clear statistics, just anecdotes, about the devotion of the individuals.

Is it even an issue at all? Some statistics say 40 to 45% of Americans are in church on a Sunday. Those numbers of held since 1960. But there's a problem with those numbers -- the number of churches has grown by only 25% of what is needed to hold those numbers. Moreover, if you multiple the average reported attendance (reported by churches) by the number of churches, the percentage in church on a given Sunday would be about 17% of the population.

Bottom line: people lie about their faith. Are women more likely to lie? Is that why there is "more" faith statistically among women?

Is it an issue at all?

My conclusion: I think it is, but don't trust the statistics. I think the result of looking to the statistics will end up treating the symptoms, not the cause.

Second of all: what is the cause?

I think it is multiple reasons ... one is the feminization of Christianity. That is a solvable one -- get back to the roots.

Another is related: churches aren't men-friendly -- you have "Jesus is my boyfriend" music for one. But this is a trap. Many have seen this, and their solution -- shorter sermons, shorter services and the like. My thoughts on short services -- that's garbage. Men will sit through 3 hour football games, sit in deer stands in the cold for 6 hours, go to 2.5 hour movies. Length is not the issue.

But the bottom line: the system is designed for the results you are getting. Men aren't going to church because the system is designed to repel them. Some of the system elements:

1) The system is designed to create dependence on itself
-- you sit staring at the back of the heads in front of you pretty much the whole time. You are dependent on someone to tell you what to sing, tell you what to believe (thus the sermon), to control everything.
Men aren't designed to be dependent on anything but God and the church ain't God. Men are designed to be mutually dependent in community, I believe, but that's not a dependency on a pastor who is dependent pretty much on our accolades and "tithes". Much more mutual than that.
2) The system is designed to control
-- the head is to be Christ, but we've managed to put a layer there. We delegate listening to God's direction to professionals. It's a system that belittles men's abilities. It limits them.
3) The system is designed to limit
-- men want to make a difference. Yes, you can make a difference in the kid's program, but those roles are oft designed to be interchangeable. You don't make the difference uniquely with who you are. Men don't want to simply make a difference, they want to be the hero, the difference maker.

What's needed is a new system. Or maybe it is an old system, that dates back to the time of Jesus. A system that eliminates bureaucracy, where if there are professionals they are not controllers or leaders, but enablers (positively speaking) and coaches. Where men listen to the Spirit themselves, not to the pastor, for direction. Where the relationship with Jesus is not filtered through priests, pastors and/or elders. Where Jesus is the head, unfiltered by a clergy/laity hierarchical divide.

The army of God is ready to move. Not sit in the warehouses at major intersections in our cities.

See also The 800 lb Gorilla

Real Church

2008-10-17T07:36:00.002-06:00

Well, life happens so so much for extra posts this week ...

Last Saturday was our first meeting of a new church, one trying to be "organic" as it is labeled. Being our first meeting, we shared a meal, talked about what brought us to Colorado, which one story had God so much in it it just prompted other stories of God acting. A couple of people had stories on how Satan tried to block their participation, either in the conference that we initially met at or that week's meeting.

I think to the passages that talk about the purpose of gathering -- to encourage one another, to edify one another. These stories and time with people ... this was great. Never went to a "service" like this. And for those who insist that meetings are for "worship" (find a scripture that says that that applies to the New Covenant): Real honest stories that I think glorified God more than a song, a prayer, three more songs,a sermon, another song, song, and closing prayer.

The weekend before I was at a Ransomed Heart Wild At Heart Boot Camp. I was on the work crew. We went out on Wednesday, and met as a group daily in our time there, twice on Saturday. Our Friday-Sunday morning meetings were practical matters, prayer, and talking about how we felt the Spirit moving, while Thursday's meeting did the same with some more stuff since we had more time. We had an extra meeting Saturday to talk about how we saw God move that weekend. Smaller groups met at other times spontaneously, and we had our work together too. Again, for a weekend we were a "church" that met daily. And again, I think was more glorified than a month of Sundays in a typical traditional church.

That's not to say a group gathered for traditional church couldn't experience the same -- there just has to be as much time if not more looking into the faces of your brothers and sisters than staring at the back of their heads while the professionals and semi-pros "perform", time spent talking about God and what he is doing in lives today and what he has done this year (not what he did in the first century and before), in a way that encourages and edifies.

Wound thoughts

2008-10-12T09:08:00.003-06:00

With a recent Boot Camp, that organic conference, a meeting with a man named Bart, and beginning a new church with others, a lot of thoughts float through my head. After being off-schedule for two weeks, I think this week will be off in another way -- extra posts to catch up.

This thought came during a meeting with Bart on Friday at CPK. Readers of John Eldredge's Wild At Heart and especially those who've been to a Wild At Heart Boot Camp know of what is called a wound. These are more or less psychological wounds that change who we are and keep us from the glory God intended for us. Typically these come in our youth from our dads or a father figure. As I heard my Psych 101 professor said one day "we all spend our entire lives recovering from our childhood".

One such wound with me was what was essentially a poor example of a friend my dad was to other men. That combined with other "wounds" kind of resulted in a "vow" that friends and friendship had to be earned. One way that came was being the guy with answers and provoking ideas. Talking with Bart on Friday about what I liked to do, I came to realize that despite about four years of awareness of that, I still practiced a behavior that resulted from such beliefs -- reading almost exclusively non-fiction.

So I'm weighing a strategy of breaking that -- right now I'm thinking I might give up reading any non-fiction book (other than the Bible and referencing commentaries and the like and possibly work-related books) for a year. I'm leaning toward making it simple -- doing it for a calendar year starting Jan 1, 2009.

Let you know the final call on that and how it goes.

Erwin McManus' Wide Awake

2008-10-10T07:56:00.004-06:00

A bit off schedule this week, with posts a little later. Forgive me on that.

I've digested just about everything Erwin Raphael McManus writes. He is one writer (along with some like John Eldredge and Brennan Manning and a couple of others) that I buy the books of without checking reviews. When his Wide Awake came out as his first book in some time, and given the topic being one near and dear to my heart, I eagerly anticipated reading it.

And I must say, I was disappointed in this book. It does have a strong start -- making a inspired case that we are to be creative and we are to impact our world. But when it moves to giving direction on discovering what that is for yourself, what impact you should have and how to get there, it reads like so many good sounding sermons -- sounds good, but how do you live that? Or as one of my favorite characters in Braveheart, Stephen, says "Fine speech, now what do we do?". In the end, when it comes to this book, I think William Wallace's response is more useful than anything this book offers "Just be yourself".

But God is an amazing God. An author I've grown more and more to appreciate, Bill Johnson, put out a book awhile back called Dreaming With God that covers similar subject matter. I'm about midway through it, and so far I've found it more useful. We'll see if Johnson's writing keeps it up through the rest of the book, and either way, I'll post a review when I've finished it.

As for McManus, I'll likely pick up his next without recommendations or checking reviews. No author can score a home run every time, call this one a single from an author I'd say has previously never hit anything less than a triple.

New post

2008-10-08T07:36:00.003-06:00

Got back Sunday from my fourth Wild At Heart Boot Camp. You think, why four? Well, of course there is the first, and way back there once was a requirement to make two boot camps to go to the Advanced Camp. That's two. The last two I've volunteered at, first in Oct '06 and then last weekend on the work crew.

Great time hanging out with the work crew members in down time, what little we had. Some great guys. There's talk of a reunion next month for those of us along the front range. I assume the guys from Oregon, NY and Arizona are welcome to fly in if they wish.

I think there were three great "wows" from the weekend. Fourth if you count John Eldredge's great quote "Rescue sex is almost as good as makeup sex". Now how many "men's retreats" can you go on and hear that kind of advice?

Great "wow" number one: the fall foliage was peaking. Such beauty. I'll probably edit this post later or add one to embed some photos I took of it.

Great "wow" number two: God speaks. Actually I hear his voice regularly, but usually something extra comes through at these boot camps. I don't know why God doesn't speak these kinds of things elsewhere -- is it something with me that I'm only willing to listen at a Ransomed Heart event? Or is there something about the situation that God just can speak clearer -- is the lines of communication clearer? Really need to figure that one out, because I can't wait between events like this to hear like that.

Great "wow" number three: Such men on the work crew. There were two men on this crew I knew before -- Bill from Castle Rock who I met at a previous event and had lunch with a few weeks back, and one of the leads Scott who was a "wingman" on my previous volunteering with Ransomed Heart. In no time we bonded. Why can't the church be more like this? Well, in part, we were the church of course. But why can't the "church" as most think of it be like this? I cling to the belief it can ... and continue to suspect the "institutional systems" about her interfere with her full functioning. But I love how she often performs despite those handcuffs.

Organic Conference -- questions answered

2008-09-30T17:20:00.002-06:00

Some have inquired for more details, mostly from where this blog feeds to. So, quickest to respond to them all from here.

First of all, how did I hear about it? I signed up on this website to find organic churches. Back in August, Milt Rodriguez, a partner to Frank Viola, contacted me about my interest and the potential of hosting a conference and help with local details. Couldn't help, but was interested in the conference.

Milt, Frank, and a couple of others in different parts of the country are looking to help hook up some interested in organic church in different parts of the country. Since starting that website linked to above and fueled by interest sparked by Frank Viola and George Barna's book Pagan Christianity?, they've had several thousand inquiries around the U.S. from folks looking to connect with others interested in organic Christianity. Colorado Springs had a pretty decent concentration, so it was picked for one of the early conferences.

So what happened? Well, we met with Milt from Friday night to Sunday morning in someone's home (thanks Edith for hosting!). Friday night was for two and half hours, and a bit more than half the time was spent on introductions and why the interest from everyone, while the second half Milt did some teaching on Christ and Christ in us. Milt on the weekend was trying to really drive home that it was about Christ, not church. A secondary theme was that he also heavily emphasized was that there is mystery to it all, and that God still uses revelation -- it is a spirit of wisdom and revelation.

Saturday morning continued in the teaching of mystery, more on Saturday with the emphasis on reconciliation - that fact of equality due to each of us having Christ in us so we each have valuable contributions -- we don't need the preacher to reveal God for us, we each have it in each other for that. He tied it back to Genesis 1 and 2. Great teaching (though a couple of the finer points I have a bit of an issue with -- but it was those finer points) about the work of Christ about restoring to the original intent of Genesis 1 and 2. I really liked it because too many preachers make it all too simple ... and trying to explain the points Milt made here in this short account won't do justice. It really is about being separate and joint at the same time, and the Trinity being one and three, et al.

So, anyway, setting a stage about Christ in us, we in Christ and how we are one and Christ is one ... Saturday afternoon was about answering questions. This was the open forum for Milt to answer questions about organic church. Interestingly, little was about practical matters as I suspected. I think most had read enough of the available books to get the practical matters, so we got to heart matters and brushed some theological matters about it. Saturday night was more of the teaching that draws us to Christ first, and a little instruction about how to spend the first few months together -- things like taking time to detox from traditional church, focusing on relationships with one another. That continued a bit Sunday morning, and we also got to the practical matters of organizing who goes where in our trial attempts at forming organic fellowships.

That is it in a nutshell, short of the time we spent just talking with one another over our long lunch and dinner breaks.

Milt's website is Rebuilders. That first link will take you to a joint resource with his allies around the country -- I'd advise that as a place to start unless you might be in Colorado or Utah (Milt's based in the Western Slope region of Colorado).

My reaction -- I'm diving into this. I've been to so many churches that promise "authentic" fellowship. I think organic type fellowship holds the best hope for that. I look forward to this attempt we're making, with some caution, but no plans to hold back.

Organic Conference

2008-09-29T09:22:00.005-06:00

It has been more than a year since regularly "attending church" (if we are the church, how do we attend ourselves?). This past weekend I attended an organic church conference with a number of other folks interested in organic church here in Colorado Springs and along the Front Range. Looks like an outcome is two somewhat connected communities, one along the I-25 corridor of the town, one along Powers Blvd (for those not familiar with the Springs, the area is really stretched n/s, but it is typically quicker to go n/s than east-west because of I-25 on the west side and Powers on the east -- nothing really comparable to those two going east-west).

We've got an outside "consultant" -- a church planter if you will -- who is helping direct this from experience. He'll be back in a few months, but for now, we "detox" from institutional church and just gather and build relationships. Lots of things are banned for now that sounds almost heresy to do so -- no bible study, no theological discussions, no "prayer requests" at gatherings -- it's about relationship with one another and Jesus for now.

Excited, wary, and a number of other emotions. We'll see what happens.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reminder -- I'm out of town and away from a computer from Wednesday late until Sunday. So this will likely be the last post of the week unless I do one Wednesday for some odd reasons.

Boot Camp

2008-09-25T07:15:00.003-06:00

Well, a week from today I'll be helping prepare Frontier Ranch to host another Ransomed Heart Wild At Heart Boot Camp.

For those unaware of what a Boot Camp is, I believe the best selling Christian book title this century outside of some Bible translations and Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life is probably John Eldredge's Wild At Heart. Years ago, John and his ministry, Ransomed Heart, started offering men's retreats in the mountains of Colorado to help men explore more deeply what it means to be a man and to become fully what God intended. These have helped hundreds if not thousands of men, and the impact of these men have improved the lives of thousands more. For example, if you read Donald Miller's To Own a Dragon (Miller's more famous books are Blue Like Jazz, Searching for God Knows What, and one of my favorites Prayer and the Art of Volkswagen Maintenance), you see his journey in dealing with an absent father and realizing the impact of the lack of a male influence had on him. He specifically mentions Wild At Heart and his trip to a boot camp in that book and the impact it had in sorting out his journey.

I first made a boot camp in May 2004. Great time of listening to God, and unpacking who I am and how the events of life have shaped me. I went back in January 2005 and volunteered in a role for the October 2006 event, and a few weeks back got recruited to return as part of the work crew (the manual labor for the event).

The power of the event seems to vary for each man. I think the honesty of each man who speaks (John, Craig McConnell, Bart Hansen, and in the past Gary Barkalow) in their journey holds the greatest power to me. I've gained from each time I've gone, first with the teaching and stories, then as a volunteer with the interactions of others and their stories. This is a weekend into what the movement of Christ should be.

reduced load

2008-09-22T08:09:00.004-06:00

Normally I post here on Sunday or Monday (as well as Wednesday or Thursday). My batteries for this kind of thinking and inputting are a bit drained right now, so I'm going to skip today's.

Lots going on right now, but honestly I think I will be able to post what is normally my second post of the week later, and hope to post the first one of next week as scheduled. The second post of next week will probably be skipped. This weekend I'm attending a conference on organic church (Friday-Sunday) that has the hoped for outcome of planting a couple of churches in the Colorado Springs area, and then the following weekend I've got a long weekend volunteering with Ransomed Heart for a Boot Camp (leaving Wednesday, back Sunday).

The trouble with words: "reforming" the church

2008-09-18T07:27:00.003-06:00

"Reforming the church"

Isn't that more of the same of what's wrong? If the problem with the church is an inordinate focus on the church, rather than Jesus Christ, how is an additional focus on the church via "reformation" going to solve the problem?

I like Jesus' comment to Peter at the end of John's gospel where he essentially gives Peter the MYOB lecture, with, "What is that to you? You just follow me."

What is "reforming the church" to me? I think if we follow Jesus, imitate Jesus, emulate Jesus, etc. that the reformation will take care of itself one life at a time.

This was a comment to Monday's blogcast, and I thought I'd respond to it as the more I thought of it, the longer it got.

Reforming is a poor word that has gotten watered down in use. Reform is to "re-form", or rather, to form again. But how often is reformation a tearing down from the start? Luther certainly didn't "reform" the church. What he did was the equivalent of giving a car a tuneup. He may have changed some spark plugs, messed with the timing, but he didn't reform the car.

No, the last reforming that happened to the church was in the 4th century. We got the institutionalism of the sermon, we got the building formalized into the "traditions" category, we got the separation of clergy and laity - a step back to imitate the old covenant priest system that Jesus eliminated, and a bunch of other reformations. We went from participatory gatherings for the purpose of encouraging one another and spurring on to love and good deeds to the "Show" that gets labeled worship. Hmmm, worship in the new covenant was clearly described as service to God, not a service for God's entertainment.

Ok, I've ranted in this blog before about that. But the answer is not the MYOB, you follow God your way, I'll do it my way that so many are tempted to practice either. Scripture is clear that we are in this together. One does not journey alone. There are too many one anothers; there is mentions of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (and few who wear any of those titles are that in the biblical sense) given to the church; and much more.

What should the church look like? The problem with answering that is that Jesus did say he will build his church -- it isn't my job. So while recognizing "church" as it is isn't what God intended is one thing, to "cast a vision" of what it should be like is probably just as wrong. And what it looks for one set of people in one locale in one culture in one time in history is probably fairly unique. We get too much cookie-cutter in churches, which I believe feeds the largest reason 80% of church plants die in the first couple of years -- we follow someone else's pattern rather than listening to the Holy Spirit. Our churches are man-made, not God made. How many times did the Israelites use the "Jericho" method for conquering a portion of the land God told them to take? Once. What about that Gideon strategy that works so well, with the trumpets and the torches in jars? Wildly successful, used only once. Again and again, yet why do so many say "looked, God blessed it when they did that way, we'll do the same". Umm, would read your Bible? GOD DOESN'T DO THE SAME THINGS THE SAME WAY TWICE.

No, reformation of the church is less about structures and methods, and about process. We need to be communities that listen to God and let God form us. In the first century, those communities seem to be centered and organized geographically, but nothing in scripture seems to bind us to that. We have the benefit of faster transportation, so for one person their church may be organized by whose their neighbor, for another God leads them to community by common ministry passions, another is around a recreational passion. With phones and the internet, others may find their church almost virtually. The process, follow God, follow the Holy Spirit, and let Jesus form our churches.

Another thing on that process -- I don't believe God intends for one church to function independent of another -- not talking a hierarchy, but rather -- to use a modern concept reflected in the ancient -- a network. Evidence suggests that in the late 1st century to late 3rd century, there might be a church that meets in one home in one city, but the churches in the homes together were the church in that city. Somehow, they were interdependent -- the home church was a cell in the greater body of the church in that city. Again, should that be our model ... maybe not around geography again -- modern technology has allowed the geography barriers to fall, so we again need to listen to the Holy Spirit about what to do in this day and age and our cultures.

So, to return to Monday's "blogcast", IF God has placed a desire in my heart about "church reformation", it is about being a leadership role in this reformation of process of forming and being the church. To hell with those stodgy institutions whose purpose seems more tied in perpetuating themselves and "a system" than following God.

Dadgummit

2008-09-15T07:33:00.003-06:00

The first weekend of October, I'm serving on the work crew for a Wild At Heart Boot Camp. A prep assignment was to become familiar with one the resources Ransomed Heart offers because part of the duty of the work crew is working the resource tables. I've got most (I don't have Raising Girls -- I have one child, a son, so I didn't think it necessary to have Raising Girls). I'm behind in listening though, as I don't commute to work anymore and find that a good time to listen for me.

So I was listening to a recording called Unveiling Your Purpose. Wonderful recording, most I had heard though at a Calling Intensive I went to. There was one statement though that I didn't like, though I know it likely true. The speaker spoke of desires, and how there is much good to do, and much that may catch our attention for a day and make us think we must do something, but what we need to pay attention to is what do we keep coming back to, what lingers with us.

Dadgummit.

That makes me face a hard one. For years a recurring theme has been church reformation. I was always attracted to the latest trends for awhile, though I realize most of those now was the "church growth" garbage -- which is so much about the ABCs -- attendance, building, and cash flow. I thought about a career switch to church planting at one point. But it has become refined, realizing that a driving force has been wanting to see people come fully alive. The last few years, a focus has been in development -- developing the heart, learning how people discover what makes them come alive, etc.

I thought this was all headed toward living my calling in an arena similar to a life coach. And being this is a kind of first cut of "history", maybe it still is. For my readers, I provide this kind of honesty in my journey so those looking back on the end story don't see it as "so simple" and wondering why it can't be so simple for them. It's not simple.

So, where is it heading? I don't know, but this recurring theme suggests something with church reformation to me. And that leads to the 'dadgummit'. Sure I'd like to see churches focusing on what I think they should be doing, which is encouraging and equipping the saints. Church has become too much about show, about numbers, about being a club, just about everything but body that helps people become fully what God intended them to be. That latter point is what I think the intended outcome of encouraging and equipping was supposed to be.

What would be nice would be that the whole "church" thing was about equipping me to help people hurt by church. That's simpler than church reformation. I can visualize how that would work. But visualizing church reformation ... how would that occur?

Maybe I'm wrong in interpreting the past -- that would be nice. And I'll be talking to others, of course. Maybe they can help me see another view on it. Or maybe that speaker is just wrong. (I hope he doesn't rid this blog ...)

Definitely, this will be continued.

The Noble Heart

2008-09-11T07:14:00.003-06:00

I wanted to use today's blog entry to celebrate the "official" launch of Gary Barkalow's new ministry, The Noble Heart. Many may know Gary through his work with Ransomed Heart Ministries the last few years. Gary felt the call of his life at this time in his journey may be better served with a slightly different focus than Ransomed Heart would provide him to do, so he's stepped out to start The Noble Heart.

The description of The Noble Heart's ministry from the website:

The Noble Heart is a ministry helping men and women find this life, the life of their heart, in God. Its purpose is to help us understand and walk in God's process of restoring, revealing and releasing the heart. Each of us possesses a sacred destiny, an aspect of the glory of God, which is needed in the Larger Story we have been invited into. A Story in which there are no spectators, bystanders, benchwarmers, or civilians. We, through the work of Christ, are designed to have a powerful life.

Go with God, Gary. I look forward to the ever increasing glory of God that will shine through you.

inside out

2008-09-08T07:38:00.002-06:00

for as he calculates in his soul, so is he

Proverbs 23:7.

Who we are we are from the inside out. Jesus made this point in saying if we wash the inside of the cup, the outside will be clean. The point of arguments against legalism is that legalism is an attempt to move from the outside in.

Who you are is how you think. Do you wish you weren't a bitter man? Until you stop thinking like one, you won't stop. Wish you had more friends? Until you think of yourself first as a friend, why do you expect any different?

Until your thinking changes, no amount of training, no amount of gaining experience, will get you to your desired work. You've got to think like what you want to be. In recent years (decades?), in some lines of thinking in Christendom has focused on being rather than doing. (In some cases, there is a recognition that being leads to doing, others, sadly not). What we need is to see, and I believe Solomon and Jesus agree, is that we need to think first, then being follows, then the doing. Perhaps this is the reason Paul told us to take capture of every thought?

The Story So Far, Part I

2008-09-04T07:20:00.003-06:00

I recall from a seminar where Dan Allendar spoke about the importance of story. Of course, illustrated by story. Story, I believe, is the real way to walk with God and learn from others.

With that, I start a sporadic series called "the story so far". Just how did I get where I am with knowing what God has designed in me? Maybe this series will help others.

I could start anywhere, but I'm not going to bind myself to making this chronological. So I'll start well into my story, around 1996. I had been a Christian since 1981, and that whole time I understood Ephesians 2:10 (For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do) as a command to the church. The collection of God's people is created for work prepared in advance. But in a Sunday school class on Ephesians, that got challenged. Ronnie (the teacher) proposed, against the traditional interpretation in our faith tradition, that what God created us for and prepared us for is in fact individually meant.

This idea pretty much blew me away. And raised a lot of questions. Mostly centered around 'how do we determine what we are created for?'.

This actually led to a few years of frustration -- initially I pursued it as many do, through spiritual gift assessments along with personality assessments. What a waste. Spiritual gift assessments pretty much only measure what you've already tried to exercise, while personality assessments are tainted by our wounds and the poser (that which we pretend to be).

Many readers may have heard of SHAPE as a guide to determining roles in the kingdom. (For those unfamiliar, it is Spiritual gifts, Heart (passion), Aptitudes, Personality, and Experience) And in that, there is some value. In talking to others and from experience, I really think you can drop all but the H and the E. Spiritual gifts are ultimately determined by experience and heart anyway (what have you done and did you enjoy it?), personality will shape your experience, and aptitudes (skills) I think is really just a godless way for churches to put you to work. Once H and E are determined, you can learn the skills you need. Ok, time to get back on track. As I said, I really think you can drop all but the H and the E. I discovered this by a challenge (I think it came through John Eldredge's Journey of Desire, since rereleased as simply Desire), a challenge to look at what my passions had been in my experiences.

Ok, still frustrating, but it seemed like progress. The problem was I had volunteered and done such a diverse set of things and enjoyed them, but over time they lost the appeal. For example, while in Dallas I was pursuing volunteering in benevolence, but moving to Cary NC, I tried benevolence volunteering there but it just lost passion for me. I kind of stumbled into helping a fairly new church with men's ministry, and in writing a draft of a vision of men's ministry and stepping back I saw it. In my volunteering, I'd always risen quickly to leadership, but not standards stuff. I was always building, creating or reforming ministry with an unspoken principle in mind -- I always built structures around individuals, rather than coming up with a structure and recruiting to it. The structure was intentionally fluid, adapting to the people.

See the vision for men's ministries that I came up with had to do with unleashing men to make a difference. In building the structure around individuals, it had been about fully utilizing the potential of the individual ...

to be continued sometime ...

Jim and Casper Go To Church

2008-09-02T14:32:00.004-06:00

Just wanted to recommend Jim and Casper Go To Church by Jim Henderson and Matt Casper to my readers. Jim is a Christian and Matt an atheist who visit a number of churches to get Matt's reaction to the presentation the church makes.

Churches invite people to visit their services to check them out, so what kind of message do churches make? Some common themes, some specific to types of churches emerge from the visits. What I find most interesting is Matt's observations that the format is the basically the same no matter what purpose comes through (except for the house church he attended) -- one of many observations that prompted Matt to ask "did Jesus really tell you to do it this way?". Another interesting one is the observation of the vagueness of it all -- sermons that left Matt asking "what's the call to action?".

I don't want to spoil anymore ... if anyone who has read it wants to discuss it, feel free to contact me ...

Integrating the pulls against me

2008-09-01T09:27:00.003-06:00

One thing that I've struggled with is "integrating" the passions, interests, and talents. Jesus did say his yoke is light -- I just don't think that I need strain to balance diverse interests. Those who've been wildly successful typically are focused with a passion, not splitting them. Maybe that's an illusion - maybe they just aren't as successful in the others and the one they are known for overshadows the rest.

One big theme has been a desire to see others step fully into what God calls them to be (more on this in a future post in the "The story so far" series I'm planning). Yet the past year has been a lot into "church" structures (as long term readers know). Some of that is that I've seen too much the church has interfered through bureaucracy and other items to keep men and women from being what God intended. But it seems to be a distraction now.

A third factor came to play last May. God clearly spoke that my intellect is not to be neglected. For the last few years I had assumed that my earning of a PhD was more a reaction of wounding. One of the few ways my dad showed pride in me had been in academics, and in digesting the work and words of John Eldredge (Wild At Heart, the Wild At Heart Boot Camp, et al), I had thought the PhD was just a result of vows from the wounding. But sitting on a couch talking to someone I knew through an online discussion forum while at a retreat, I got socked in the gut by the guy's words. He's sitting there telling me he's amazed by my faith "despite" my education and intellect. Not that I've ever been open about my education -- humbleness or false humility had kept me hiding it. Yet this man saw through that and could tell I must have advanced degrees, and was amazed at the work God had done in me "despite" it. God followed up on that: clearly He doesn't intend to waste my education. So how does it factor in?

This isn't the first time I've faced such questions -- it has occurred in two ways in the past. Spiritual gift assessments would show a multiple set of gifts, and I faced the question what roles used all that? I sliced that Gordian when I discovered that passion and desires, not talent, is the real way to determining what's place in God's story. The other was looking at what those passions were -- I had done such a diverse set of things in the past, and enjoyed much of all of them (college ministry, benevolence ministry, teaching, men's ministry, et al). I found the common theme -- I always organized (or reorganized) and executed it in a way that made use of those volunteers I had. I found way to unleash who they were, rather than creating a system and fitting square pegs into round holes to get it implemented.

Past experience tells me the way to go is just to keep walking with God, and trust Him to show the way. It is great to have that confidence. Just gets frustrating at times, and even hesitant to step a direction because it doesn't satisfy all "requirements".

So, I guess for now I can just end this with ... To Be Continued. Together we can find out how it will continue, because I don't know myself.

------------------------------
Some admin notes: I was thinking of really trying to make this just twice per week, once on Sunday/Monday and then on Wednesday/Thursday. Then ideas flooded in. I think this will be at least that often.

I'm going to kick off a sporadic series "The story thus far". This blog is supposedly about "Journeying through life, trying to restore others hearts as well as my own", so if I'm journaling about finding my heart it makes sense to add some background -- like how I got to where I am now. Might help explain some of the topics I pick, and what may be to come.

--------------------------------
Please help promote my blog! There are links in the right column to subscribe, to join my blog network on Facebook, or to simply say you like it to services like StumbleUpon and Technorati, who will use that info to recommend this blog to others who use their services. Thanks!

Do we equip the church, or does it equip us?

2008-08-28T07:22:00.005-06:00

On Tuesday I was talking with my friend Gary about many things, including the issues related to my Open Letter from Monday. He told me about a time that he was doing a retreat in Canada on calling and there was a recurring theme in Q&A -- all about how to go about getting permission from their pastors and/or churches to do what was on their hearts to do. (BTW, Gary said his response was if God was telling them to do it, why do they need support from their church?)

I've personally seen this, and heard similar stories. Men and some women who want to do a certain ministry or activity, only to be told by their pastor that it doesn't fit with them and the vision of their church (or mission or purpose of their church). I've been told a couple time by pastors that if I feel called to do what I had just shared with them, maybe it's a sign that I'm not supposed to be with them. I think this is a phenomenon that has grown in recent years as churches have imitated the business world in all the wrong ways -- coming up with vision and mission statements and focusing on accomplishing them.

Strange. I wonder what Bible they are reading?

Throughout Paul's letters, in Hebrews, in Acts, I see a recurring theme -- the church or its "leaders" are to equip the saints. The meetings are to edify and encourage one another. Our communities are to encourage one another to love and good deeds. I don't see anything about meeting the vision of the pastor, or the leadership team. The pastor role is actually mentioned all of once in scripture, and it is in the context of the pastor being for the equipping the saints for service.

Jesus said to the original disciples that they shouldn't lord it over others like the pagans do. But when a pastor or other leader says "we don't do that here" in reference to a good work someone wants to do, how is that not an example of lording it over? If a person is called of God to do something, shouldn't those around him or her help that person confirm it, then support it as God leads them to?

Instead, we get leaders who define roles and encourage service, but only in those predefined little buckets they create? Paul said God works within us to will and to act for his good purpose. Why can't leaders and churches trust God to do what He says? What a church needs to get done will get done what God wants if we trust Him to move and work within His people.

Christianity and the Cult of Celebrity

2008-08-27T08:38:00.002-06:00

Trying to settle into a Sunday or Monday and Wednesday or Thursday posting pattern ... but came across this article and thought it fit well here.

Consider this a bonus post.

Christianity and the Cult of Celebrity

An Open Letter to the Institutional Church

2008-08-25T07:13:00.002-06:00

Dear I.C.,

We had a great run, didn't we? For most of some 30 years, I was there with you most Sundays (yea, there was that time I was in Sweden for a few months I didn't show up). And you were good to me for most that time.

Through you, I met some great people. Ronnie who taught me about relationships. Bill, who lived service. Marie, dedicated to prayer. Dan, Chris, Dave, Mark, Steve, so many. And Bruce, who taught me to challenge my beliefs. Especially ones that are commonly accepted. Hmmm.

And through you, accomplished some good. What a run you and I had. Officer in Christian clubs, starting a college ministry, starting a benevolence ministry, even starting a men's ministry. Leader's team for a church plant. Planning about four retreats.

I know that inside your doors, many have come to know Christ, or at least met some people who knew him, or maybe some people who knew people who knew him. I came to love the word of God with you.

But along the way, I saw too often others who made you the focus, and too often I have made you the focus. We measured accomplishment in terms of the way institutions do, through "objective" numbers. And when I moved to Maryland, I saw how so many thought in terms of your maintenance and preservation, not in following Jesus. Four years later, I see this even more, with every "church" visited greeting me with the marketing survey (is this your first time? how did you found out about us?).

And discipleship within your walls -- it came as increasing and measuring knowledge. Knowing about God replaces knowing God. Thanks to God himself, that has been redirected in my own life by some so called "parachurch" organizations and the individuals I met due to them, but that learning to know God and to walk with him for so long made it even more distasteful to be in your walls.

At first, this just created anger within me. How could you masquerade as the bride of Christ? I thought of what a more appropriate form of church could be, discussed that with others. Anger probably wasn't the wrong emotion, but it led to the wrong conclusions. The answer isn't in your reform, but in how I viewed church.

Jesus said he would build his church. Luke records in Acts that God added daily to the church. The church is the body. Anyone who professes Jesus and becomes his disciple is in the church. One does not go to church anymore than one goes to themselves. The manifestation of the church in my presence is the other disciples around me that I interact with. No more, no less. No membership in a club or institution that calls itself "church" changes that, and no lack of membership means I'm not a part of the church.

Now, I know I used to blame you for limiting me. I was not a "professional" minister or the like, so you wouldn't let me do certain things. Yes that hurt. And seeking your "endorsement" and support of activities that God was leading me too and getting rejected hurt as well. But realizing that I share in the blame. You are caught in systems to maintain who you are, and I accepted that, and submitted to that. I thought I needed to get your support to build my numbers -- and yet concern of numbers is just another manifestation of your system, isn't it?

If Jesus is the head of the church, and if my mediator and high priest is Jesus, and if I am a part of a royal priesthood, then my acceptance and support should come from Him. Not you. So I forgive you, I.C., for expecting something from you that should come from God.

Well, where do we go from here, I.C.? Well, true church is community, of disciples who mutually support and edify one another. So from time to time, I may grace your doors in order to interact with other disciples as a part of that. Or I may not, finding my community elsewhere.

Anyway, I'll see you around.

Mark

Stumble-It
Technocriti

The Heart determines success

2008-08-20T12:10:00.002-06:00

A few years back, I used to have an e-mail list (for the younger set, it was a kind of pre-blog alternative). I'm working on a longer blog post now that is taking quite a bit of thought and prayer, but so that I don't go so long between posts, I thought I'd pull out some of them from my archives:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A number of years ago, sociologist Charles Garfield studied two groups, Olympic athletes and NASA astronauts to determine what made a successful athlete, and what made a successful astronaut. Another study studied commercial airline pilots and nurses, a field dominated by men and another by women respectively, to try and determine what factors could balance the two gender wise. All the studies determined it wasn't raw athletic ability, courage, strong academics or other traditional factors that determined success. The number one factor in all cases was simply passion, the heart to want it. In the case of the nurses, the report showed two case studies, one woman who was bright, who had full ride scholarships, parents that supported her, just everything going for her, but she didn't make it because she was just looking to qualify for a job. Another woman, who had dropped out of school, had two children out of wedlock, and worked at a diner with no one but herself as support and a mother willing to babysit. She was determined to become a nurse, and today she is.

Harold Whitman once said "Don't ask yourself what the world needs; ask yourself what makes you come alive, and then go do that. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive". If you want to impact your world, if you want to have meaningful, fulfilling success, just have the courage to follow your heart.

"Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the well-spring of life" -- Proverbs 4:23

"Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a desire fulfilled is a tree of life" -- Proverbs 13:12

"I have come that you may have life, and have it abundantly" --- Jesus

School's started and my son's heart is good

2008-08-15T16:40:00.004-06:00

After much apprehension, my son's made it through two good first days of fifth grade.

Why?

He has "fans". No kidding. A third or fourth grader even came up to and asked him "aren't you (for his privacy sake, I'll leave out his name)?". "yea, I am". "I loved you in last year's fourth grade play. You were so funny".

He has a love of drama, and loves to perform. His elementary school skews toward arts and drama (not really a magnet at this level though) and the arts and drama teachers there and those who help love his boldness on stage (no stage fright from this kid), his ability to project his voice, his ability to lend humor to his roles, et al.

Is a career in theater, or acting, realistic for him? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe writing will where he ends up. Maybe not. But we all need to just pursue where our hearts lead. If God put certain desires in our heart, we need to trust him to use that as guidance. Certainly some desires become corrupted, become twisted, but the pure desires in us, we need to pursue.

We adults need to recall what that was that stirred us when we were young ... maybe that's the path back to our hearts.

Getting personal

2008-08-11T16:02:00.002-06:00

When I rebooted this blog in what, without looking it up, must have been in late June or early July, I kind of hinted at getting more personal with my thoughts and my own journey. Really haven't done much of that yet.

Part of the reason for my longest break between posts in quite awhile has been this recommitment to getting more personal. Takes courage. Plus, I don't think my wife wants me to get more personal here than I've gotten with her. She doesn't want to read here what I haven't already expressed to her.

So, diving in here, let me just break the surface a bit here ---

This week is the week of another Ransomed Heart Boot Camp. At one point it had looked like I was going to be on the work crew ... but post the Advanced in May I was kind of feeling another event may be too soon. And then I got a call from one of the staff where they talked about hearing from God that I shouldn't be doing it this time. It was great to hear from someone I barely knew confirmation of what I was feeling.

I really wouldn't have been there spiritually this weekend for it. I'm still sorting through so much of what is next in my life. So much to clarify.

Last week may have brought a hint at progress in one area.

When we left Maryland about 54 weeks ago, we were determined to find something quite different in a church community. No more churches that have become stagnant institutions, or wishy-washy vision by consensus, or a number of other issues we've had. It is interesting that scripture states very clearly that gatherings of the church is about mutual edification and support, not worship. That the functions of apostles, evangelists, prophets, pastors and teachers are for the equipping of the saints, not the lording over them. And many other aspects you may have read in this blog.

Well, we spent some time looking. But it seemed fruitless. So we took a break from looking, kind of deciding to detox. Been detoxing longer than I thought, but moving back toward some sense of community we've been really looking to God to help us with a strategy, a way to prevent being sucked into the Matrix. It has really been good to be away, as individually and together we've come to realize we may have stepped out of the Matrix, but the Matrix is so much a part of our thinking that getting it out of us has been work. The process has been freeing for sure.

What gave a glimmer of hope? May not lead to anything, but a church planter reached out to me last week about some possibilities in Colorado Springs for some organic church. Been praying and thinking about it, and we'll see what happens.

Reimagining Church

2008-08-04T07:20:00.004-06:00

About six months ago, I reviewed Pagan Christianity in this blog (see Red Pill Redux). Pagan Christianity reviewed the origins of church practices, revealing many very common ones as arising from society and adapted from the culture.

Frank Viola has written a constructive sequel and excellent companion to that book, Reimagining Church. This time, Viola (sans George Barna) has written a volume that examines a bit more what church should be rather than what it has become by outside influences. There is a bit of counterargument in the book, anticipating the objections, but for the most part Viola has written a positive, constructive approach to complement Pagan Christianity's more deconstructive subtext.

Viola paints a picture of church as community, where it is truly every member ministry and there is nothing resembling the modern church hierarchy's that put layers in God's people between God and man. He reexamines what the functions are in the church, taking us back beyond our preconceived Western mindset that reads our culture into the words. He makes his case well, without anger.

I would encourage the readers of this blog to get a copy and post your comments and thoughts as you read it. Like Pagan Christianity, you are unlikely to find this in stores, but it is available online through Amazon, CBD (cbd.com), and Frank Viola's ministry (best price when I ordered it)

Towards a more biblical model of the church

2008-07-30T07:46:00.002-06:00

Richard Halverson:

When the Greeks got the gospel, they turned it into a philosophy; when the Romans got it, they turned it into a government; when the Europeans got it, they turned it into a culture, and when the Americans got it, they turned it into a business

If most churches (American anyone) were examined by a naive person unfamiliar with them, what would they compare it with? Reggie McNeal proposes (Present Future) that our churches as they are are properly compared to social clubs, while many besides Halverson have made the comparison to a corporation, with the senior pastor as CEO, other pastors and staff as upper management, and those sitting mostly idle in the pews as the clientele.

The Bible though most often refers to the church as a family. Yes, it refers to it as the body of Christ, an army, and many other analogies, but family and familial references are most common. But what would we say about a family that gathered once per week to stare at the back of heads, only one person really shared, and the gathering was strictly scripted? That would be labeled as more than just dysfunctional.

How do we move back to a more biblically model?

A new view of "church"

2008-07-28T07:36:00.003-06:00

Those who know me know that I believe there is something fundamentally off about church as it is practiced in America. There are really too many points to make about what is wrong to summarize here, but you can find many a thing looking through the history of this blog.

I've come to realize through a transition in thinking that the alternatives I was advocating were wrong, at least in the details. This was really climaxed in thought in May. If there was one spark in this shift, it was sitting around the fireplace at Ransomed Heart's "Advanced Boot Camp" with a group that included a couple of my regular readers of this blog, and Craig McConnell. Craig and I have had off and on conversations around this topic and some others, but it had been one on one. I don't know if Craig's thinking had shifted, or he brought out a nuance of it in a group, or I had never noticed his use of some words, or just what, but something he said struck me. It was the way he used the word "church", talking of it breaking out at times when disciples are gathered. Now, the way he used it and means it may differ from the reaction and resulting developing conclusions I've come to, so please don't treat my words and thoughts as his. His contextual use of the word "church" and the way I took it (he could have meant something entirely different) is the topic here.

So just what does it mean, "church". There's an analogy I read in the preface or intro to Frank Viola's new book Reimaging Church that describes beautifully the kind of shift in thinking. Early scientists trying to study our solar system were baffled in trying to compute orbits and the like. Until Galileo. The problem was that early astronomers were trying to make their computations geocentric, that is, centered around the earth. Galileo proposed that they should be heliocentric, that is, centered around the sun. Galileo was treated as a heretic for his thinking, due to a false belief that the Bible taught that the earth was central.

In many ways, I think I've been trapped by some remaining "geocentric" thinking. So I've proposed or sided with new ways of structuring church, new hierarchies, etc. I've advocated some great concepts, like organic church, but treating it as a different way of structuring things. That misses the point, I now think.

Now, after that discussion around a fireplace, I picked up a copy of Jake Colsen's So You Don't Want to Go to Church Anymore I had owned but not read yet, followed by reading The Shack by William P. Young. Both are novels, but they expose a different way of thinking. Looking at church as much more relational, much more embedded in life, rather than a separate entity shoved to a building on a street corner that one visits occasionally, or even a separate structured time in a home.

What is this new view of church? It is really hard to put into a few words. The words one would like to use are often loaded with alternate meaning that will throw off the reader. Other words are entirely biblical, but in practice their meanings have been twisted. But let me attempt it anyway, and I invited conversation to help express this better.

In some ways, the church as the body of Christ is an extension of the Trinity. When we look at the scriptural descriptions of the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we don't see a hierarchy, but rather a community which complements each other. As we read through something like I Cor 11-14, we see a community about the mutual edification of one another. Paul in his Corinthian letters doesn't address a hierarchy, but charges each member to be about what he describes to do.

And while we see regular meetings, I don't think the regular meetings are central. Jesus is. It is about relationships, to one another and to God. If meetings are central, relationships aren't. The meetings feed the relationships. They help maintain them. Interesting, there isn't a single description or instruction about the gatherings being worship, but there are plenty about edification, encouragement, spurring on one another to love and good deeds ...

When it comes to hierarchy, it is every member ministry. Some do have roles, but Paul described them as for the equipping of the saints, not lording over them. Jesus even described that we shouldn't be like those who lord it over one another (Matthew 20:25, see also I Peter 5:3).

What it really comes down to is this: if we are following Jesus, our communities will arise as they should in our contexts. That, I believe, is what happened in the first century. Looking at what happened then should be limited to seeing how they contextualized to their society being the body of Christ.

The problem is, many of us have such an embedded thoughts influenced by the way things have become rather than what was intended. I still struggle with this, and at times, struggle with being "anti" the way things have become.

Every Story Follows the Same Basic Plot IV: Restoration

2008-07-24T07:53:00.004-06:00

See Part III
See part II
See part I

Finally, every story ends or will end with a sense of restoration. In Gladiator, Maximus defeats Commodus and restores the Senate, and in his own personal story, Maximus reunites with his wife and son on the other side of death. In Walk the Line, in the Thanksgiving Day scene, after his father demonstrates contempt for Johnny Cash again, June Carter comes to "rescue" his spirit. In the Lord of the Rings, the one Ring is destroyed and Aragorn takes his place as king. In Prince Caspian, Narnia is restored with a son of Adam on the throne again. In God and man's story, Jesus dies, is buried and is resurrected, beginning the restoration of the relationship of humanity and God that is ongoing.

Restoration is available, it is there. Often in our own stories that we are now living, we must find a way to recognize the real truth of the shattering and how we are striving.

Every Story Follows the Same Basic Plot III: Striving

2008-07-23T08:07:00.003-06:00

See part II
See part I

Once the Shalom is shattered, then follows the striving. The story continues by either a striving to restore Shalom in a false way, sometimes by killing the pain of Shalom lost (addictions, etc).

In Walk The Line, Johnny Cash looks first to his music, then to drugs. In the Lord of the Rings, many in the story want the power of the Ring itself to use to restore things. In the story of man, God provides a covenant and a Law as a tutor to the time of ultimate redemption comes, but man puts hope in law-keeping at best, his own ability at worst.

In the lives of individuals, the striving comes in various forms. It may be religion, it may be drugs or alcohol, sex, work, living vicariously through their children, et al. Often it is by trying to control something in someway. Usually it is really a form of distraction.

Brennan Manning has labeled this kind of striving as playing the "Impostor". John Eldredge labels a person in this state as a "poser". This stage of the story is when we try to deny, cover over, or fake our way through our wound. Often the characters in the story are even unaware of the falsehood of their approach.

See Part IV

Every Story follows the same basic plot Part II: Shattered

2008-07-22T07:29:00.004-06:00

See part 1

In any story, there is something that shatters the Shalom, the peace, the ideal state. This too can be implied before the beginning we see. In the movie Gladiator, it came when Rome moved to depend on a Caesar rather than the Senate, and in the story of the main character, Maximus, with the death of the Caesar he pledged loyalty to. In The Matrix, it happened before the opening scenes when the machines took over. In Walk The Line, it happened when Cash's brother died in the accident. In God's story, it happened with the angelic rebellion, and in man's story with the Fall.

The shattering happens in many ways, but generally it involves a wound and loss. A boy becomes orphaned in a way -- either through the actually loss of a parent, or in the practical loss of a parent to alcoholism or other means. A young woman suffers a breakup from a lover. A man loses a friend. We become in someway an orphan, widow(er), or stranger.

See Part III

Every story follows the same plot part I

2008-07-21T07:33:00.004-06:00

A couple years back I heard Dan Allender speak on "story". This was after the release of his book To Be Told (recommended reading). Allender spoke of the importance of knowing your own story and sharing story.

In this seminar, Allender spoke over several sessions on how every story follows the same pattern, and seeing this in our lives can benefit us and help us see the direction God has for us. And make sense of our lives. Interesting, this isn't in his book or fully shown in the workbook, though some elements are there. In the interest of popularizing this for others benefit, I want to share it in my own words. I break this up in four parts:
1) Shalom
2) Shattered
3) Striving
4) Restoration

Part 1, Shalom

In every story, there is an opening period of shalom -- of peace, tranquility, of harmony. It may be implied -- generations ago, there was a great king who ruled in peace; when a person was young, he lived with a model family; once upon at time there was a happy princess. In God's story, there was "In the beginning". Not Genesis 1, but John 1. John 1 starts in a time predating Genesis 1, with "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God". There was the Trinity, before anything was created living in harmony. Or, if you want to go to Genesis 1 to the story of man, there was the Garden of Eden. In the movies, we can turn to movies like Gladiator, where they speak of a Rome that once was, and is to be again. In the movie Walk the Line, we see young Johnny Cash and his brother planning and dreaming in their bedroom.

Every story has a Shalom, or the echo of one that was there sometime before the beginning of the story that is implied in the story.

Part II

Godly organization

2008-07-18T07:44:00.009-06:00

I may have written about this before (edit: yep, in January), but I wanted to return to it with a new approach and some new thoughts.

Dee Hock, former high muckie muck with VISA International (the credit card guys), coined a term called "chaordic". It is order that arises out of chaos. Numerous late 20th and early 21st century innovators in the greater church have embraced chaordic as an approach to church growth and new church plants.

Basically, it is allowing organization to naturally arise by focusing solely on a common mission complemented with commonly held values. Some would interpret much of what happened in Acts and what Paul did as just that: Paul would preach in an area, stay to disciple awhile, then return months or a year or two later and recognize the leaders (elders) that were there already. Yes, most interpretations say appoint, but I would say they are probably right in that Paul probably simply recognized those who were leaders who were of good character and influence and appointed them.

Some also refer to this kind of organization as organic, others use terms like endoskeleton (as opposed to the institutional approach that resembles an exoskeleton). We can all observe that when we are in a small group of friends or in a small group of coworkers thrown together for training or such, there is a naturally occurring organization that arises. I think back simply to my bunkhouse at Advanced Boot Camp in May: when we were thrown together for the practicums on the four streams, we managed to quickly organize and get moving without predetermining a structure or organizational philosophy. (ok, maybe the Holy Spirit was involved there in seeing that happen -- but doesn't that sort of reinforce my point?).

Anything is possible with God of course, but some observations are that "natural" organization is best with smaller numbers. And it would seem that smaller churches are most effective. Generally, if a church is growing, it is growing faster if it is smaller -- two five hundred member churches that are growing grow faster than one thousand member growing church, and five 100 member churches faster than one 500 member church. Moreover, (I'll have to find the references for all this) the smaller churches tend to grow with new converts, the large with "transfers". So the real growth rate is much better with the smaller.

Another observation made by some organizational experts is that formal structure tends to occur when a group hits 20 or so. The larger the organization, the more "structured" in man's eye it gets. Is this good? Look at the business world -- the fastest growing businesses are always the smallest. Few Fortune 500 companies even sustain 3% annual growth over a long duration. More jobs are created "per capita" by small companies than large ones. One case in point -- San Diego lost several huge aerospace employers in the eighties, but the city's unemployment rate didn't spike long term as a result, despite the lack of new business moving in or other large employers hiring in large numbers. What happened, it was discovered years later, was that many of the unemployed started small businesses, and that ended up absorbing the unemployed rapidly. Small is beautiful, as my friend Greg says.

Another thought on organization -- we may think of the small as unorganized, but is anything unorganized really unorganized? The analogy is looking at a piece of land as "undeveloped". Ever realize that is an insult to God? It is undeveloped only in the eyes of man. God has spent centuries invested in that land, hasn't he? If we are a God led people, can we really ever be unorganized in our units? And aren't we more unorganized when we rely on man made bureaucracies?

Law v Grace

2008-07-15T17:10:00.003-06:00

Law gives us something to manipulate for our advantage, and gives us some sense of control. Grace doesn't have such a "handle" on it.

The Pharisees upheld the law because it gave them a means of control. But as was said by someone around the campfire this weekend, you can't balance rules, control, and rigid formal structure with grace. 1% law and 99% grace is still legalism.

Law permits us to restrict in many ways. Not only freedom, but it also allows us too much discretion where law doesn't speak. Grace as a way of life knows no such bounds. Law would require us to give a fixed set of our income to an institution. Grace demands from us to love until it hurts -- which may require none of our income if we are poor, or the majority of it if we are wealthy.

Law requires debate of rule interpretation, grace demands us stop debating when anger or condemnation is interpreted in our words.

In the process of detoxing from four wall church, I'm finding how the rigid ritual of "church" reinforces the idea of keeping law -- whether an old one, or re-interpreting the New Testament in a way to derive a new one. As Alan Hirsch writes, the "medium is the message". What message does the medium of ritual express? That of form, of format mattering. Our medium often gives off the message of law. What would a grace-filled gathering look like?

Community

2008-07-14T16:32:00.002-06:00

This past weekend, I went camping with six other guys and six boys. Thirteen of us all together, all the adult men disciples. We shot guns and rifles on a makeshift rifle range, had campfires, a couple of us went white water rafting et al.

In many ways, it was more of a church than what happens on a Sunday.

If church is a community that is centered on Christ, then what was experienced was more of a church than what is typically labeled as such. We challenged each other, we had some deep theological discussion (including a rousing one on if it is 1% law and 99% grace, it's 100% legalism), we encouraged each other, we spurred one another on to doing good afterward, we sympathized and comforted one in our crowd who's facing having to get a legal separation early this week, etc. And I believe God was more glorified in it than if we had stared at the back of each others' heads singing with one of us giving a talk somewhere along the way.

That, my friends, is what I'm learning a church to really be, as intended. We glorified God in our interaction, we had fellowship, we had times of discipling one another, we ministered one another, and we were sounding boards for one another in how we will be about the God given missions of our lives. Moreso, I believe, than the churches of four walls and a pulpit.

Some thoughts on post-modernism

2008-07-09T12:08:00.003-06:00

By definition, almost, if I consider myself a post-modern, I'm not. So I won't claim to be, or not to be, one. I do find myself increasingly rejecting much of modernism, while holding on to other items of it. In many ways, I belong to a "bridge" generation -- I'm very late in the baby boomers generation, what some have labeled a 'tweener (those late in the baby boomer cycle or early in "generation X" or whatever the next generation is called).

(click here to see more about my exposure to postmodernism and some previous thoughts on the topic)

I do find much to be appreciated in both modernism and postmodernism.

The clip above (http://www.youtube.com/v/9RA-JzVxGTg for those who get this imported into Facebook or the like) illustrates one of the supposed differences between modernism and postmodernism -- belief in objective truth vs belief in relativistic truth. What a load of crap this is, at least as a "defining" difference. It is characteristic, but not a part of the definition. In fact, there really is no good definition of postmodernism.

Do some postmoderns belief in relativism? Yes, they do. But this is at best characteristic of postmodernism, not defining. In fact, a flaw of moderns is their need for clear definition. And in defining postmodernism, they find a cause to reject everything about it. Modernistic thinking, which dominates Churchianity too often, is setting up a kind of cultural war. Rather than comparing and contrasting the two schools of thought (though it is actually only one, as only one builds walls), they defend and more often attack.

And if they aren't attacking, moderns are busy defining postmodernism in modernistic terms. As the "expert" moderns teach other moderns about postmodernism, they perpetuate the division, the misconceptions. So the moderns end up trying to convert postmoderns to modernism, rather than trying to bridge the gap.

To me, postmodernism represents a great opportunity for the church. At the beginning of the modern era, modern thought corrupted the movement of Christ and so much of discipleship became about knowledge and discerning truth. Postmodernism is characterized (not defined :-)) by an emphasis on experience, on doing. Modernism seems to be characterized by a thought that you are how you think. Postmodernism, to quote a character from Batman Begins, "it's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you". There is opportunity to swing the pendulum back, but if modern thinkers persist in thinking in terms of walls, they miss a chance to influence and the pendulum will swing (in some ways, is swinging) to far the other way.

Exclusion v Inclusion

2008-07-08T16:39:00.002-06:00

I know there are some that reject anything from the "emergent" thought, but there is much valuable there to appreciate. (Just test the fruit before accepting it).

One thing that I've heard from it which is beautiful is the view of membership that accepts and loves all, and deals with sin after. It is a realization that Jesus adds to his church, so membership is to our individual "communities", not a church. The church belongs to Jesus, not us. We welcome them into our community, then as we help them journey with Jesus, confronting sin comes later.

And as Greg Boyd writes in The Myth of a Christian Nation, we are never once called to be the moral guardians of anyone outside our fellowship, but rather we are instead called to love people the way that Jesus did, by meeting their needs and loving them even if they kill us in return. If sinners and tax collectors and prostitutes aren't coming around our community they way they came around Jesus, then why not? Do we love them like He did?

Now, my qualm with this viewpoint is in wanting "guidance" on when challenging sin is to be done. When along the way? But I'm starting to see that as my hangup, not a reason not to live and love and accept.

Atheism as a moral choice

2008-07-07T17:31:00.002-06:00

Did the title get your attention?

Some may know that for a few years, I was at Brian McLaren's church. He is a great guy, who asks great questions, though he and I may disagree on many of the answers that arise. Though I left the church to move, like many around the time that did leave because of a "revisioning" of the church under his successor, I would have left as well anyway.

Still, I came across this video and found it very intriguing. I knew early Christians were often labeled atheists due to not following the state gods, but casting modern atheism as a moral choice, to think of it as not believing in "this god" or "that god". To me, it sparks some questions on how to view evangelism, and creates some sympathies for atheism. How do we introduce people to a god they don't know, the one revealed in Jesus Christ? How do we separate the view of the true God from the one that bears a resemblance to him, but is one of war?

I know a great many Christians who have much of the doctrine, theology and dogma right, but their god is not one of love. It is one of moralistic judging. of rules. of separation rather than community.

Such a view does not necessarily mean a kind of universalism about things. We can love, and welcome others to our communities, and in those communities introduce them to the God of love. When we intrigue them with this God who is love, then we can talk to them about what separates them from relationship with him. But first, we need to reject the false gods who faith in justifies war and hate. That's not to say that war is not sometimes necessary to rescue many from a few oppressors. But the war and violence spewing from judgment and condemnation ... this is not from a God of love.

God is a god of love ... and redemption.

More admin stuff

2008-07-07T09:04:00.004-06:00

Rethinking the name of the blog. markwinstead.blogspot.com just isn't cutting it.

Suggestions welcome. Right now I'm favoring repackaging a name I already claim, restoringheart.blogspot.com.

Edited: I've decided to repackage restoring heart.

Reboot

2008-07-06T17:26:00.000-06:00

In order to simplify, I'm merging my blogs into one spot.

Old blog posts and new ones within the themes of Restoringheart.blogspot.com have a label "Restoring Heart". Those from redemptivecommunities.blogspot.com, old and new ones in that theme have "Redemptive Communities".

This new merged blog will also contain thoughts from various other topics as I journey.

Your Church is too small

2008-06-22T17:19:00.000-06:00

Many years ago, there was a book titled Your God Is Too Small. I've been thinking about how churches are too small. The megachurches are especially too small.

You see, we tend to think of "our" church as simply the group we may gather with on Sundays. George Barna 'documents' millions who've 'left' the church. And we live and breath as if the churches we attend are "ours", though we mouth that they belong to Jesus.

But it's interesting that while there are 33 references to churches in the New Testament, there are 112 to "church". Most of those 33 references refer to churches across multiple cities. There is no clear example of referring to churches within a single city. This despite historical evidence that in many areas, churches met in homes. It seems to imply that groups meeting in different homes in the same city were considered a part of the same church.

We tend to think of a church, or at least practice church, as being a club we join. We talk of "placing membership" (a club mentality). Our churches add amenities, they offer programs, they approach ministry as being some centralized bureaucracy. To do anything for the club, you pretty much have to be a faithful attender, go through some screening of the church, et al. I'm increasingly seeing this as all such small thinking.

Acts tells us that the Lord added the first disciples to the church. The church is the body of Christ, not the bodies of Christ.

The book So You Don't Want To Go To Church Anymore presents an image of church that is so much larger. It shows it as a community of believers that live beyond the clubs we've formed. It is a beautiful picture in my mind.

We need to adopt a mentality that every disciple is a member of our church, and treat him as such. We need to get beyond our club mentality. It'll mean practicing more hospitality, being less programmatic and open about our ministries. It will mean that some of us don't attend the same "church" two Sundays in a row, or even the same one more than once per month. It may lead to the collapse of some churches. More meeting in homes.

You see, your church is every disciple around you. Every disciple you meet while working in a strange city away from home.

Such an approach to thinking is new to me. Something mouthed about church that I'm really beginning to digest. It undermines, I'm discovering, much of what I've previously written in this part of the blogosphere. Much to revisit about the thinking on "redemptive community". There's still a place, I believe, for walking with a "core", to having a community within this larger church.

I'd love responses. I'd love input. Write, comment, whichever.

Detoxing

2008-06-10T08:19:00.000-06:00

Sorry that no one has posted here in awhile. At the beginning of May, I went to a "Advanced Boot Camp" held by Ransomed Heart Ministries. A lot to unpack for myself, some related to the themes of this blog site. After that, I've come across some books that I want to blog on as well as I've unpacked them.

I have much to say on this blog on some things that come to mind, as I finally organize it in my head and have time, but you may have noticed the only change to this site since the last blog (April 21), a link to an article on detoxing. I wanted to say a few words about it and thoughts it sparks. I have much more to say on this, and some of it will come out in future blogs --

As for myself, having read that article, I realize now that I continue to detox from the consumerism idol that has penetrated the church, though it is much more than consumerism. Ultimately it is about connecting to Jesus directly rather than through a proxy we call "church".

When I started what I recognize as the detox process, it was about leaving the IC for "something better". God frustrated that "something better". There are some guys who I talk with via e-mail and by phone on occasion who are going through the same process, or almost the same. We feel called to something more, and for some of us that means detoxing as a step, though maybe some of us may not realize that. Some have been on a journey much longer than me, some were or are considering something like "detoxing". Some are looking to "detox" from within "the walls of a church".

I actually met about half the group face to face (not all at once -- we couldn't corral them together) at Advanced about a month ago. About a half dozen of us were talking with Craig. Craig made some excellent points about what church is. Our mindset is so often about church being something we go to, something that has authority in our lives, it is hard to break from that kind of thinking. But church is what Jesus adds us to. It's the body. "church" can happen anywhere, anytime we are with other disciples. Really got me thinking about what church is in a new light.

God has led me through a journey since that time that has solidified much of it. I read So You Don't Want to Go to Church Anymore and The Shack. Conversations with people. My own conclusion is that the church is out there, but your church is too small if you think it is a gathering of people in a home, coffee shop or a building that holds thousands.

It is in humility now that I submit the question to God: how do you wish me to engage with the church?

I know that however I do it, it's about relationships. Maybe God will bring it to my neighborhood. Maybe I need to engage with some of these so called "churches" out there that have at least some disciples and not just attenders or followers of a senior pastor personality. Who knows? God. And I'm listening.

Payday Lending Scrutiny

2008-04-29T04:44:00.000-06:00

I am reading more and more about the increased scrutiny on the payday lending industry. Last year a law went into effect that effectively capped the interest rate on loans to military personnel at 36%. Barack Obama has promised to expand this to cap interest rates on all payday loans and "empower more Americans in the fight against predatory lending". A recent article in the Wall Street Journal highlights some particularly disturbing practices by some payday lenders to tap into the Social Security benefits from the elderly and disabled. There has also been increasing pressure at the state level to restrict or prohibit payday lending.

I'm not sure what this means for the small loan industry but I think smart business people see problems as opportunities. So while this may be disconcerting for some, others may see this as an opportune time to adjust the direction of their lending to

Story telling

2008-04-21T09:25:00.000-06:00

I remember hearing Dan Allendar teach on story at a conference in April of 2006. Wonderful conference. At one point, he was illustrating a point about story by telling a part of his own story. A Christian was trying to teach him, and Dan confronted him with "tell me a story, not facts". Allendar has found that understanding comes from stories, not a list of facts.

Story has been described as the language of the heart. I know that some of my greatest growth as a Christian has not come from purely "knowledge" studies, but rather from hearing the stories of others. The Bible itself is mostly a collection of stories -- I believe I heard an estimate of 70% of it being story. I think that's low.

Story sharing should be more a part of our gatherings. As it is, most weeks the only one who can tell a story is the guy controlling the monologue sermon, if that is the type of church you go to (the majority of them). Some have "testimonal time", but we need to be much broader -- though the word "share a testimony" is used, when done in corporate settings it is more often "tell your testimony" not share.

When story sharing is incorporated into our gathering, we come to realize that our stories are an extension of what we read in scripture. And scripture becomes the backdrop of our stories. Rather than some artificially arrived at "six steps to a better marriage" derived from scripture (or contrived from), we see God's story continuing into our lives. We become encouraged and are spurred on by such a perspective.

I don't know how this is done for gatherings of 25 or more. Love to hear ideas of how to have a free flow sharing of stories of our lives in larger gatherings, as that is the way most churches are constructed. Sometimes our stories are unfolding as we share them. How's this done in large settings?

Maybe it can't. Maybe our central gatherings need to be what is advocated on these pages -- small gatherings of a handful.

The medium is the message (perhaps Part 1)

2008-04-08T08:11:00.001-06:00

Some reading of Neil Cole, Alan Hirsch, and Michael Frost, and now some Leonard Sweet, has me thinking in the two lines as I approach this:
1) contextualizing the church to a culture -- this requires understanding what are the core purposes and values of what a church should be, and understanding a culture.
2) understanding the medium is the message. Simplified a bit, this means actions speak louder than words.

I spoke before on this last one, where I visited a church meeting of 25, where we spent 45 minutes in song before a guy spoke on how this was a family. The medium -- sitting in chairs, facing the back of the head of person's in front of us, singing then hearing a monologue sermon, spoke much louder than his words.

So what do our standard mediums speak about our message? Some examples that run us into trouble --
1) Peter wrote that we are a priesthood of all believers. The Hebrew writer wrote that Jesus is our high priest to whom we can approach directly. Yet a very common practice is to make a "clergy class" between us and Jesus. This clergy class is very much like a priesthood that stands between us and God. Paul wrote that apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (all to commonly lumped together and called just "pastors" as a group nowadays) are for equipping the church. They are authorities in the sense that they with God help us become who we are meant to be, not "lord it over" us.
2) all our life is to be worship, yet we create distinct times of the week to call worship, and create separate spaces as "sacred".
3) Jesus called us to be active worshipers, participants, and contributers. Paul wrote about "orderly" assemblies in I Corinthians 14. Yet we've seen "orderly" changed to "ordered" to the point of having a script for our gatherings. We are called in assemblying together to encourage one another, admonish one another, to spur one another on to love and good deeds. But the custom has grown to be centered along a scripted service that runs somewhere from 60 to 120 minutes, where most show up no more than 5 minutes before and those who linger do so no more than 15 minutes and talk about the weather or the immediate past sporting events or the one coming up that afternoon or other trivia.
4) A typical church's "small groups" program consist of people gathering and studying some curriculum for six weeks to 12 weeks. And the small group "script" must be followed and a 12 week study must be completed in 12 weeks. What does this medium teach? That knowledge is more important than loving others. Spending time of a session with someone in need is not allowed under this format. I fear that the message of the medium to many is that knowledge of God is more important that loving and knowing God.

IF our gatherings and discipleship approaches are to speak of the Christ, what would they look like?

2008-04-06T17:35:00.000-06:00

Church and Repression -- the dichotomy

2008-04-06T17:02:00.000-06:00

Another way the current church setup suppresses us from being fully who we are intended to be is the dichotomy between secular and spiritual.

In the time of the gospels, Jesus spoke into a culture that was Hebraic in its spirituality. Hebraic spirituality didn't separate the spiritual from the secular. A Hebraic teaching speaks of the glory of God being in everything -- it is a matter of orienting it toward God to release the glory.

Sadly, Hellenistic (Greek-Roman) spirituality crept into the faith. Greek thinking distinguishes the sacred from the secular. What followed corrupts the message of Christ until today. Instead of the priesthood of all believers, we have a priesthood of the clergy. We have a separate spaces called "church buildings". Everywhere we turn, we have separation. Is it a wonder we have trouble walking with God when we so separate our lives?

Where this really damages us from living in glory, of being what God intended, is the distinguishing of 'calling'. We all have a calling, but the church only seems to recognize that calling if it is for a "clergy" or ministry position. Diminished, we create second class citizens of those not in "ministry".

Security

2008-03-31T08:49:00.000-06:00

I've had a number of posts I have wanted to do, all reasonably long so I have to find a chunk of time to do them. But this one is one of those that if I don't do it soon, I'll lose the thoughts ...

A few years ago, David Murrow wrote a book called Why Men Hate Going to Church. Decent book, which in my opinion only has a partial diagnosis and is woefully short on prognosis and solutions. Part of the diagnosis is that the church focuses on a few points that ends up chasing men away. One of these is "security". The modern church is big on providing a secure environment. Just how far this has gone has become painfully clear recently.

I live about a mile north of New Life Church in Colorado Springs. A few months back, a gunman came on their campus on a Sunday, and ended up shot to death by an armed security guard. With this being a church of thousands, I have no problem with that. Actually doesn't surprise me -- years ago I volunteered with a church's benevolence program, and we had a female cop with us as one volunteer. Came to find out in time that she had been encouraged to always bring her gun (concealed of course) with her while attending church and volunteering -- something I was glad about the night we were assigned together to interview a woman who came looking for help who was clearly schizophrenic and we worried she might be a danger.

But now the news comes out that the senior pastor of New Life has been talking about security at pastors' conferences and consulting on the issue of security. He is encouraging churches to have armed security forces. Apparently he is even encouraging churches to consider having metal detectors and handbag searches at the doors.

What we must realize though, is that the medium is the message. What do armed security forces visibly patrolling properties say? It reinforces a fortress mentality of churches. It says to the world this is an us vs you situation. It sends so many wrong messages.

And to me, it reinforces the message that churches are selling security in the first place. I believe an unspoken, implied message of so much of what passes as church is selling security. Come to church somewhat approximating weekly, tithe, etc and feel secure in your eternal destination. Now, I know what is said, but the medium is the message, or in older terms, actions speak louder than words. When membership "covenants" or however expectations are spelled out occur, the message ends up being eternal security in exchange for being a good member, despite our words about grace vs works.

Truthfully, though, the walk of a follower is about having eternal life now. There are no promises about security and safety. In the U.S. we get a false image of things -- worldwide, by some estimates, 1 in 200 who profess to be Christian will die a martyr's death. When you take out of those numbers the Americans and others who don't live in countries where Christians are physically threatened, those numbers get frightening. And even in the U.S., being a follower of Christ can threaten one's economic security in certain career fields -- Hollywood, politics (in certain states), fields with high percentages of homosexuality among those in the field, higher education, etc. Traditional churches will not readily appeal to those in some industries, nor the way the culture is going, it will not appeal to future generations. What is needed, whether we realize it or not, is something resembling the underground churches of China and India.

While this is not a reason to pursue redemptive communities, which should be pursued for their own merits, it is a benefit evangelically. Small communities provide a better medium for the message than the megachurches, and are more likely to survive the future than the megastructures.

Is the business world discovering the truth? Redux

2008-03-24T08:26:00.000-06:00

Related: http://redemptivecommunities.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-business-discovering-right-model.html

Came across some reading on leadership styles within business, and some modern theories basically say there needs to be a mix of five styles of leadership with different balances needed during different phases of a business's life cycle.

1) The entrepreneur, the groundbreaker and strategist who initiates
2) The questioner, who disturbs the status quo and challenges a business to move differently
3) The recruiter, who takes the organization's message to the outside and sells it.
4) The humanizer, who cares for those inside the organization
5) The systemizer, who articulates the structure and company policies etc to those inside the organization.

Interestingly, the apostle Paul wrote about five roles of those equipping the church, which could be defined as:
1) The apostle, who pioneers new missions and oversees their initial development
2) The prophet, who discerns the spiritual reality of a situation and communicates them in a timely fashion to prompt needed change
3) The evangelist, who communicates the gospel message in a way to prompt response
4) The pastor, who cares for those in the church.
5) The teacher, who communicates the teachings of Christ.

In both cases and in many ways, these are functions more than offices or roles, and some may contribute to more than one function at times.

Interesting the obvious parallels?

Most traditional churches in the West, however, seem to have suppressed the apostle, prophet, and evangelist roles in favor of the pastor and teacher roles. Many of the APE roles are to be found functioning, it seems though, outside the church, in parachurch ministries.

Businesses that don't have the balance of leadership appropriate for their phase of the life cycle are typically ones in trouble. ...

Walking with God part deux

2008-03-21T13:10:00.000-06:00

I ask all the readers of this blog/note to visit this website and prayerfully consider attending either a live event, or the yet to be announced (as I write this) simulcast.

http://www.ransomedheart.com/ministry/walkingwithgodtour.aspx

Restoring Heart

Another brick in the wall (draft)

The New Populism

Out of the Matrix, Part I

Sowing seed and church emergence

Mere Churchianity

washing the inside of the cup

Ready, Set, Go

The coming collapse ...

You play to win the game

Nice quiz

Authority

Credibility and integrity

Recommended reading - "The church is NOT a building"

Passivity and the church

Two interesting blogs I read this week

Spiritual Towers of Babel

New site

Religion is easy

The word "religion" in the NT

What is the church to be?

Environments

Nation building

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

Rethinking church planting

Another Father's Day in America

Someone explain to me this ...

How churches can facilitate growing disciples

Corporate worship a "delusion"?

Rebranding

Too much talk

Lack of imagination

Organizations

Church hospitality

Worship

Leadership

A whole gospel

What does it all mean?

Freedom

The Image of God

Integrity on Christmas

Systems

Training Circles

Yesterday

How to settle disputes

Core beliefs

See you next week!

Why some theology matters

In the Image of God

The Noble and Good Heart

Leadership

Now is the time

Growing churches

Why Men Hate Going to Church

Real Church

Wound thoughts

Erwin McManus' Wide Awake

New post

Organic Conference -- questions answered

Organic Conference

Boot Camp

reduced load

The trouble with words: "reforming" the church

Dadgummit

The Noble Heart

inside out

The Story So Far, Part I

Jim and Casper Go To Church

Integrating the pulls against me

Do we equip the church, or does it equip us?

Christianity and the Cult of Celebrity

An Open Letter to the Institutional Church

The Heart determines success

School's started and my son's heart is good

Getting personal

Reimagining Church

Towards a more biblical model of the church

A new view of "church"

Every Story Follows the Same Basic Plot IV: Restoration

Every Story Follows the Same Basic Plot III: Striving