Moving on

Yes, it is more than two years since posting. For various reasons I'll cover in initial posts, I've decided to restart blogging with a tweaked theme and a bit of new theme at http://fromseedinstead.blogspot.com/.  Rather than recast future posts, it just seemed better to start again.

If anyone still follows this, feel free to join up over there.

Another brick in the wall (draft)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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 ...

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

For fun

Nice quiz

Authority

An online discussion got some juices flowing:

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

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

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

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

Credibility and integrity

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended reading - "The church is NOT a building"

Recommended reading

Passivity and the church

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two interesting blogs I read this week

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spiritual Towers of Babel

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

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

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

New site

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

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

Religion is easy

Religion is easy, relationship is hard.

Christ intended for us to practice relationship, not religion.

The word "religion" in the NT

Stuff discovered looking up other stuff ...

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

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

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

Hmmmmm.