Installment #3

In continuing to respond to a letter from a church leader who is seeking revival in his congregation . . .
-----------------------
I reread your request about how to get off “dead center” and saw something that I don’t know how to understand: namely that you have listening/praying leaders and yet, at least you, feel that something is being missed. Do others feel like something is lacking? Is God calling your congregation, and despite sincere listening, the call isn’t being heard? Is God calling, people sense the message, but don’t know how to act on it? Are you hearing it and others are not, or do others hear it too? Do many hear it, understand it, but fear acting on it? Is the problem hearing, understanding, or acting? – some part of all three?

If people aren’t hearing a call that you hear, it may be because you’ve had the experience of that small, vibrant community you mentioned. You, better than I, understand the nature of the Spirit’s prompting – which seems often to be a message which needs interpreting. The process of us working through the discernment is one aspect of why the message was given. Do others know God is calling, but struggle to interpret the message?

Being able to convey the concept of a land of “milk and honey” so that people catch the vision in God’s call is important. For those who’ve witnessed it, they want to be there. For those who don’t know it even exists, how can they hear the call?

If others are not aware of what can be, and so don’t sense God urging them onward, a guide is necessary. In many ways we spent four years preparing for our jump, but others had labored for years before me in the recesses of discontent within the hearts of seekers. Anyone who knew what could be, started sharing that with others and helping them taste the possibilities. At the time that this group began moving they had longed for something with the vague shape of what we now do. They were hungry and thirsty for community, ministry, living out of “one briefcase” (faith intersecting with all of life), and moving beyond southern civil religion – but the group needed guides who could describe the forms this experience of faith would take. The guides didn’t have to do much convincing, for when they described how things could be quickly a majority seized on it and affirmed “that’s what we’ve been wanting!” The majority were not being equipped by the Spirit to put the longing into some form, but the confirmation was there throughout the community for each step. Obviously, we have still had our troubles discerning, and nothing is ever unanimous. There are some who consistently struggle more than others to catch the vision.

I am writing so that I may understand (a stream of consciousness here) rather than putting this down as an essay. You’ll have to bear with my process.

Where my thinking is taking me is to a place of recognizing the importance of visionary people – but not in the entrepreneurial sense. We don’t need people with grand visions of their own imagination, but who have a “Kingdom sense” and can communicate it. The means must be Kingdom expressions. Having Kingdom ends is not enough to justify any means.

For me, God showed me what could be through watching God build churches in Africa. He’s shown that to you through that unconventional church (and many other experiences as well). The question is, what can we do to help others see what congregational life can be like when it is a daily expression of living in Christ rather than membership in an organization? For us it was experientially realized, not informationally through seminars and classes. It might happen at a convention, but I doubt it unless the people are already extremely primed. Conventions are forms that are too institutional (like lectureships) where often things come down to “how to” classes – which feed the wrong mentality. The form is too institutional to convey a non-institutional freshness.

I think that perhaps sharing, even for short periods, in congregations that have the life you are seeking for your community is the way to go. Different experiences will help people realize that it is not about a certain configuration. Two couples from here visited Church of the Savior. That is a good place to see very authentic Christian life being lived out. Besides personally witnessing community I think that narrative can serve as a vehicle for experience – even though instruction does not work well. The Emergent idea of conversation is powerful too.

I guess these ramblings are coming down to how you can guide others into hearing more clearly the call of God: creating dissatisfaction with where we are, longing for more of God, and experiencing how that longing can be met in vibrant community. I know . . . I’ve said nothing new. Maybe this “methodology” could be wedded to my earlier thoughts about “abrupt” change and intentional negation of our worst religious pitfalls.

Keith Brenton commented on my blog saying “wasn’t I talking about new wineskins?” Yes, I am trying to give some detail to what it means to have new wineskins. That is something we have heard said, but how well do we know what it takes to have new wineskins? I guess that is what I’m trying to describe as best I understand it- but I am afraid that you will likely find little new in my thoughts. I wish I had better answers!

Peace.

Addendum to Initial Installments

As I think about two of the ideas I've put forth:
1) The type of change I am discussing must be an instantaneous leap to a new paradigm and not incremental progression,
2) Those jumping to the new paradigm exist as an open community among others,
I believe these aspects are seen in the Jerusalem church.

Peter describes the leap to a new world in his call for separation for the corrupt generation and submission to the name of Jesus . . . accepting completely the one who'd been rejected profoundly. The fact that those making this jump were distinct is seen in the statement that "no one else dared join them" (Acts 5:13). The paradoxical verse which follows says "more and more . . . were added to their number." To me it is language that decries any incrementalism: a little in and a little not. People didn't come gradually . . . they either were living there or they weren't.

And yet this distinct group which had leapt to acceptance of Jesus as the messiah still lived daily in the temple, among those who'd not made that jump. Everywhere, they continued in the synagogues. They spoke about new realities with a welcoming posture to anyone willing to begin living in the Kingdom.

Their story seems to me to illustrate how revival takes place. In essence, they were participating in a revival of Jewish faith. Avoiding the tired controversies of "saved" and "not saved" we can envision a revival in Christian congregations through reinvigorated faith, self-understanding, and action in similar terms. A new vigorous community erupts through God's Spirit among what has become stale. This is not about judgemental statements against those (like myself) who've been caught up in fossilized religion. The new community emerges abruptly, and is anything but exclusive. It is distinct and simultaneously inclusive.

In a similar fashion, a new Christian faith emerges within old communities, not to be iconoclastic, but to be inviting and hopeful.

Tibi gloria, Domine!

Installment #2

See the previous post for the beginning of this subject:
---------------------------------
Brother,

I have continued to think about your query and to look for what I can say. As you know, none of this “life in community” follows a formula, though there may be some aspects that are common to such a journey. So let me dive into another of my opinions – one which is related to my earlier installment on making a clean, new start rather than attempting an incremental journey.

One of my missions professors, Dr. Ed Matthews, gave us this advice: when you go to your field of work, find out what stereotypes the people have about missionaries and Christianity, and break them. Where we were in Africa, two groups in particular, had been there for close to 100 years – the White Fathers of the Catholic Church and the African Inland Mission. One of the stereotypical ideas the local people had about Christianity was that one term for followers of Christ was “readers” because being a Christian was so closely tied to literacy. Among that tribe where functional literacy was well below 20% to me that was a problematic stereotype.

This doesn’t mean that I was going to criticize all that other missionaries had done before me, but to see where the people of that culture had put missionaries and Christianity “in a box” and then intentionally create a new hearing for Christian faith. To me this does not necessarily mean being iconoclastic, but showing the unbounded character of Christian faith, deepening the mystery, and exposing new aspects to surprise the local people.

We learned the tribal language and not just the trade language, which was something the Catholic missionaries did but not the Protestants. We tried to find ways to create a fresh hearing for the Good News among people who had experienced a Christian witness for 100 years but were still 90% traditionalists.

When I take this idea and apply it to my thoughts about reinvigorating a Christian community today, I think that a group must take some radical positions to directly challenge where there has been lethargy, “in the box” thinking, and routine. This is a very contextual endeavor.

Taking an example from our community, we felt led to break out of an institutional mindset that bred loyalty to congregations – their funding, their programs, their progress. We wanted to create a new vision for discipleship to Jesus in daily life rather than succumbing to the tendency to enjoy membership in a church much like membership in a country club. To hit this problem head-on (for ourselves, to remind us how we are susceptible to such thinking) we did away with “membership.” Since no one can be a member of Disciples’ Fellowship, we were actively opposing our own tendencies to revert to “institutional” promotion, thinking, and identity. We also started to use the knock-off from the Southwest commercial saying “You are now free to move about the Kingdom” as a way to intentionally capture our desire to see the body of Christ rather than our local congregation.

Obviously, someone in another context might see no sense in that intentional stand. They probably shouldn’t. When we talk about “not being Sunday-centered, preacher-centered, campus-centered, or sermon-centered” – again we are identifying the particular weaknesses that exist for us.

The general point I am thinking about is that not only does a clear change need to happen at a moment in time rather than gradually, that change needs to involve some distinct paradigm shifting which is a redefining of the weaknesses and negative tendencies of a group.

When you say that you feel that your congregation may be over-staffed, over-propertied, and self-centered then, if I were in your situation, I would do things to turn those aspects around 180 degrees. The same idea is suggested by Jason Zahariades in his article on “Detoxing from Church.” Like people suffering from an addiction to chemical substances, we need a radical detoxing unlike the “moderation” which is possible for those not addicted.

If believers in your community are addicted to too much staff, their property, and an inward focus – then I think a big jump is essential. Maybe nothing concerning the internal nature of the group will be discussed for a year – consciously and overtly changing the dialogue. Letting everyone know that we aren’t going to talk about . . . because, though those matters are good, we’ve neglected other conversations of the Kingdom. Maybe the staff is reduced, or maybe they start doing ministry to outsiders only (and do nothing for the internal maintenance of the group). Maybe the property is sold, or maybe in some way a new paradigm is introduced by some new use that makes it clear that the addiction is being broken. I like the idea of using the 12-steps of substance addiction as a process of thorough-going repentance.

We joked about being in church-recovery, or Church of Christ anonymous classes. That was the attitude that we had to adopt. I’m not sure, as I’ve said before, how this is worked out in your context as the practice of faith. Please accept this humble second installment - which may be simply the misguided thoughts of an outsider.

Peace to you.

From Institution to Fellowship of Believers - 1

Recently, I was asked how our fellowship of believers made the change to head towards what we are becoming . . . so because I want to kill two birds with one stone, here's part of that as a post. Unfortunately, you will have to do without this person's question and description of his own church situation. Suffice it to say that he is part of a very good congregation, but which may suffer from institutional lethargy - and he longs for a more vital, outward looking, missional/incarnational community.

-------------------

I take very seriously your request, which is why I am going to answer in several installments. I want to be able to think about this and let it simmer for a while. But I can respond initially to one thing you raise in your letter - Could you see an established church really transforming into what you now are?

I think it could happen 1) if the leadership is willing to take risks and pursue the vision, and 2) the fact that significant numbers of people may decide to not go along for the journey won't kill the effort.

If there is a united and courageous group of leaders, I think something can happen, but it will be a “cultural” change – which will be as difficult as that language suggests. We are not talking about organizational, methodological, stylistic, doctrinal, or some lesser change, but the most fundamental restructuring of the DNA imaginable. I believe that I am telling you nothing new.

Of course, such a thorough-going change is easier to adopt in a new context – rather than to infuse it into something familiar, just because the old places, structures, environment, configuration, etc. all are repositories for the old church culture. They are memorials which tend to lead people to associate familiar concepts of church with where they have practiced them. Again, nothing new here, but only my take on the added difficulty of doing something profoundly different in a location and with people who have long-established habits. Take those people out of that setting, and they know there has to be change, and I think they will be more accepting of it. If a family moves to New York, they expect to experience some change even if they would rather not. Changing at “home” is possible, but more difficult.

My second comment, and the thought that first “jumped to mind” (was prompted by the Holy Spirit? – that must yet be discerned) is that incremental change cannot get a group to this new culture. Using another subject to illustrate- there is no “incremental” pathway from legalism to accepting grace. Understanding the radical difference may come incrementally, but the leap is “all or nothing” in a moment. A person goes from trusting in his or her own actions to bring righteousness, to abandoning all hope of that and desperately leaping to a whole new paradigm that exists in an entirely new universe. Even if done imperfectly (there is certainly more to learn) the jump happens at a specific time. There is no middle ground – a little legalistic and a little grace-dependent. The gradualists want to believe in middle ground to lessen the impact, to manage the change – but not when we are talking about mutually exclusive matters.

We cannot assess where we are, figure out where we want to be, and then create a series of gradual steps to get from here to there. We can do this if the change is not at the depth of the fabric of things. But I think we are talking about a Copernican revolution that involves how we relate to God, what “church” is, how we are to exist in relation to the non-confessing world, what leadership is, the role of believer-to-believer relationships, how we view our Sunday activities, what being a Christian means, etc.

My own assessment of our congregation, in ways that I believe are not at first even evident to many outside observers, is that we are in a different world completely. I think the Emergent thing is like that – but many seem to be going to Emergent events to “get ideas” to apply in the usual modern incremental (tweak the model) fashion. I don’t think it will work.

That is not to say that every person who shares life with us here is in that new world – but if they hang around they learn the new culture. I guess every individual doesn’t have to “jump” to it at the same time, but the identity/focus/configuration (those words aren’t good, but I don’t know what to use) of the group must jump all at once to something new. Obviously, many people have to be “in” that first jump. Others will feel the disequilibrium, but their move may come later.

I am probably rambling, but I think this incremental versus instantaneous distinction is vital. Most churches that are established want to eat the elephant one bite at a time and hope people will be able to handle the change in small bits. If we talk about leadership, there is no incremental way to go from top-down authoritarianism to bottom-up servanthood. You stop the old way, switch to the new way, and deal with the whiplash effect. Now if you want to tweak the top-down to make it less arbitrary, maybe less mean-spirited, less personality centered – that can be done incrementally because there is a continuum to move along gradually since there is no fundamental change happening. It is just a new form of top-down.

If a church is going to move from self-centered keepers of the faith to Kingdom outposts to bless a non-confessing world, that cannot be done little by little. Trying to do it gradually usually means that it never happens. What one can do in an established church is to start creating a new church within the old church – the new one operating in a whole new way. People are invited to join the journey. Of course, through time the difference will become apparent, and often that can be painful and difficult. What many want is incrementalism. “Can’t you preach about grace and yet say things to emphasize the old essentials?” – as if those were compatible and the switch could happen gradually.

For me, the new emergent paradigm of church is so radically different that it cannot be ushered in through old means. In other words, the new pattern is not top-down, so it cannot be brought in through a top-down mandate. That would be a contradiction. The new is lived, not organized and implemented. So I think ultimately you are looking at people opting out of old ways, adopting new ways, and jumping to a whole new paradigm. If the “leadership” agrees, they cease to be “leaders” in any modern organizational sense and begin living a new reality. Can your congregation endure the whiplash and enter the new world? I don’t know.

My fear is that you’ll actually act on what I’ve written. I’m not even sure of what that would mean at this point. Let me think on this and maybe that will come in a later installment.

Three police officers thought they might be making a drug bust Wednesday night when they rushed in, but found instead my friend and his son had taken another friend home from our prayer meeting and had just stayed to chat. Not that these officers didn't have a reason to suspect something illegal . . . they're just not aware of what divine transformation has been happening. They busted in on the fellowship of believers in Christ!

Oooooo . . . I love it when our witness is starting to make a real difference - when our presence is salt and light in places known to be otherwise.

Confession

Okay, I admit . . .

Sometimes my ideas don't sound so good the second time around.

I still get a twinge of feeling left behind when I read/hear of others progressing in the profession of ministry.

I am still way too judgmental of those selling out ministry as a profession.

I sound like I am better read/more knowledgeable than I really am - I probably spent last night getting my butt whipped online in Halo 2 rather than reading . . . (insert notable author/book here).

I really do think that most heavy metal songs are redeemable if they're honest about life.

I am still unforgiving towards some people who have wronged me.

My thoughts are very heathen even if my actions aren't. I'm really scared of "snapping" and doing what I think about.

I'm not too certain that confessing like this is a good idea.

I wish God would put an end to all the silly stuff that is promoted on the INSP network.

That last confession means God would have to put an end to my silliness as well.

I'm a really judgmental idiot.

I need to think more before confessing - so really stupid statements like that one about the INSP network can be filtered so I can keep up the pretense of not saying dumb and self-condemning stuff.

I thought of something to confess, but I'm not going to say it here.

I get impatient with others.

I really do want to praised by men and women - though I know that is very dangerous.

Sometimes I worry about the future.

I don't want to get seriously sick for a long time.

I'm not real sure how I feel about definitely not being young anymore. I want to age graciously but don't know if I'll do that well.

I am too intently concerned about criticism - which is ironic because I knowingly do things that will generate it.

On Wanting

"You cannot have what you want."

"But what I want is good . . . it is of God," the disciple protests.

"Even so, if your desire is anything other than God himself, your longing has become a competitor . . . an idol. There is more to be considered than simply the 'good' or 'bad' of a thing. Your longing might be ill-timed, secretly self-flattering, or good your your own eyes, but only God knows what is truly good. Our vocation is to seek God himself, and to allow him to order the things of our lives, the times, the relationships, the possessions, the opportunities, and the experiences as he desires. Much is wasted by disciples who believe that God has shown them what is good and they pursue it for him, rather than understanding that God has shown himself to be good that we might long for him."

Evangelical Conversion

My last post, needs an addendum. Not only does the situation with the individual I am sharing life with in our faith community prompt a discussion of differentiating between self-serving "felt needs", that are the chief concern of many churches as they seek to "appeal" to the spiritual consumers out there, and a contextualized message that reveals God's grace as it is poured out into situations of human suffering, it also raises a question of typical evangelical notions of conversion (what a long sentence!).

This person does not need, nor would he understand right now, lots of talk about personal sin, eternal consequences, and "conversion" to take care of all that. His need is more immediate - not in heaven by and by. As I explained, the Gospel to him right now is good news about hope, peace, and sanity through Christ which rescues him from a chaos that is a lifestyle. Sure it includes "sin" - but that's not the problem. It is life as he knows it.

He's 82 days clean and sober today. I'm discipling him, but right now that has nothing to do with understanding atonement. Instead it is about having a Savior from the chaos here and now. I don't even ask the evangelical "big question": Is he saved?

He is becoming more like Jesus - the Spirit doing alot in 82 days. Anxiety is down, paranoia is waning, peace and sanity are invading a disturbed life. That may not be the norm for evangelical conversion, but it is spiritual transformation.

Making disciples is all about sharing life with others so they find the God who is seeking them. If we quit worrying about who's saved and lost, and just start discipling everyone (the nations) we might actually start doing what Jesus was talking about. Discipling does not follow conversion. Discipling is everything; those who put faith in Jesus are those who have been discipled to some extent, though they, just like me, are still being discipled.

Evangelical patterns of making everything about conversion with discipling being a later stage tries to make orderly and neat what is a messy process. How all of this occurs will never follow a precise and predictable sequence. Trying to make every person start at the same point and journey according to some formula only means we often miss the prevenient discipling of the Spirit in those we encounter because we were wedded to our own flow chart. Unlike Jesus, we have the same conversation with everyone, while he had personally relevant conversations with people as recorded in the gospels. Seems like Jesus was discipling everyone - richman, poorman, beggarman, thief (or adultress).

Felt Needs & Desperate Needs

Over the last couple of months our community has been sharing God's love and His Kingdom with a man who has been heavily involved in the "under-culture" of drugs and crime. The "kick-proof" doors on his house aren't there to keep the criminal element out, but to keep the police from getting in before the drugs can be flushed.

In the last three weeks, in separate incidents, three of his associates have been arrested on his property, for drug possession and driving a stolen vehicle. Last week, two of his "friends" were involved in a police chase that included the attempted murder of three officers, the theft of two vehicles, and ended with the death of a woman who was a passenger when the high speed chase ended in a head-on collision.

This man has been finding Jesus . . . which leads me to think about the whole 'felt needs" discussion. Generally I don't like the felt needs approach because it often transforms God into "a means for my own agenda." The needs people "feel" are generally totally misconstrued addictions to themselves. Allowing Christian faith to be shaped by the perceived needs of the unregenerate or immature regenerate will result in shallow Christianity.

However, the situation with this individual has reminded me that the legitimate aspect of a felt needs discussion is that the work of God in Christ must be shown to be relevant to where people are. I've not talked to this man about Jesus in terms of personal salvation and the forgiveness of his sins, but for him Jesus offers a strength to overcome his own addictions and a new way of living without all the chaos. Jesus is peace, a refuge . . . his Higher Power because his own life is unmanageable. He falls back in faith on the sovereignty of God as he is overwhelmed by the inscrutable nature of his life.

We cannot retool Jesus to make him the answer to whatever felt need a person has, but we should demonstrate in a way that starts with robust theology that Jesus is a Savior in the midst of our desperate needs. That is contextualization of the good news of grace in terms of human life.

On Being Irrelevant

A recent statement issued by some professors as their affirmation of the identity of their denomination was done to "clarify" where they stand and believe their denomination ought to stand. Unfortunately, anyone familiar with Churches of Christ will recognize the standard subjects: baptism, Lord's Supper, and a cappella singing . . . and the thoroughly discredited notion that Christian unity can be achieved through a common interpretation and practice of ancient church forms.

Hasn't that been tried? Isn't it a modern idea that human understanding and agreement will be the basis of Christian unity? Unity does not exist through common practice and belief, but by the Spirit despite dissimilar human practice and belief.

While I don't doubt the sincerest desires of these men (several have been my teachers) it is a clear example of institutional irrelevance. Concern for the preservation of the organizational identity of the denomination leads to focusing on 'internal' discussions over disputable interpretations.

We have an urgent need for Christian faith and life to be theologically incarnated in today's challenging cultural contexts. At least for me, nothing can be more irrelevant than spending time defending historical interpretive positions for the purpose of clarifying and preserving denominational identities. The three matters chosen as an identity show how form-oriented the discussion remains for what Churches of Christ have been.

Praying with St. Augustine

God of life,
there are days when the burdens we carry chafe our shoulders
and wear us down;
when the roads seems dreary and endless
the skies grey and threatening
when our lives have no music in them
and our hearts are lonely,
and our souls have lost their courage.
Flood the path with light, we beseech you;
turn our eyes to where the skies are full of promise.
Our hearts are restless, O Lord, until they rest in you.
Grant us purity of heart and strength of purpose,
That no selfish passion may hinder us from knowing your will,
no weakness from doing it;
But that in your light we may see light clearly,
and in your service find perfect freedom;
Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

-St. Augustine

Life and Human Will

I grabbed a folder to bring with me to Iowa so I would have some paper to write on . . . and found inside my notes from several years ago on a seminar on grief by John Claypool. One of his statements that I wrote down was "If getting one's own way is what brings one happiness, grief and loss will be devastating."

Accepting our "creatureliness" involves acknowledging that our lives are lived within a framework that we can neither control nor manipulate. Peace comes from abandoning the desire to write life's script and welcoming the grace that is given for each experience.

Often we curse the darkness, fight against life as it happens, and complain that the grace is insufficient and improperly focused. That is because we want grace for our purposes, rather than seeing in grace a guide to the purposes of God.

The Sovereignty of God is not a reason for me to hope that I might get what I want, but the reassurance that life may be lived on the terms of the attendant grace.

My dad had a heart attack on April 15th - not so coincidental if you know his attitude toward money, and perhaps to big government specifically.

He's recovered some, which means he's not in a coma now, but the big goals for his day are learning to swallow, remembering names, and trying to talk. It is so easy to put words in his mouth - to assume his reply - but on a few occasions he did say a word or two that was distinct and obvious, if only in a whisper.

I found that today I dealt with spending the day in the hospital room with him better than I would have thought. It wasn't as difficult as I imagined, and tried to stay 'in the moment' and not run away into denial.

It is amazing how quickly so many people jump to emphasize the hopeful and don't want to contemplate what is for them the undesirable. I'm getting to practice my belief that peace is embracing the reality of a situation, acknowledging the sovereignty of God without making him into a good fairy-godmother, and living in the sacred moment.

All good advice that I am practicing for myself, and so far have found God's presence in a situation where there is not clear right and wrong, good and bad, and all is wrapped in mystery.

Gloria tibi, Domine!

Pagans and Tax collectors

This post has nothing to do with tomorrow - but last night. We were looking at Matt. 18:17 where Jesus says to treat the unrepentant person, unwilling to even respond to the loving concerns of the whole community, as a "pagan and tax collector".

I've always taken this instruction to mean "treat this person as a low-life, an outsider, an unwelcome person, a traitor, - an enemy, if you will." After all, Jesus is instructing us how to practice "church discipline." Church discipline has to be harsh. If a person won't follow, throw that person out and "shun" him. Of course, in love.

The question I asked myself yesterday, and the group last night, was "how did Jesus treat pagans and tax collectors?" Well . . . he loved them and invited them into the experience of God's reign. He showed them mercy and kindness. I can't find anywhere that Jesus treated these people as traitors or outsiders. He invited them to be insiders. I can't find where Jesus "shunned" them or rejected them in any way.

So what is the difference in how to treat them? Maybe it is the idea that disciples give one another the permission to correct, exhort, encourage, rebuke, and otherwise help each other. It is how we treat one another "on the journey" - but not those who aren't followers. We are not so presumptuous as to correct people when they aren't followers of Jesus. We invite them and love them. We don't hold them to the standards of a disciple when they aren't disciples.

A good question asked last night was 'what about tough love?' I am a big proponent of tough love in the sense that love is not always being nice to someone and making them happy - but love is always kind. Love says "no" sometimes: no to enabling, no to permissiveness, and no to the practice of people-hurting evil of all kinds.

Perhaps our "church discipline" ideas have gone overboard - like the Corinthians may have done after Paul's sharp words telling them to deal with their permissiveness in a matter of incest (1 Cor. 5:1-5) and then he had to urge them to forgive and comfort the offender (2 Cor. 2:5-11).

Our renewed commitment to discipleship to Christ calls us to reread the text and rethink our assumptions about dealing with sin as it appears among us (something few communities deal with). We would do better to hold tighter to love, and question not the love that says "no", but the idea of rejecting individuals in the name of love.

Questions of Ecclesiology

I am reading a couple of books that are essentially exploring the nature of the church. One is Evaluating the Church Growth Movement, a self-explanatory title. I am interested not because I need people to explain to me the manifold deficiencies of that pragmatic and shallow diversion (I think history, which is extraordinarily patient, will prove it be to an aberration) but one of my former professors is one of those critiquing the movement.

The other book is Treasure in Jars of Clay by writers from the Gospel and Our Culture Network. A representative of this group is also a critic in the first book.

In this second work the GOCN people are attempting to respond to the criticism that their work has been too abstract by providing sketches of churches that are doing the type of things they envision as theologically founded. They want to show real-world examples of something other than the pragmatism of the Church Growth Movement and its scant theological interests.

(Here's where I had written some stuff which summarized the various theological or not-so-theological options I see being championed by some Christians . . . but I started thinking it sounded too negative. So I'll just move on to what I said next).

The biblical metaphors for the role of the people of God that I can think of offhand are:
1) ambassadors who represent and witness to a different Realm.
2) those who exist "to the praise of His glory."
3) the elect, chosen from before time to be undeservedly the recipients of mercy.
4) aliens and travelers who look for something not of this world.
5) salt and light that makes a difference in a corrupt world.
6) doers of good to all people, living at peace as much as is possible, and praying for the godless authorities and systems.

The ideas that are often popular today about the purpose of the church (you'll have to imagine your own because I'm just not going there . . . if you don't know what is lacking you'll have to find someone else to tell you) have enough of at least one of these or other biblical ideas to be partially true. But today's competing visions are in conflict because they try to elevate one biblical idea over another. One seizes an evangelical purpose, another an other-worldly vision, and another an intercessory posture for the sake of the world. Each one is right, but none is wholly right.

Last night when I was talking to Don Hill about thinking about our ecclesiology he said we start getting into trouble when we want to define it too much. He stated that we need to let it be a little ambiguous.

You know, I think he's right. If I try to be succinct and clear, I'll be reductionistic and I'll lose something. Let it be all these things - doing good on environmental and social issues, doing good by serving individual people, sharing the good news of a new reality, bringing glory to God through daily living, longing for a returning Lover . . . in other words entering into all of God's work. Let it be all these things and in no particular order. Let it be somewhat ambiguous to us so that we will be open to God's continuing revelation.

Let us also be rigorously theological and make sure that we acknowledge that everything centers on God and that we are merely invited because of His good pleasure to join in His Mission. Centered-on-God and open-to-God might be a good way to seek our ecclesiology.

A New Computer and Consumerism

I am trying to avoid being a consumer. I'm fighting an uphill battle against a horde of skilled marketing people. They attempt to create an emptiness within me (promising the product they sell will fill that need) while I am trying to nurture an inner peace and contentment.

In order to avoid being a spiritually restless consumer, I am creating my own "needs testing" for determining when to purchase something. Actually that sounds much more analytical than it is. I don't have some formal test, but I do have to question my spending from a spiritual standpoint.

There is no doubt that this is spiritual - through and through. The subject at hand for me right now is a new computer. I have a trusty iMac at home that we bought in 1999 when we returned from Africa.

I am a bit of a Mac fanatic, but the reality is that it runs great. I've never had a harddrive crash, we receive and send email, the kids do their papers on it, and it surfs the internet on a DSL connection just fine - surprisingly well for a 233 mhz antique.

I know that many might think I am nuts for thinking that purchasing a new computer is a spiritual matter. I've got news for them - it is.

The fact that it is a bigger expenditure than buying a new toothbrush isn't what makes it a faith-issue. Buying a toothbrush is a spiritual matter too. The reason I don't think as much about a new toothbrush is that there isn't fleshly lust involved in what toothbrush I use - but it enters into the computer thing.

I get a new toothbrush when the old one wears out. I'm not giving in to some consumeristic mania when it comes to dental hygiene - but I am susceptible to doing that when it comes to computers. That is why I have to be more careful about this decision.

Do I wait for my iMac to give up the ghost (that might be a lot longer than I want to wait - but maybe that is revealing)? When does it become reasonable to spend a year's wages for a third-world working man on a new computer? When I do replace my old Mac, how much should I spend?

I am forming some answers . . . for me, not anyone else. I have no compelling reason right now to buy a new computer other than desire. That just isn't good enough for my walk with Christ. So I'm not buying now. In my thinking, having a computer is a part of living life in the place where I am - so someday I will buy another one. It will be perhaps later this year. I need to pray more and want one less, I think.

Perhaps there are spiritual disciplines to preparing ourselves to acquire things we desire. If I want something too strongly, then something is wrong. This is where I come back to the consumer world around us. When someone with a vested interest in me spending money to buy his product is urging me to make purchases, I need to be wary. Maybe my desires have been too influenced. Let me turn my desire back to God. To want God and only God. That is the correct posture for my faith.

None of the this is new - I'm sure Peter had to think about whether to buy a new net or simply repair the old one.

A Community of Selflessness.

As believers, the journey we share is one of common submission rather than common understanding. We are united as Christians in submitting to God even when our thoughts about and descriptions of God differ.

The same can be said of scripture, or the historic creeds. We place ourselves under the authority of God's revealed Word and seek to live intentionally in ways reflective of the Word.

We don't and won't see all of scripture the same. Common understanding is sometimes what we enjoy, but it is not the essence of our community. Our unity isn't built on our understanding.

We can all recite the Apostles' Creed, and in doing so submit ourselves to a mystery we believe is expressed in those words. We believe that the words talk about God, but don't define God. Our understanding of the words of the creeds aren't as important as hearts that believe in the God the creeds point to.

Repeating the faith is our submission to a historical stream enlivened by the Spirit. We are saying this isn't about us, but about God.

We are together through the person of God, and what we have in common with one another in our humanity is submission. Our bond is what we acknowledge we don't have (competency, hence we submit) rather than what we might think we have (knowledge and understanding).

A community of selflessness.

Staying on Track

Last week Mark and I got to spend some time with Mike Lewis who is pastoring a new church here in Birmingham, Fellowship of the Valley.

Mike made some comparisons between the emergent stuff happening today and the Jesus movement of the 60's and 70's. One big difference he observes is the solid base of theological reflection that is going on in the current re-imagining of church, which was often lacking in the Jesus movement.

I also think that the current ties to ancient liturgies and the creeds helps keep us from simply going off into some jelly-bean and fluff kind of spirituality. The contemporary church movement which wants to make the Christian experience so relevant seems to me to want to be relevant in the wrong ways.

My missions training makes me desire relevance - but being relevant to the culture's desire for everything to be pre-packaged and microwavable (just for example) won't be the right type of relevance. Making following Jesus a self-indulgent experience for a self-indulgent culture is the problem.

We need to talk about the real areas for relevance . . .

A Visit

Today Charles walked in looking for food. Seems like another church provided him with a room last night in the motel next door . . . and he saw the "Angel Food Ministry" banner outside our meeting place and decided to come in.

I microwaved some broccoli and Swedish meatballs that were in the freezer here. We made sandwiches by putting the meatballs on hamburger buns which were left from last Sunday's fellowship meal and sat down to watch basketball.

Charles told me some about his divorce, about growing up in Jasper, several jobs he'd had . . . you know, the story isn't real clear and to ask questions to keep the conversation going seems to make the story even get more confused.

I don't care if Charles was telling me the truth. He was hungry and we enjoyed a meal. I talked about making changes in life, about relying on God because we can't do it ourselves by our own efforts.

He asked if I would give him money for a motel room. I offered to help him find a job and get a place to live . . . but he wasn't sure that he wanted to stay in Alabama. He said maybe he'd be going back to Florida, or Georgia. Wasn't sure he wanted to settle down.

Mark and I gave him a few bucks and welcomed him to come back anytime. We'd cook whatever food we have and he can watch TV or play pool. Charles said maybe he'd come to our fellowship meal on Sunday.

Looking for God

Visiting a different church is always interesting. We automatically evaluate what we see, hear, and experience. Doing that comes naturally.

A good exercise for spiritual reflection is for us to be self-aware enough in that moment to stop evaluating the new experience and look at ourselves. What is the way we are measuring this time we are spending with a group of believers who are new to us?

For many of us, because of the way we've been formed by religion, our opinion of the event of worship with others comes down to "did I agree with what was said and done?" What does this say about what we believe is the essential reality of Christian worship and community?

Obviously this shows that for us everything comes down to an orthodoxy of correct doctrine and practice. Now that sounds good . . . but the "correctness" of everything is being measured by my own understanding. My intellect becomes the arbiter of what is orthodox. I aspire to orthodoxy as much as anyone else - but I'm trying to let go of the idea that assumes I am orthodox and therefore able to "detect" all those who are not.

What if we were to let God be the judge of orthodoxy? What if my "evaluation" of the experience of worshipping with others in a new situation was centered on one question: is the Presence of God here? Forget what I think about the rightness or correctness of what they say and do! If God is present, how critical should I be?

Seems to me that Peter judged his encounter with Cornelius not on the basis of his understanding of what was correct, but on the real Presence of God. In fact, looking for God seems to be what the early Christians did . . . and it helped them out of some of the wrong-headed ideas they believed were orthodox - like 'Gentiles can't be Christians'.

Conversely, God may also be obviously present where everything isn't truly orthodox . . . and that says something to us about His grace and mercy. If God is present in the imperfect, can I stay away? Don't I become like the slave of the foot-washing Master who refuses to wash feet? If God serves I can't refuse to serve and be called His.

I know . . . if we run around following God rather than our own understandings of orthodoxy who knows where it might lead! And we can't have that.