Epiphaneia Conference

I'm at the Epiphaneia conference today, The Evolving Church Amidst the Powers. So I thought it would be a good opportunity to blog again as I interact with the people at the conference.

This morning's first speaker was Walter Wink, a person unknown to some of my colleagues, but well known in certain circles for his books about "the powers." I bought his books when I was still working at Yonge Street Mission and tried to read them and work through them - not an easy task by any means. But he does bring out a number of very good things. In particular that every structure and organization has its own spirit. This spirit is what he and scripture calls the powers. These powers are created good, but they are fallen and need to be redeemed. Wink doesn't accept the concept of individual spirit beings. He asserts that it is too much like superstition for him. At the same time he speaks in very personal terms about these powers, in that they have distinguishable characteristics and personality.

The workshop I went to was with David Fitch whose blog I follow fairly consistently. His workshop was called"Evangelicalism and the politics of complicity" and dealt with the idea that we have some sacred cows in the evangelical world that actually prevent us from living in obedience to Christ. Three things in particular we have elevated to the position of idol status - that is ultimately powerless. He calls them Master Signifiers - words or symbols that inspire us but don't really have any power. Three characteristics are:
1. They don’t really refer to anything but we rally around them - like Obama saying “change” or George Bush declaring a “war on terrorism” but justifying just about anything including torture.
2. They play on antagonisms – kick their butts – To make us feel better
3. pacify us for complicity with the powers – we don’t really have to do anything ourselves about war or about change etc. but allows us to rally around these ideas.

The Christian "master signifiers" are
1. Biblical inerrancy - because we say the bible is true in every way but we don't do what it says. We proof text it to prove our denominational position but don't let it speak to our hearts and change our lives.
2. The idea of a Christian nation that somehow the best thing to happen would be to have Christian politicians, and laws so that we would live in a heaven on earth. However this is an elusive pursuit. We don’t know what would happen if we got what we wanted. We really can't really legislate morality but we think that we should. Change happens because hearts are change - not because laws are changed.
3. The deification of the decision for Christ. We have reduced conversion to merely responding to an invitation to raise your hand or sign a card. We have emphasized being born again instead of following Jesus. It has become about after death salvation from hell (fire insurance) instead of repeated returns to the altar. It creates an I'm in and you're out mentality. It bypasses desire and decision becomes only a mental thing – baptism has become a secondary thing instead of the full experience.

The afternoon will feature Stanley Hawerwas and Marva Dawn. Should be good.

Wondering About the Church

I've been following the discussion at the Jesus Creed about people checking out Catholicism here and am still fascinated. I’m still working through all this in the context of where the church is actually going in the grand scheme of things. I often have a callous and cavalier attitude toward all church structures and traditions and am convinced that we don’t really have a detailed biblically mandated structure to follow. I've also been doing my share of deconstruction - wondering exactly what should be part of church and what shouldn't - both biblically and historically and sociologically and Holy Spirit guided -ly. So I’m doing some wondering aloud here …

There are a couple of wonderings here – mostly out of ignorance. I wonder if the RCC and EO hierarchies are sufficiently staffed to sustain a huge influx? One hears about the paucity of “vocations” and the scarcity of new young priests. Is there sufficient interest in this generation to staff the potential growth indicated by this interest we’re talking about? Are those expressing interest actually pursuing ordination? Or as I mentioned above is it more about a spiritual search that is consumer oriented.

My second wondering: Is this combination of factors (interest in RCC/EO, lowering of denominational walls, deconstructionism, consumerism, general interest in spirituality, lack of trust and commitment to organizations and institutions, the Emerging church, etc) leading us to a spiritual landscape where there are a few stable towers of hierarchical ecclesiology (the Catholic traditions on one hand and the mega church phenomenon on the other - plus a few reformed holdouts) and then the teeming masses of small groups, house churches, new monastic orders, aging and fading mainline congregations, each consuming religion where they want. Maybe the parallel is the emergence of the super store and the disappearance of the mom and pop shops. Some people will still be fiercely loyal to their neighbourhood stores but most will shop where they get the best selection and the lowest price.

Or maybe a better explanation is that we are going back to the pre Reformation days (sociologically not theologically) whereby there are the cathedrals, where major religious events happen and also the many small folk religions and superstitious practices and beliefs (remember I am speaking metaphorically here).

Any body done some reading or writing on this?

Catholic and Emerging?

Scot McKnight has observed that many college aged people are exploring the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox traditions. He has posted about it on his blog here.

I've found it rather interesting in the light of the last post about the Millennials being dissatisfied with church as we know it. There is a deep interest in Jesus and in spirituality in general but some are finding a hard time expressing it or finding it expressed in typical Evangelical churches. The post is worth reading (so I'm quoting some of it below) but the comments and responses have been very interesting.

Here are some of Scot's comments ...

Paradoxically, I see this as part of the emerging movement. One of the themes of the emerging movement is made up of several threads: weariness with evangelical bickering, a yearning for liturgical form, and an awareness of the value of the ancient fathers of the Church. But instead of pursuing the vicious radical low church ecclesiology we see in some writers today, which is evangelicalism on steroids, these young students move out of evangelicalism with some emerging ideas and return to the ancient church traditions.

How do you explain it? Here is the beginning of my thoughts:

These kids come to college with:

1. No ecclesiology to speak of in their low-church evangelical experience.
2. Complete ignorance of the first 1500 years of the Church.
3. A chaotic postmodern culture in search of anchors.
4. Pastors who act like popes and read the Bible authoritatively with reckless disregard for anything prior to 1500.
5. Professors who each interprets the Bible for himself (or herself if they are lucky to have a woman reading the Bible).
6. Learning to read the Bible for themselves … again with little regard for anyone or any tradition.

And… then these students …

1. Land upon Ignatius and Irenaeus and Athanasius, each of whom materially shaped what we believe.
2. Are told by professors how important these great thinkers were.
3. They see the budding rise of early Catholic and Orthodox thinking in these writers.
4. Know that Nicea is not only a good set of ideas but something you better believe or you get kicked out.

In other words….

Everything in favor of thinking EO or the RCC just might be the way to go.

And I suspect they have friends, good solid mature spiritual friends, who are EO or RCC.

Millennials and Church

My niece wrote a little piece on Millennials in the church. I really liked it so I thought I would post her introduction. I think it really captures the flavour of this next generation of Christians: passionate about God but disappointed with the institutional church.

I called my brother this week.

A freshman at the University of Pennsylvania, he’s the epitome of this generation’s busy youth. Besides his studies at this Ivy League school, he’s involved in the gospel choir, the running club, the science department’s research lab, and a local church. When I called, it was one in the morning (Eastern time,) but he laughed when I scolded him for being awake: “Alison, this is early!”

Despite his age, my brother is one of the wisest persons I know. I often call him to get advice, to complain about my boy problems, to discuss politics, or to debate theology. This time, though, he was more reserved. And, after our unimportant small talk, he spoke with an exasperated sigh.

“I don’t know if I can do this much longer,” he said.

"Do what?” I asked.

“This, this - church thing,” he replied. “It’s so boring – the same thing every week! Will it be like this for the rest of my life? Can I put up with it for that long?”

At that moment, I didn’t know what to say. I knew I should encourage him, tell him it would get better, push him to “stay strong”… but I couldn’t. Frankly, it’s because I feel exactly the same way. And, I’ve felt this way for a while.

If the truth were told, I’m tired of going to church. In fact, I dread Sundays. To me, they represent three hours of boredom. I’m tired of listening to a pastor speak at me for 45 minutes (from my 20+ years of attendance, I can usually predict the outcome of his message.) I’m tired of “dressing up” to worship. I’m tired of wearing a plastic smile. I’m tired of seeing our corrupt leaders on the nightly news. I’m just tired.

And, I’m not alone. Besides my brother and I, there are millions of people in the United States today who are fed up with the state of the American church. Statistics show that people aren’t interested in traditional Christianity – both inside and outside of the church. Most importantly, there’s a generational gap that’s growing increasingly larger as time goes on. 

The millennials (the generation just hitting adulthood) are the least churched generation in this nation’s history. And for some reason, institutionalized churches have been unable to successfully attract or retain most of them. Current church programs aimed at the millennials are not working. If the American church wants to survive into the future, they must be flexible enough to re-shape their current structure to be more relevant and applicable to this generation’s youth and the next generation’s leaders.

Thus, young people are leaving the church and turning to other sources for spiritual satisfaction. Within Christianity, three new trends have evolved: Churchless Christians, the Emerging Church Movement, and House Churches. By engaging in these options, some people have found the satisfaction lacking from their typical church attendance. The American church must learn to be open to such new ideas if it wants to survive in the future.

Cultivate Learning Party

I spent the day at an event called Cultivate – which was a one day conference at in Hamilton. It is the fourth in a series of an ongoing mini conference discussing new church initiatives. It is held in a neat place called The Freeway – a coffee house that has a drop-in and an art gallery and a stage for musicians.
Cultivate Gathering is a learning party. What does that mean? Well, I took some stuff off their website … basically it's designed to be everything good about a conference without all the rigamarole... and much more fun and interactive. Instead of bringing in some big-name, American speakers to tell us what they already wrote in their latest book we are looking to Canadian church planters and leaders to tell their stories. Instead of you listening to message after message and being filled with information we want you to be part of a dialogue with people in similar shoes and learn and grow within that relationship.

How the day worked was that we had a panel discussion with people who were doing the stuff in one of three areas; Planting [grassroots storytelling], Neighbourhood [living incarnationally], and Leading [forming community]. Then we broke up into small groups or discussion pods and discussed some of the topics that came out of the panels. You could switch groups anytime. At the end of each discussion time people tended to congregate in the two or three most interesting pods and the moderator needed to repeatedly call us back to the next session.

I took some notes on the day – part of them are what people actually said and some of it is my thoughts as I interacted with what they said. This may not be entirely coherent but it is probably in keeping with the informal style of the day.

Sunday is for telling our stories and for worshipping God.
A lot of people have great ideas about how to do church and how to make a difference in our society but how do we create something that is rapidly reproducible? The Emerging Church/Missional Movement is just a lot of hot air if it is not really effective in reaching out to people and creating some kind of reproducible model or churches.
What really is good news for the poor?
Transformation of the individual only really happens in community. A lone Christian is an oxymoron – is this a true statement? How does transformation really happen.
Being a neighbour starts by being a good neighbour to the people in your own house
Building relationships is hard work and it takes a long time
It’s not something that you do it’s something you are, something you are becoming
Sharing our stuff with other families is countercultural to most of western society. For example buying one lawn mower or one snow blower for every ten houses.

Some discussion pod topics: Pocket living (connecting with two or three others in your neighbourhood for prayer, study, accountability, fun), Living in community – i.e. in a house or apartment together, Third spaces (a place like the Freeway), Finding and working with a person of peace (how do you connect with them?), and How do you offer community?

Segment Three - Leading [forming community]
What is your own story of leadership
What is the most important issue in leadership in your church that needs to be fixed or emphasized – what’s our job?
We have to admit that we are leading
We sometimes pretend that we are not leading but we really are.
People are on a journey and we are midwives coming alongside to assist in the birth of a new thing
Many times power is held on to too tightly and not given away
Requires taking risks with young leaders
What is the role of the leader in inspiring people to follow Jesus?
First of all I follow Jesus
Live authentically and transparently
Be and encourager – cheerleader build people up
Take a chance on people
Leader takes on the responsibility given – understand the contract between me and the people who are following me
I need to have proper confidence in my role as a leader

It was a thought provoking day. It will take some time to process it all.

Ya Might be a Redneck if ...

The Jeff Foxworthy schtick is probably getting pretty old for most of us already. You know ... "Ya might be a redneck if the grass growing in your front yard is so out of control that it hides the fact that you have two abandoned cars parked there."

Well I was reading a portion of a book by Paul Vieira (a Canadian author) called "Jesus Has Left the Building." In it he talks about his call to move outside the walls of the church to interact with the community and be the Church where two or three are gathered. In the book introduction he spells out some of the characteristics of the "institutional church."

So, how would I define “the building”? What is it exactly that Jesus is supposedly walking away from? Well, you might be dealing with an institutional understanding if you maintain or accept the following ideas about “church:”

So (in my words): "Ya might be part of an institutional church if ..."

• it’s somewhere you go
• it happens on a special day of the week
• you have a professional to tell you what to do
• all it requires of you is attendance and fees paid
• there exists a hierarchical command structure
• meetings come before people
• it has committees
• it has programs
• it has a corporate vision
• it has a corporate name
• it segregates itself from other believers
• it is more concerned with structure than content
• quality is sacrificed for quantity

He continues some of his ideas with these comments ...

In my experience, I loved being with God’s people. But there was something else interfering with our relationships and life together. This subtle, but very powerful system of values and practices does not seem to have its root in Jesus. I often use the following words synonymously (sometimes humorously), to describe this hindrance: institutional church, organized church, the religious system, the system, the corporate machine, the monster, the building, the matrix. Periodically, I will make statements that question the legitimacy of “church.” When this happens, please know that I am not referring to the true church, made up of all believers in Christ, but to the organization typically called “church.”

The Rise of the Feminine in the Postmodern Turn

There's a great article over at Allelon by Sally Morgenthaler about the role of women in ministry in the postmodern milieu called After the Show is Over: The Rise of the Feminine in the Postmodern Turn. (Scot McKnight from Jesus Creed posted a link to it.) I've quoted a couple of sections below.



When the question is asked, “What is it to lead the church in the postmodern context?” and then, more specifically, “What is it for women to lead in the postmodern context?” it is hard to get around the refreshing, contrarian turns in Laurel’s journey. At base, the way she influences, whether at Target or through her e-devotional, is unapologetically organic. There are no top-down systems here, no grandiose, lone-ranger dreams, no mega-church blueprints. Rather, here is a woman, showing up with her full self, her full story, and in full presence – on the people’s turf and in the rhythm of their lives. Surely, she must have earned A’s in Missiology.

Yet, Laurel’s presence is the antithesis of impotent. Laurel’s late-night co-workers who stock the wide-aisle shelves at Target know her as a powerhouse of a woman. Not only is she a hydrant of comedy (Laurel believes life is comic relief to the weight of eternity). The way she invests time in her co-workers, Laurel’s lived spirituality makes the four spiritual laws sound like a multi-level marketing come-on. At 12:30 a.m., Laurel and Suzanne are doubling over in laughter about Suzanne’s Match.com disaster on Saturday night. At 2:25 a.m., Laurel hefts big boxes of laundry detergent onto her motorized cart and tries to help 26–year-old Jennifer figure out what to do about her autistic son’s latest bout. At 4:05 a.m., Laurel is stocking dog-food, engrossed in Bob’s tirade about his alcoholic wife. At 7:33, she’s punching out, heading to the pancake house for breakfast where the coffee, pancakes, teasing, guffaws, and conversation will be flowing non-stop. At 9:00 a.m., she’s driving home to have a last cup of coffee before her pastor-husband leaves for work. Maybe she’ll be able to catch a few hours of sleep before her grandson arrives at 3:30, but only after she checks out that quirky journal article on Kierkegaard she’s been waiting to read. She’s been a Kierkegaard fan since seminary days. Her seminary days.

In many ways, Laurel is an anomaly within American religion and most certainly, within evangelicalism. Ordained and newly planted in a rural/bedroom community, Laurel rejected a comfortable church job (her husband had secured a pastoral position only twenty miles away), striking out in ministry completely on her own. What could have been the picture-perfect scenario – “clergy couple pastors neighboring parishes” - became “middle-aged woman hangs out with Target misfits.”

Even at fifty-five, Laurel is more postmodern than modern. Perhaps it was a gradual transition. Perhaps she woke up one day and screamed, “This isn’t working!” Perhaps it was one too many budget meetings, one too many building committees, or one too many worship wars. Whatever the case, Laurel simply couldn’t be a woman of the great machine any longer. Besides, she’d been witnessing a quiet but significant shift in her community’s spiritual temperament. Since the late nineties, what had been at least a little stream of unchurched visitors had dwindled to less than a trickle. Even the megachurches down the street from her little red-brick congregation were hurting for new faces, their 1980’s, “if we build it, they will come” approach operating on fumes. To Laurel, the community both she and these megachurches served had moved on. One could not simply put up a billboard sign and expect the unchurched to come knocking, even if you showed up in the neighborhood with the formula intact: a cute-sounding church name, killer band, concert-venue tech system, and a golden-haired pastor-boy.

No, as Laurel saw it, the audacious, “we’ve got just the thing for you” years were over. For years, she’d had the nasty habit of spending time with people totally disconnected from religion (it was her secret solace), and she knew first hand that none of them had the slightest interest in checking out the show under the big top. They were more interested in eating pancakes, lingering in the parking lot at their kids’ soccer games, drinking beer at the local grill, or playing Texas Hold’em on Saturday night. Their sacred space was wherever life was happening, and after all these years stuck inside the redbrick ghetto, Laurel wanted to be there.

One Response to Postmodernism - DMin

As I continue posts from my DMin paper, we get to the point where I list some of the responses to the current situation the church finds itself in. The church is found in the midst of a post-Constantinian, post-Christendom, postmodern world where few of the old church rules and norms apply. One of the reactions to this situation is what has been called the Emerging Church Movement - which some people call "the conversation." In the paper I quote some of Scot McKnight's material which I have found quite helpful. He blogs at Jesus Creed. Here's the next section of the paper ...


Gibbs and Bolger, define emerging in this way: "Emerging churches destroy the Christendom idea that church is a place, a meeting or a time. Church is a way of life, a rhythm, a community, a movement. Emerging churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures.”

This definition encompasses nine practices. The core practices of emerging churches are then illustrated in their book with comments from those who are "practitioners" of contextualizing the gospel of the kingdom of God in the postmodern world. The nine core practices are:
1. Identifying with Jesus (and his way of life)
2. Transforming secular space (overcoming the secular/sacred split)
3. Living as community (not strangers in proximity at a church service)
4. Welcoming the stranger (radical and genuine hospitality that is inclusive)
5. Serving with generosity (not serving the institution called "church," but people)
6. Participating as producers (not widgets in the church program)
7. Creating as created beings (releasing God’s creativity inherent in each one)
8. Leading as a body (beyond control and the CEO model of leadership)
9. Merging ancient and contemporary spiritualities.

Although it has not yet become a formalized institution (and actively resists becoming one) there are a number of distinct commonalities in this emerging movement or “conversation” as many prefer to call it. Not all of them are positive.

Scot McKnight, in an article for Christianity Today, has summarized five themes that characterize the emerging movement.

1. Prophetic (or at least provocative). The emerging movement is consciously and deliberately provocative and provides a sometimes scathing critique of the Christendom tendencies of modern Evangelicalism. Emerging Christians believe the church needs to change, and they are beginning to live as if that change had already occurred.

2. Postmodern. Living as a Christian in a postmodern context means different things to different people. Some will minister to postmoderns, others with postmoderns, and still others as postmoderns. The vast majority of emerging Christians and churches fit these first two categories. They don't deny truth, they don't deny that Jesus Christ is truth, and they don't deny the Bible is truth. The third kind of emerging Postmodernity attracts all the attention. Some have chosen to minister as postmoderns. That is, they embrace the idea that we cannot know absolute truth, or, at least, that we cannot know truth absolutely. They speak of the end of metanarratives and the importance of social location in shaping one's view of truth. They express nervousness about propositional truth.

3. Praxis-oriented. A notable emphasis of the emerging movement is orthopraxy, that is, a focus on right living. The contention is that how a person lives is more important than what he or she believes (although belief is also needed). Experience does not prove that those who believe the right things necessarily live the right way. No matter how much sense the traditional connection makes, it does not necessarily work itself out in practice. Public scandals in the church—along with those not made public—prove this point time and again. "By their fruits [not their theology] you will know them."

4. Post-evangelical. The emerging movement is a protest against much of evangelicalism as currently practiced. The vast majority of emerging Christians are evangelical theologically. But they are post-evangelical in at least two ways. i. Post-systematic theology: The emerging movement tends to be suspicious of systematic theology because God didn't reveal a systematic theology but a storied narrative, and no language is capable of capturing the Absolute Truth who alone is God. ii. In versus out: Even if one is an exclusivist (believing that there is a dividing line between Christians and non-Christians), the issue of who is in and who is out pains the emerging generation. Most prefer a centered-set approach where salvation is measured by the direction one travels (toward the center/Jesus) and proximity to the center as opposed to a clear in or out distinction.

5. Political. A final stream flowing into the emerging lake is politics. Put directly, they are usually Democrats – in the faith-based, activism style of the Catholic Worker or of Sojourners. And that spells "post" for conservative-evangelical-politics-as-usual.

Missional DNA (DMin)

How did they do it? How did the church of the first three centuries and the church in 20th century China grow so quickly?

Alan Hirsch’s concept is the mDNA of Apostolic Genius – that is, the “missional” DNA of how the apostles were led by God’s Spirit to unleash the gospel. He believes this mDNA is latent in every church and in every Christian. “So I come to believe, that every church, indeed every Christian, if truly birthed in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit, has the full coding of mDNA and therefore has direct access to the power of Apostolic Genius. … Institutional systems tend to try and organize through external hierarchical command and control; organic missional movements organize through healthy mDNA coding embedded in each cell and then let go.”

The six key elements of Apostolic Genius are:
1. Jesus is Lord
- A simple, passionate Christology shapes missional DNA
2. Disciple making
- “The greatest proof of Christianity for others is not how far a man can logically analyze his reasons for believing, but how far in practice he will stake his life on his belief.”
3. Missional-incarnational impulse
- “an outwardly bound movement from one community or individual to another… a genuine missional impulse is a sending rather than attractional one.”
4. Apostolic environment – the apostle was a custodian of mDNA and the gospel — and an apostolic, missional leader “imparts and embeds mDNA” through pioneering new ground for the gospel, guards mDNA through apostolic theology, and creates the environment in which other ministries emerge.
5. Organic systems
- the sufficiency of local churches, small groups, to get the job done — to let the mDNA do its gospel work. It’s about networks, not institutionalizing structures that maintain what has happened or try to manufacture what the Spirit generates without the system.
6. Communitas – not merely community (huddling/fellowship), but active in mission together, calling people to a dangerous journey to unknown places – Communitas happens during a period of changing paradigms (during 9/11, during the tsunami, and during Katrina). People forge together to restore life and in doing they formed communitas to make it happen. The danger to communitas is equilibrium. What is needed is certain level of chaos so the church is challenged to generate creativity and response to the conditions. This leads to self-organization which must not be institutionalized.

These attempts to revive new models of church that line up with the structures of pre-Constantine Christianity have crystallized into an identifiable movement called the Emerging Church – although not all these groups would necessarily identify themselves that way. “Emerging” catches into one phrase the global reshaping of how to "do church" in postmodern culture.

The End of the World As We Know It

As many of you know I am in the process of studying for a DMin. The title to this post is the title of my first paper. I thought I would include a bit of the paper in a few posts. I actually posted the introduction here a few months ago. A lot of the paper is a collection of ideas and quotes from other sources. I will try to cite the major contributors as I go along. Anything in [square brackets] is stuff that would normally go into footnotes. Sorry if that makes it too confusing but I tend to like to include more information rather than less.

The world is changing. It really is the end of the world as we know it (and we don’t feel fine – most of the churched world has serious misgivings). [With apologies to band REM, who wrote the apocalyptic song with the title: “It’s the End of the World as We Know It (and I Feel Fine).”] The consistent message of many current authors on the state of the church today is that Christendom is over and has been for quite some time. The church must either adapt to the changing culture or die. Parts of the traditional church may already be dead.

“It is quite possible that in the early part of the third millennium only the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, on the one hand, and evangelical Protestantism, on the other, will survive as ecclesial communities. What used to be called the Protestant mainline churches are in acute danger of disappearing. I expect they will disappear if they continue neither to resist the spirit of a progressively secularist culture, nor to try to transform it.” [Wolfhart Pannenberg. “Christianity and the West: Ambiguous Past, Uncertain Future.” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life, 48, no. 4 (1994): 22. These comments were made more than a decade ago and in many ways still ring true. However, there are many indicators of new life within some streams of the traditional mainline churches. There is also a renewed interest, especially among the emerging generation, in the historic liturgy typically found in more “high church” traditions.]

The “culture Protestantism” of the Western world that existed in one way or another since the Reformation, has been rejected, or perhaps ignored, arguably ever since the first World War.

Robert Jenson [“The Hidden and Triune God.” International Journal of Systematic Theology. (2000) 2, no. 1: 5] suggests that the church “is in the midst of divorce proceedings from the culture.” This divorce between the church and culture is not a new phenomenon. Many are drawing historical parallels between the pre-Constantinian and postmodern ages, where religious options abound, and there is a distinct separation of church and culture (state). As Rodney Clapp has stated: “Western Civilization is no longer content with a single religious sponsor.”

The core of this Christendom thinking is that much of Christianity still expects to be the chief sponsor of Western culture. Just as Nike sponsors Tiger Woods to piggyback on his success in order to dominate the golf equipment business, Christianity has sponsored Western culture to piggyback on its power and influence so as to dominate the religious worldview and win more converts. However, today’s church must recognize that it is confronting a culture that has lost its predominant guiding theme or authority, and a culture that has lost sympathy for the church’s cause. The Western church must reevaluate its accumulated Christian tradition and balance that tradition against Postmodernity’s insistence upon a multitude of equally acceptable and often conflicting views.

Finding Ourselves in the Story of God

I’ve been reading Resident Aliens by Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon. The subtitle speaks volumes about the book: a provocative Christian assessment of culture and ministry for people who know something is wrong. I’m only about halfway through but I have been underlining large sections already. These authors are veritable quote machines and I hope to continue to use much of this material as I think through church in this new millennium.

A few quotes for you:
On “story:”
The Bible is fundamentally a story of a people's journey with God. In Scripture, we see that God is taking the disconnected elements of our lives and pulling them together into a coherent story that means somenting. In trying to make sense of life, when we lack a coherent narrative, life is little more than a lurch to the left, a lurch to the right.

How does God deal with human fear, confusion and paralysis? God tells a story. Israel is a people who learn this story by heart and gather regularly to tell it. In telling that story, Israel comes to see itself as a people on a journey, an adventure. Its ethics become the virtues necessary to sustain Israel on the road. Our contention is that it does not just happen that God’s people tell stories; certainly the penchant for storytelling has nothing to do with Matthew, Mark and Luke being primitive, pre-rational people who told simple stories, whereas we are sophisticated people who do not. Story is the fundamental means of talking about, and listening to God, the only human means available to us that is complex and engaging enough to make comprehensible what it means to be with God.

The early Christians … began with stories about Jesus, about those whose lives got caught up in His life. Therefore, in a more sophisticated and engaging way, by the very form of their presentation [a story], the Gospel writers were able to begin training us to situate our lives like His life. We cannot know Jesus without following Jesus. Engagement with Jesus is necessary to understand Jesus. In a sense, we follow Jesus before we know Jesus. Furthermore, we know Jesus before we know ourselves. For how can we know the truth of ourselves as sinful and misunderstanding, but redeemed and empowered, without our first being shown as it was shown to his first disciples.

By telling these stories we come to see the significance and coherence of our lives as a gift, as something not of our own heroic creation, but as something that must be told to us, something we would not have know without the community of faith. The little story I call my life is given cosmic, eternal significance as it is caught up within God’s larger account of history.

In a world of unbelief and its consequences, even the recitation of a story like that of a church so ordinary as [ours] is bound to sound adventurous, even heroic, because the world’s cynicism and unbelief make the courage, continuity and conviction of anybody, even ordinary people, appear to be adventuresome and heroic. An unbelieving world will make a saint out of almost anybody who dares to be faithful. [Quotes found on pages 53-58.}

The Church in the City

I had a good meeting today. Ten of us (pastors and leaders in North Toronto) gathered to give support to a pastor who has just been given greater responsibility – he has just moved from being an associate pastor to a senior pastor in a small congregation in Thornhill.

We came to give him support. It’s been a long hard road for this congregation and they are still facing an uphill battle. They have a leased location on a Yonge Street (our major north/south route) which means a high rent. They are a small congregation. They have had a checkered past, highs and lows. They have just had a leadership transition. They’re not sure they will be able to stay.

We gathered to pray, to brainstorm and to listen to God and to one another on behalf of this local church and for this pastor. And God showed up. Although the work is not done, it was such an encouraging time for this pastor and for all of those who gathered. It was the church working the way it was supposed to. There was no competition, no boasting, no finger pointing or blaming - just a deep sense of support and unity. We were truly acting as the church in the city.

I hope I have his courage to ask for help in my time of need. I almost feel like I want to precipitate a crisis just to have the support of my brothers and sisters in Christ gathering around me to pray and offer their help. Just knowing and being a part this group of pastors feels supportive. I pray every church and pastor in the city has this amazing resource.

Not Getting Burned by the Pyromaniacs

I was just over at Pyromaniacs, a rather conservative Evangelical, strongly Calvinist blog site looking at some posters lampooning anything postmodern or emerging church. They are actually kind of funny but be warned that some of them only make sense if you have been reading a lot on the emerging movement and are familiar with some of its shortcomings.

Anyways I was reading the post mentioned above (that linked to many of the posters) criticizing Scot McKnight's (the guy who blogs at Jesus Creed) article on the emerging church found in Christianity Today online (I have mentioned that article before).

The folks over at Pyromaniacs were very articulate and very concerned about the more radical wing of the emerging movement. I'm concerned too. However the tone of parts of the discussions were quite vitriolic and I wondered how helpful some of the interactions were. Pyromaniacs are, after all, compulsive fire starters. I guess they like to generate some heat. However in spite of my wonderings, I posted a reply which I've quoted below.

Interesting post - and very good interactions. I'm new to the blog and came here to see the posters via a link from Tall and Skinny Kiwi (who thinks they are hilarious by the way). I like them too - but like most humor, they rely on exaggeration and stereotyping.

I suppose I would categorize myself as a radical conservative, Evangelical but post-Christendom Christian. As I read the post and the comments I often feel as if Emergent and Postmodern have become (almost) synonymous (in the eyes of many who criticize the movement). I think most emergent people I know would say they are trying to respond to postmodernity with an effective biblical witness. But then my circle may not be very large.

I like a lot of what the emerging movement is saying and doing but as a reform movement it has a lot of extremism. Most students of Church History would (and probably will in the future) see it as a minor blip in the history of the Church. I don't think it has much staying power because it is a transitional and temporary response to the current phase our culture is going through. It will move on and hopefully create space for whatever new expression of the church that will become the strong, biblical response to postmodernity.

The value of the emerging movement (in my opinion) is in that "wonderful" concept of deconstructionism - but probably not in the way someone like Jacques Derrida intended it. I think the contribution of the EMC will be in its deconstruction of the church - simplifying it and removing from it every non-biblical element and structure to the point where, if we removed one more thing, it would no longer be the church.

Luther and the reformers started to do this but I think they lost their nerve and continued to keep many of the elements of Catholic ecclesiology. They reformed much of the theology but not much of the ecclessiology and certainly not much of the church and state, political/religious intertwining - they probably made it worse (because of the religious wars and political jockeying that resulted from the reformation). But we live in a different age - an age where the church has been proclaimed irrelevant by a postmodern culture - and has lost its force. I think we can learn much about our current situation by looking at the theological wranglings of the reformation and the great awakenings (1500-1750). We sometimes see that period as a short moment in time but where do you think we will be in 250 years?

Our task is to steward a new reformation. What are its theses and who nailed them there? I think in some ways the argument about emerging is beside the point (because it is passing on and because the energy wasted on the culture wars takes energy away from creating solutions to the challenges of Postmodernity). I'm hoping I didn't miss the point with my comments.

Wandering Again

A great op ed piece by Sam Schulman in the Wall Street Journal on the lack of "charm" shown by modern atheists. Read it here. While you're at it you may want to check out another site on the emotionalism of atheism here.

An increasing number of Canadian churches that identify themselves as "Emerging" are starting to pop up. A list of these emerging ministries across Canada can be found here. No, we're not on it. However Thinker Labs is putting together a documentary film about Emerging Churches across Canada and they are traveling across the country and will be in Ontario in October. I hope I get a chance to see it. One of the people behind Thinker Labs is my buddy Joe Manafo (check out his link "The Story" in the list on the left side of the blog - or probably better is to check out his blog - because his website is just a picture).

And then there's just some weird stuff out there in the Christian blogosphere, like dog church, the Virtual Church of the Blind Chihuahua, an irreverent take on creating church in cyberspace, that exists just to be controversial, and is an interesting postmodern take on the church - and sometimes they're funny. Another virtual church (just click and pray) is vurch, a slightly more reverent approach to church on the web. Where do I find this stuff? Here's a page of links that I got from a Canadian church site.

Just information here - not necessarily endorsement.

Wondering about Anabaptists

I’m working through some personal theology. Our church is part of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC) even though we would be very non-traditional and quite unique among the PAOC churches in Canada. Although I have a very strong sense of the power and sovereignty of God I think I am fairly firmly planted in the Anabaptist tradition (as most Pentecostals would be – at least if they gave it some thought. I realize that I have heard very little conversation or teaching offered up in my 30-year history within the PAOC that actually clearly describes this area of distinctiveness.) So, I’ve been trying to settle in on where I really am. Although I think theology is somewhat flexible and I tend to resist firm “Statements of Faith” (because Jesus didn’t come preaching statements of faith, he came telling parables and inviting us into relationship with him and his Father) I would still consider myself an orthodox Evangelical. But as I’ve been reading some material on the Reformation, Pietism and the emerging church movements, I feel quite a bit of affinity with the Anabaptists. The following paragraphs were quoted from a small brochure on Anabaptism that can be found here.

The Anabaptist movement had its genesis as the radical wing of the Protestant Reformation. It began in Zurich in 1525 when a small group of men and women gathered to baptize one another. This group and those that followed them became known as Anabaptists because they believed that Christians must choose baptism as consenting adults rather than as infants. The concept of believer's baptism was rejected by more moderate reformers who still believed in the Christendom model in which baptism of infants served as entry into both the church and the state. The Anabaptists were hunted down and persecuted by both the Catholic and Protestant authorities for their baptism of adults as well as their rejection of the sword, swearing oaths and their focus on evangelism.

The Anabaptists were convinced that the church was ‘fallen’ and beyond mere reform. A thorough restoration of New Testament Christianity was necessary. This would require the church to be free from state control and from ecclesiastical traditions. Anabaptists urged separation of church and society rather than the confusion of these two that had characterized Europe since the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine early in the fourth century. They asserted that for over a thousand years the church had been in error, not only in certain doctrines, but on the fundamental issue of its identity and its relationship with society.

The Reformers feared that Anabaptists were reverting to salvation by works, because of their stress on repentance and the importance of discipleship. The Anabaptists feared that the Reformers were preaching ‘cheap grace’ and accused them of failing to address moral issues and tolerating unchristian behaviour in their churches. Balthasar Hubmaier insisted: ‘We must not be merely mouth-Christians, we must live our faith.’ The Anabaptists gave a much larger role in practice to the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer, and they emphasized that Jesus was to be followed as well as trusted, obeyed as well as relied upon. He was not only Saviour but Captain, Leader and Lord.

One Anabaptist, asked under interrogation what Anabaptist meetings were like, explained: ‘They have no special gathering places. When there is peace and unity and when none of those who have been baptized are scattered they come together wherever the people are. When they have come together they teach one another the divine Word and one asks the other: how do you understand this saying? Thus there is among them a diligent living according to the divine Word.’

Anabaptists rejected the Reformers interpretation of evangelism whereby people were coerced to come to church and participate based on the parish model (i.e. everyone who lived in a certain district was a Christian and belonged to the church and must be convinced to live a good life and coerced to come to church). Instead, they embarked on a spontaneous and explosive missionary enterprise to evangelize Europe. They traveled widely, preached in homes and fields, baptized converts and planted churches. Some, such as George Blaurock, even interrupted state church services! Such evangelism, which ignored national and parish boundaries, by untrained men and women (such as Margaret Hellwart, who had to be repeatedly chained to her kitchen floor to stop her evangelizing.) The Reformers relied on pastors; Anabaptists sent out apostles and evangelists.

Anabaptist Network Core Convictions
In light of our understanding of the Anabaptist tradition and of the contemporary challenges Christians face today in western culture, the Anabaptist Network (found on this website) has developed a statement of convictions and commitments, which are listed below. This has seven sections and (in typical Anabaptist style) is subject to revision as our understanding of Jesus and his kingdom grows:

1. Jesus is our example, teacher, friend, redeemer and Lord. He is the source of our life, the central reference point for our faith andlifestyle, for our understanding of church and our engagement with society. We are committed to following Jesus as well as worshipping him.

2. Jesus is the focal point of God’s revelation. We are committed to a Jesus-centred approach to the Bible, and to the community of faithas the primary context in which we read the Bible and discern and apply its implications for discipleship.

3. Western culture is slowly emerging from the Christendom era when church and state jointly presided over a society in which almost all were assumed to be Christian. Whatever its positive contributions on values and institutions, Christendom seriously distorted the gospel, marginalised Jesus and has left the churches ill-equipped for mission in a post-Christendom culture. As we reflect on this, we are committed to learning from the experience and perspectives of movements such as Anabaptism that rejected standard Christendom assumptions and pursued alternative ways of thinking and behaving.

4. The frequent association of the church with status, wealth and force is inappropriate for followers of Jesus and damages our witness. We are committed to vulnerability and to exploring ways of being good news to the poor, powerless and persecuted, aware that such discipleship may attract opposition, resulting in suffering and sometimes ultimately martyrdom.

5. Churches are called to be committed communities of discipleship and mission, places of friendship, mutual accountability and multivoiced worship. As we eat together, sharing bread and wine, we sustain hope as we seek God’s kingdom together. We are committed to nurturing and developing such churches, in which young and old are valued, leadership is consultative, roles are related to gifts rather than gender and baptism is for believers.

6. Spirituality and economics are inter-connected. In an individualist and consumerist culture and in a world where economic injustice is rife, we are committed to finding ways of living simply, sharing generously, caring for creation and working for justice.

7. Peace is at the heart of the gospel. As followers of Jesus in a divided and violent world, we are committed to finding non-violent alternatives and to learning how to make peace between individuals, within and among churches, in society and between nations.

Much of this stuff is what I have been thinking through in my DMin coursework and in our process of developing a house church. Who knew that these thoughts have been written down for hundreds of years and give some guidelines for how to proceed after the end of the world as we know it.

Emerging Church as the New Pietism

In my reading I've been seeing a lot of similarities between the historical movement called Pietism and what's happening in the current renewal of the church (part of which is referred to by the term Emerging Church).

Pietism was a movement within Lutheranism, lasting from the late-17th century to the mid-18th century. It proved to be very influential throughout Protestantism and Anabaptism, inspiring not only Anglican priest John Wesley to begin the Methodist movement, but also Alexander Mack to begin the Brethren movement. The Pietist movement combined the Lutheran emphasis on Biblical doctrine with the Reformed, and especially Puritan, emphasis on individual piety, and a vigorous Christian life.

Pietism seems to have a number of parallels to the emerging movement.
Pietism was a reaction to the rigid formalism of the state (Lutheran) church.
Pietism also focused on orthopraxy (right living) as opposed to merely orthodoxy (right belief).
It focused on an authentic faith, biblically correct but not just dry doctrine.
It often met in small groups in homes for deeper discussion and community.
All of these seem to line up with what is happening today.

In 1675 Philipp Jakob Spener (the founder of Pietism - and yes his first name is spelled that way) published his Pia desideria or Earnest Desires for a Reform of the True Evangelical Church, the title giving rise to the term "Pietists". In this publication he made six proposals as the best means of restoring the life of the Church:
1. the earnest and thorough study of the Bible in private meetings, ecclesiolae in ecclesia (" churches within the church")
2. the Christian priesthood being universal, the laity should share in the spiritual government of the Church (all are called to ministry - marketplace anointing)
3. a knowledge of Christianity must be attended by the practice of it as its indispensable sign and supplement (orthopraxy - faith must be lived out)
4. instead of merely didactic, and often bitter, attacks on the heterodox and unbelievers, a sympathetic and kindly treatment of them (this is where the Emerging movement could improve - as well as those criticizing them)
5. a reorganization of the theological training of the universities, giving more prominence to the devotional life (a new way of training in seminaries that focuses on developing character and holiness)
6. a different style of preaching, namely, in the place of pleasing rhetoric, the implanting of Christianity in the inner or new man, the soul of which is faith, and its effects the fruits of life (discipleship focus in preaching - very similar to the focus of new style churches) - (adapted from Wikipedia's article on Pietism).

One focus that is not always present in the Emerging movement that was a core element of Pietism is "piety" - a commitment to outward and inward holiness. The key element in the Emerging movement seems to be cultural relevance - sometimes at the expense of what we have traditionally considered holiness. But with their commitment to orthopraxy - right living - there is a real hope that this new movement of the Spirit will breathe life into the entire church.

Whew!

Whew! The paper is done - aside from a formal edit from Brigitte (my proof reader) and if I can keep my hands off it. I keep having this temptation to go back and review and adjust and add another footnote and tweak the flow of the argument here and there. I'm like a dog with a bone - I just want to keep gnawing on it. I just have to put aside my perfectionist tendencies and say "DONE!" I topped off at about 10,400 words (in the main body of the essay - not including footnotes or the words of the bibliography). Pray for Brigitte!

I titled it "The End of the World As We Know It." It's basically a survey of the recent literature surrounding trends in the Church over the last few decades. The consensus is that Christendom is over (Christendom being the system of religion that has dominated the Western world for more than a millennium) that's Christendom -not Christianity. The interest in spirituality and Jesus is actually very intense but most would consider the church irrelevant. But there are lots of new expressions of church being done that are having an impact. There are also lots of old styles of worship and devotion being done with equal effectiveness. The new is old and the old is new - sounds like Ecclesiastes.

I'll post some sections of the paper as the days and weeks go by. My next focus is a presentation that I need to do on Count Nicolaus Ludwig Zinzendorf - the founder of the Moravian movement. Very interesting stuff. Two common denominators of most renewal movements is a renewed interest in Jesus and a manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit - both happened with the Moravians. Stay tuned!

A Few More Quotes

A few more quotes from The Irresistible Revolution ...

On the "church as an agency" ...
The social work model of church produces clients and providers – facilitates the exchange of goods and services, putting professionals in the middle to guarantee that the rich do not have to face the poor and power doesn’t shift – inequality is carefully managed. Church becomes a distribution point where the poor come to get stuff and the rich come to dump stuff. Both go away satisfied but no one is transformed.

On the illusion (and danger) of safety ...
"Most of us live in such fear of death that it’s as if no one really believes in resurrection any more. Jesus said that we shouldn’t fear those things that can destroy the body but that which can destroy the soul (Mt 10:28) so we need to avoid things like safety, numbness, complacency, comfort – subtle demonic forces. Jesus is not safe – but He’s good."
"Lukewarm – the old school way of saying “cool”! You don’t get crucified for being cool. You get crucified for living radically different from the norms of all that is cool in the world – and it’s usually the cool people who get most ticked off." 231

Dropping a few famous names ...
Tony Campolo: “If we were to set out to establish a religion in polar opposition to the beatitudes Jesus taught, it would look strikingly similar to the pop Christianity that has taken over the airwaves of NA.” 269
Brennan Manning: “The greatest cause of atheism is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door and deny him with their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.” 270
Martin Luther King, Jr.: “The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love?” 270
“Throw us in jail and we will still love you. Bomb our houses and threaten our children and we will still love you. Beat us and leave us half dead and we will still love you. But be ye assured that we will wear you down by our capacity to suffer. One day we shall so appeal to your heart and conscience that we shall win you in the process and our victory will be a double victory.” 276

On church buildings ...
"As we enlarge the territory of the corporate property, private property remains comfortably sacred. So as congregations build larger buildings gyms and food courts we find ourselves less likely to meet in homes and kitchens and around dinner tables. We end up centralizing worship on corporate space or "on campus" (i.e. the church campus). Hospitality becomes less of a necessity and more of an optional matter – a convenient privilege. On the other hand as members open their homes and yards and share vehicles and recreations spaces, less and less corporate property is necessary. God is ultimately in the process of bringing down the towers of Babel – the great prostitute Babylon – eager for power and wealth. Rather than our towers and temples reaching up to heaven the God of heaven reaches down to earth and lives among us. In the New Jerusalem, there are no church buildings, no temple because God will live among us."

The New Monasticism

I have been reading Shane Claiborne's book "The Irresistible Revolution" and it makes some great points, provides some great quotes and seriously challenges our North American style of Christianity. He (that's his picture to the right - a little crazy looking don't your agree? But that's his "promo" picture off his website!) lives in "community" in a reclaimed abandoned house in a very poor area of North Philadelphia. His community life would be like life on a commune (for those of you older than about 40) except with only 6 or 7 living in the house. They share their resources, grow their own food (or as much of it as possible) and live among the poor. The term "New Monasticism" would be the phrase that best describes what they are doing there and it is happening in many places across North America.

Now a few quotes:

I gave up Christianity in order to follow Jesus. What does it really look like to follow Jesus? Quotes Soren Kierkegaard: "The Bible is very easy to understand,. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly … Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close."

Catholic Bishop Dom Helder Camara: “When I fed the hungry they called me a saint. When I asked why people are hungry, they called me a communist.”

Charity wins awards and applause, but joining the poor gets you killed. People do not get crucified for charity. People are crucified for living out a love that disrupts the social order, that calls forth a new world. People are not crucified for helping poor people. People are crucified for joining them. 129

Community is what we are created for. We are made in the image of a God who is community – a plurality of oneness. Jesus lived and modeled community with his little band of disciples. He always sent them out in pairs and the early church is the story of a people who were together and were of one heart and mind sharing all in common. The story ends with a vision of the new community in the book of revelation where the city of God is dressed beautifully for her lover this community called the New Jerusalem.
But that doesn’t mean community is easy – for everything in this world tries to pull us away from community. Pushes us to choose ourselves over others to choose independence over interdependence, to choose great things over small things, to choose going fast alone over going far together. 135

Cultivate Gathering

Cultivate Gathering is a learning party which is taking place in Hamilton, Ontario on Saturday, April 21, 2007. What does "learning party" mean? Well, basically it's designed to be everything good about a conference without all the rigamarole... and much more fun and interactive.
[Read more here...]

Cultivate Gathering is for anyone who is interested in church planting or creating new forms of church. This year, we will be exploring three areas which relate to the missionality of local church communities:
Culture & Creativity
Spiritual Formation
Urban Renewal

I was at this gathering last year and enjoyed the group of people who attended. It's a good chance to talk about stuff and get some ideas. A little steep maybe for one day but it'll be a good day.