The Once and Future Church - Book Review

This is one of the books on my DMin reading list. It was written by Loren B. Mead who was the past president of the Alban Institute. Since I have to do a review of it for my course, I thought I'd post a summary and a bit of a review here.

The book does a decent job of examining the current state (EDIT: when written in 1991) of the church - although from a decidedly mainline perspective. Mead begins by analyzing the"current" Christendom situation - which in many ways still applies today.

Mainline churches in first half of 20th century were powered by a strong clear uniform paradigm of mission – built buildings and seminaries, and mission agencies that were well funded and clear in their mission. That changed in 60’s and 70’s. The one clear paradigm of mission stopped being clear and consensus disappeared – different agendas, conflicting demands and needs appeared because the culture was changing. People and congregations who were once prepared to make sacrifices to support a mission consensus found it hard to generate enthusiasm and conviction for a more complicated reality (a reality interpreted primarily by the denominational officials out of touch with the reality in specific congregations).
Three things happening simultaneously:
1. a fundamental change in how we understand the mission of the church
2. congregations were being challenged to move from a passive supportive role to a front line active role. The role of laity, clergy, bishops is in transition
3. institutional forms and structures are changing – the old are collapsing.

Three responses to these events:
1. frantic effort to recapture initiative with new programs so compelling they will garner new support – restructuring, downsizing, trying to stop the bleeding
2. holding steady and hoping for the best – (i.e. RC church not responding to shortage of priests, PAOC shared funding model)
3. moving ahead into a new paradigm of mission, rebuilding and reinventing the church as we go
Mead favours the third response but says we need to know:
a. what the new paradigm really is and should look like
b. how do we determine what parts of the old system to keep to make it in the new era?

He then describes three paradigms in church history.
1. The Apostolic Paradigm
The central reality of this church was a local community called out of the world, that lived by the power and the values of Jesus, preserved and shared within the intimate community through apostolic teaching and fellowship and through ritual acts (eucharist). One gained entrance into the community only when the community was convinced that you shared its values and experienced the power of the Spirit. The world was opposed and hostile to this community. There was a clear inside and outside. There was a powerful conversion event to enter the community. Baptism was death to the former life in the world and a birth into the mission of the community. Your role in the community demanded a role in mission to the world. The role of the community (and its traveling troubleshooters – like Paul) was to build up its members with the courage, strength and skill to communicate God’s good news in that hostile world. This paradigm continued until the fourth century until the conversion of Constantine.

Then came the second paradigm:
2. The Christendom Paradigm
Christianity became the official religion of the empire – no longer was there a hostile world around the church – the church and the world became one – the church was the empire. The missionary boundary became the geographic boundaries of the empire – so to extend the empire was to extend Christianity. No longer was the individual on the mission frontier – no longer needed to witness – no longer needed to be different or separate from the world. Missions was now the task of the professional (soldier, politician, emperor). The task of every Christian was now to be a good citizen, to support the laws and leaders of the empire. One was no longer converted into the church but was born into it.

This paradigm still influences us today. However there are cracks in the system. The "empire" is no longer Christian - even if it has a Christian leader. There is no longer uniformity of mission or purpose. Mead goes on to say a third paradigm is emerging but we don't know what it is yet.

He spends much of the rest of the book trying to describe some of what is going on in many mainline churches today. Although he makes a number of interesting points, much of his material are tired ideas suggesting change and fresh thinking that still lines up with a Christendom paradigm.

Summary
Some good analysis of the three paradigms. He has a very good description of the development of the Christendom model and the characteristics of it that can still be felt today. There is a good rationale for the historic development of the denominational system in USA. His analysis applies equally to the mainline and free church traditions (the appendix is helpful but a bit redundant). Unfortunately, his solutions and suggestions are tired and old. He clings to the denominational structures and institutions. He assumes the traditional role of worship and church services. He nowhere defines mission and never mentions the name of Jesus until his conclusion. His suggestions for the shift that needs to take place in the clergy seems like a pep talk with no real concrete changes. Suggestions about experimenting more and helping lay people do more theological reflection are truisms that don’t really help anyone who has been seriously thinking about church and culture.

If one of the problems is lack of agreement about mission then the definition of mission needs to be a priority. He seems to shy away from any kind of parameters of what the mission should look like. This is clearly articulated in the final chapter as he gives examples. He never really says that the vitality of the mission must always be about the vitality of the relationship of the believer to Jesus and the formation of a community of faith. He still assumes that visitors will be coming into the church from the community and that there will always be children to train. Most mainline churches are graying out and many “free” churches are merely collecting the castoffs from the mainline churches as opposed to responding to the post-Christendom culture. (The Evangelical churches are clumped into the "free" church category. These are not currently facing the same intensity of the crisis that mainline churches face but will be soon.)

He nowhere addresses the real task of mission into a hostile world and how to do that. He merely assumes that as the church changes the mission will once again become clear. He also assumes the continuation of the clergy role (although in a changed form). I think he completely misses the boat there. I’m not sure there will be a role for national and international denominational offices. The more likely role is to band like-minded churches together regionally or as cities.

All in all I think this author has not grasped the seriousness of the cultural change around him. He assumes that the church will change and must change. He also admits he doesn't know what that change will look like. It will be more different than he ever imagined.

The Problem of Evil (according to Hollywood)

Often, there are times when watching a movie, that I yell at the TV screen (in my mind at least) shouting: "Just Pray!!!" The story writers in movies and TV effectively portray life-threatening situations, fearful circumstances, times of mind-numbing pain and anguish and at times blatant evil. The ways people respond to these situations are as varied as life itself - except for one glaring omission. People don't pray. God is rarely, if ever, seen as a solution.

Movies and television shows rarely show a spiritual response to what are in essence spiritual problems. This is especially true in the horror genre where authentic evil is being presented. [A caveat should be made here. I don't watch horror/slasher/occult movies - ever. This includes movies like Harry Potter and Ghostbusters. I don't like them - mostly because of their poor understanding of the supernatural, bad (actually destructive) theology, the promotion of fear, and their glorification of violent evil. I've seen scenes from some of these movies - usually through previews or reviews but refuse to watch the movies themselves.]

The solutions proposed in most movies seem to lie in a narrowly defined parameter of acceptable responses to these life crises (usually escape/fleeing or having a hero appear or rise up from the group to save the day). The most disconcerting types of solutions are those offered when the story is dealing with something that is blatantly evil - often supernaturally evil. Here is where the responses don't make any sense.

The first style of response is usually human Ingenuity - a scientific response to a supernatural evil. A movie like "Ghostbusters" is typical of this response. The heroes in Ghostbusters get rid of all the ghosts, apparitions, etc., by zapping them with their containment machine. The strange, unbelievable thing about this is that they completely accept the reality of supernatural, spiritual evil but propose a scientific, materialistic, non-spiritual solution - and suggest it works. I guess Hollywood makes dreams come true.

The second solution to the evil threat in many of these movies is the glorification or maybe the beatification of the occult. This usually involves using "good magic" or witchcraft to defeat the "evil or bad magic/witchcraft." This is the approach of the Harry Potter books and movies. There seems to be no awareness that evil cannot be used to defeat evil and that a house divided against itself will fall.

Jesus talked about this in Matthew 12:
24But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub,[d] the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons." 25Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

The third solution is the most distressing to me. This is where the protagonists actually become evil to defeat evil. They become the thing they are battling to somehow use the power of the evil force to overcome the evil they face. Afterwards there is some deliverance or rescue of the hero that needs to take place to deliver them from evil - but again it is some human or scientific force that is able to do it. In this situation there is at least the recognition that the evil is supernatural and that they cannot overcome that power with their own strength. The scary part is that the solution advocated is to become evil like your enemy to defeat your enemy. So to defeat a vampire you must become a vampire. Movies like "Van Helsing" and now a new movie "30 Days of Night" advocate this approach.

In all of these films God and the power of the Cross is neglected, negated or ridiculed. Prayer is seen as ineffective and the option used only by the weak or by the sniveling. I suppose when light is removed from the scene, there are only varying shades of grey. When there is no acceptance of the reality, goodness and power of God in Jesus Christ, the only place to turn is human effort or witchcraft.

It causes me great concern because there are many who are raised on a steady diet of this stuff - especially children [which to me is one of the real dangers of the current expression of Halloween with its strong emphasis on the occult and the violent, bloody aspects of the horror genre]. It is also unbelievable that there wouldn't be anyone in any of these movies who, if faced with this circumstance, is actually praying. Hollywood is producing movies portraying real evil. Okay, then provide real solutions to evil, and those solutions need to involve the Cross. "They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death." Revelation 12:11.

Marc Newman says it this way in Movie Ministry:

The problem with this kind of Problem of Evil is that it makes people feel helpless and hopeless in the face of the real, supernatural evil that most suspect is really out there.

Audiences deserve better. Evil is not eternal. Perhaps we in the Church need to do a better job of explaining the reality of the spiritual world. We must not leave that job to Hollywood. When we enthusiastically tell of our own encounters with God's redemptive goodness, it exposes these fraudulent attempts, such as 30 Days of Night, to debase supernatural warfare (albeit fictional) by turning it into a mere materialist turf war. "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places," the Apostle Paul tells us (Ephesians 6:12). And Hollywood does better when it gets that part right.

What is an Evangelical Anyway?

I came across Christianity Today’s subsidiary website “Books and Culture: a Christian Review” – a great (I mean really superb) collection of book reviews and articles about Christian books, articles and authors. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., is a fairly well known Canadian theologian, author and Christian apologist. He is Sangwoo Youtong Chee Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College in Vancouver, Canada. In a review of Ron Sider’s Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, he gives a helpful (although lengthy) description/definition of an Evangelical. He goes on to describe in the rest of the review that we (along with Ron Sider) are often scandalously fuzzy about what an Evangelical really is and what a Christian really is. This little description should help – well at least a little.

Evangelicals maintain Protestant orthodoxy: they believe what their various denominations have historically taught about Christian doctrine, with special emphasis on Christology and soteriology;

Evangelicals experience conversion: they might enjoy a particular dramatic moment, or they might undergo a long process punctuated by one or more crises, but they all personally commit themselves to Christ and then seek to be fully converted in the process of sanctification;

Evangelicals believe the Bible: they not only maintain classic Christian beliefs about it, but their piety is structured around it: in individual, family, group, and congregation study, in the centrality of preaching in public worship, and in the Bible's epistemological supremacy in all areas of life;

Evangelicals engage in mission: they view themselves as called by God to perform his will in every activity of life, and particularly in sharing the message of salvation with others and caring for their needs; and

Evangelicals recognize each other across denominational lines as kin: thus evangelicals cooperate in a wide range of organizations and activities to further the work of God beyond the reach of their respective congregation and denomination.

The Search to Belong IV

As we continue to look at Joseph Meyer's book, "The Search to Belong" we see him describing the various spaces in which people make connections. Although he goes through all four spaces in two different ways in two different chapters, I thought I would collate the information and organize it according to the space described. So we continue with the second category ...

Social Space
This is the space where we connect with one another at a social level – sharing the “snapshots” of who we are. There is great need for people to connect socially – it creates a profound sense of belonging – even if the conversations are primarily “small talk.” Sometimes we denigrate social belonging as superficial and surmise that nothing significant takes place in social relationships.. Take away social relationships and our community (and even our personal) conversations become flat.

Social belonging is important for three reasons:
1. It provides space for neighbourly relationships. A neighbour is someone you know well enough to ask for small favours (borrow lawnmower, pick up mail, etc.). We meet briefly while “doing other things.” These relationships bring to a neighbourhood safety, comfort and connectedness.
2. This social space provides a safe selection space for us to decide with whom we would like to grow a “deeper” relationship and provide information to help others decide if they want to connect with us.
3. These interactions allow us to display a reality we create of who we are. We tell stories about what we do (about work and marriage and children) and how we got there. This creates the “snapshot.” This interaction is in many ways self-defining – it is an opportunity for us to explain who we are and how we see ourselves.
Sharing an authentic definition of who you are helps make significant social connections. Your definition of who you are helps you and helps the other person to connect, thus nurturing and the experience of belonging for both.

People who have a healthy sense of social belonging have the following competencies (meaning they have an understanding of certain ways to behave and an ability to conform in these ways). Another way of saying it is that people who are not able to grasp these social conventions are not always able to develop comfortable relationships in social settings. So Meyer suggest that the key social belonging competencies are:

+ They can formulate an authentic (and consistent) “snapshot” of who they are and what it may be like to have a relationship with them in personal (or more intimate) space. This “self” matches both who they are and who they are becoming with the surrounding social setting.
+ They can detect when others are presenting an authentic snapshot of themselves.
+ They have developed the ability to help others create their own snapshots by creating a social environment that both permits and promotes healthy self-promotion.
+ They are comfortable with spontaneous and sometimes short interactions.
+ They have harmony between defensive and offensive practices.
+ They are tactful.
+ They have the ability to plan and/or organize purposely engineered social games.
They are able to keep pleasant visual contact with others in social space. Eye contact comes through short glances – long enough not to be rude but brief enough not to stare.
+ They can maintain a “working consensus” with those sharing the social space (i.e. they get along).
+ They are comfortable with physical contact that has little or no meaning.
+ They have developed a skill for “sorting” others into appropriate spaces and can move relationships to those spaces (i.e. more intimate or less intimate) with a natural ease.
+ They have developed the social graces of a neighbour.

My response: These “competencies” seem a bit contrived at first glance, but are helpful for defining (or maybe describing) how people act in certain circumstances. Not everyone acts this way all the time but there is a “knowing” that each of us have when someone is behaving “funny” – it just doesn’t feel right and we can’t always explain why. Some people always want to move into personal conversations (like me) while others don’t want to engage at all. Johnny Carson was always uncomfortable in social group settings (like parties) because he was used to being in front of a crowd (where he was in control). Interacting with a few individuals meant he couldn’t control the questions or necessarily steer the conversation.

When I worked with street youth, there were many instances of inappropriate social interaction. Street youth interrupted sermons at church, stood too close, interrupted conversations, and every touch had too much meaning. One of the main focuses when working with these youth was to teach them social skills so they could interact better with society – a crucial skill for every employee. Parents have significant influence in teaching their children appropriate social interaction skills.

The Search to Belong III

As we continue to look at Joseph Meyer's book, "The Search to Belong" we see him describing the various spaces in which people make connections. Although he goes through all four spaces in two different ways in two different chapters, I thought I would collate the information and organize it according to the space described. So we start with ...
Public Space
This is where we make connections with strangers and acquaintances (like the grocery store, the gym, ball games, etc.) and where we might recognize someone but not necessarily ever know their full name, where they live and may never meet them outside of that context. These relationships give a sense of belonging in a neighbourhood or community without which we would feel like a stranger or out of place. We should not be surprised that mere acquaintances (site specific and episodic relationships) can hold significance in one’s heart and mind.

Public belonging happens when we connect through outside influences (not shared personal information). It isn’t about connecting person to person; it is about sharing a common experience (like being a fan of a sports team, shopping at the same store, taking the same bus to work, etc.). In fact if these people were to exchange personal information, they by definition move to a different space in one another's life (social space). There is a difference between a public belonger and a stranger. The stranger is not and does not feel connected. Once a stranger connects he becomes a belonger.

Public belongers are not “on the fringe” – they are committed and participate – but on their own terms. It is not necessarily true that they need to be closer to be committed. We need to validate that there is public belonging that is important to people and find ways to affirm their participation. Much of Jesus’ ministry was connecting to people in public space – the Centurion, the rich young ruler, blind Bartimaeus. Too often we treat these as casual relationships and devalue their importance to life. In fact public belonging is a space where we need numerous significant relationships in order to experience a sense of healthy belonging and community. We need to develop more connections in this space than in any of the other three. True community can be experienced in public space – it is not mere togetherness; it is connectedness. It is in many ways family.

An essential key to developing community is the maturing of our competencies for growing significant committed public belonging. Public belonging occurs when people connect through an outside influence. People who have a healthy sense of public belonging possess the following competencies (meaning an understanding of ways of behaviour and an ability to conform in these ways):
+ public belongers are able to share a common experience, team and/or personality without being compelled to pull these relationships “closer”
+ they practice social conformity – they abide by socially accepted rules and practices for public life
+ they develop the skills to welcome strangers as belongers
+ they participate significantly in one-time, episodic and site specific ways
+ they find appropriate visual focus – this visual focus does not convey a social, personal or intimate “touch” (for example: eye contact for more than a glance communicates a desire to be in a space other than public).
+ they develop a sense of humour – this humour offers a degree of detachment.
+ they have developed a peresence that conveys that they are comfortable in public space and that they mean no harm to those around them
+ they are comfortable with little or no physical contact

My response to this description is that these public belonging behaviours are in many ways culturally bound (North American) and will probably vary (and may be more or less enforced) from one culture to another. Some people would call these "competencies "social skills." Many people don't like functioning in this "public" or more distant way and constantly "invade your space" or cross these public boundaries. Street people often have no sense of relating as public belongers and well get into your face to ask for money or favours and often make others on a bus or on the street feel uncomfortable. "Needy" people often cross these behavioural boundaries and make functioning in a small group difficult.

The Search to Belong II

Chapter Two: The Longing to Belong
In my continued reading of Joseph Meyer's book "The Search to Belong," I am finding some interesting concepts. Some of this thinking is off the beaten path and goes against some of the conventional small group thinking found in the church world. The first chapter talked about operating in four spaces: the public, the social, the personal, and the intimate. These are helpful categories to help us understand that we have a number of different ways to relate to people - and that is actually very healthy.
In Chapter Two he asks: "What does it mean to belong?" and gives the following description: It happens when you identify with another entity – even without the other party’s knowledge or sharing of the experience. He then tells the story about a childhood classmate who came to consider Joe (the author) as his best friend. That experience has happened to most of us, where someone we don't consider close, considers us their best friend or most significant influence.
He asks “How did this happen without my knowledge?” This friend did not need Joe’s permission to belong to Joe in a significant way. There are those (sometimes people who have never visited the church) who truly feel they belong to our congregations who have not asked permission to do so (not according to our rules but by their rules).
In the discontinuity and fragmentation of society, people crave connections and will go beyond normal social propriety to find it. As Christians we must find language to help people see, hear and feel welcome.
The value of this little chapter was the story he told of his childhood friend - it normalized the experience that I have often had where people have chosen to belong to me even though I had never felt that I belonged to them. I think this is often true in the helping fields (church, social work, counselling, etc.).

The Search to Belong

I've been reading through the book The Search to Belong: Rethinking Intimacy, Community and Small Groups by Joseph R Meyers. I thought I would review a few chapters here on the blog to give you a sense of the book and to help me create some good review notes for my studies as well. Scott McKnight does this all the time with a number of books over at Jesus Creed.

Chapter One: The Myths of Belonging
The title of the book tells us that the book is about the search to “belong.” It is not necessarily a how-to book on small groups. In that way (although definitely a Christian book) it is actually more sociological than theological.
Community is a complex creature.
He starts the chapter by telling about his own (negative) small group experienced in a very organized and institutional small group ministry, with planned icebreakers, a preformatted covenant and published small group material. The group made him angry because "This group was expecting more from me than I wanted to deliver and this group was trying to deliver to me more than I wanted." He then goes on to describe the false assumptions people have about belonging.

6 Myths of Belonging
1. More time = more belonging
- time has little to do with belonging
- belonging is often the result of spontaneous connections
- sometimes two people (or a group) just don't click
2. More commitment = more belonging
- When we search to belong we aren’t really looking for commitment. We simply want to connect.
- To experience healthy community we need significant relationships – significant is not the same as close or committed
3. More purpose = more belonging
- Looks at Tom Peters "In Search of Excellence" and the focus on “teams” and purpose statements
- The assumption is that people who strive together toward a common goal connect closely to one another.
- This can happen (and in my experience it often happens) but not necessarily
4. More personality = more belonging
- The more extroverted the more you connect with people and deeper relationships result – not really true
- Extroverts often contribute more in small groups but introverts tend to connect more deeply with people
5. More proximity = more belonging
- Close proximity gives more opportunity for connectedness but it doesn't always translate into belonging
- just look at neighbours – sometimes good relationships develop and sometimes not.
- Proximity is also not about geography – especially with technology (texting, instant messaging, internet, facebook, blogging, etc.)
- it is more about connecting over shared interests even though you are 1000 miles away
6. Small groups = more belonging
- Small groups deliver only one or two ways of connecting to others
- For many people it is not sufficient or does not scratch where they itch
- Typically only 30% of congregation will participate in a small group

"Belong before you believe" has become a current concept within emerging movement. It means that people often want a sense of belonging to people of a group before they will accept everything it stands for. Do I like these people? Do I get along with them? Do I feel accepted. Only after those questions are answered do people actually begin to incorporate the belief system of the group. This has strong implications for how we do church.
In what ways does the concept of “belonging” play a central role in our lives?
How do we communicate belonging? And how should we?
Can we allow people to belong before they fully understand what they are getting themselves into?

Edward T. Hall coined the term "proxemics" for the interrelated observations and theories of man’s use of space. He describes Four Spaces used to develop personalities, culture and communication.
a. public space (12 feet +)
b. social space (4-12 feet)
c. personal space (18” to 4 feet)
d. intimate space (0-18”)

Belonging is multidimentional – people belong to us on different levels
Space is not just real estate – we employ specific spaces to communicate belonging

The value of this chapter to me is that in many ways we have deified small groups as the be all and end all of good community. Meyer points out that many people don't connect with the typical church constructed, contrived small group system and have different ways of feeling connected.

Proving God

Robert Linthicum shares part of his testimony in his book “Building a People of Power: Equipping Churches to Transform their Communities.” I will share a few more items from his book as I continue reading, but his encounter with a missionary at an Episcopal church in 1950 when he was a thirteen year old atheist, is worth sharing.

The missionary spoke. His topic was “How You Can Know There is a God.” I expected a philosophical argument. What I got was something entirely different.

The missionary held up a chair and said, “I could present you with an esoteric argument for the existence of God and it might convince you that an object named ‘God’ exists in the universe – just as this chair exists. But what would I have accomplished by such an argument? I would have simply convinced you that there is an object in this universe we call ‘God’ just as there is an object in the universe we call ‘chair.’”

‘But,” he continued, “God is not an object like this chair to be proved. God is a person to be known, loved and experienced, and he is experienced in the man Christ Jesus. Think of a person whom you know and who loves you. Think of the person sitting next to you. You know him or her. Bu how do you know that person? Do you have to have that person’s existence proven to you? Of course not! And why not? Simply because you experience that person everyday in your life, and that person is already very real to you.”

Then he brought it home. ‘Well, just as this person is one you experience and love, so God in Christ is a person you can experience in your everyday life. And once you have experienced him and come to know him, you no longer need to have his existence proven to you. And why? Because you already know him.”

That did it! This missionary had presented an argument for the existence of God I couldn’t deny. To meet and experience God is to know God. But to refuse to experience him would mean that to have his existence proven to me would be meaningless – because even though I might know about him, I wouldn’t know him.

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