Christ Seeker

Why the call is important...

Heeding the call of God to "enter the lists" once again and contend for the Jesus Truth in our time is not simply a nice suggestion or just a good idea.  It is absolutely essential because of our propensity as a species for self-destruction.  Consider Scherer's words as he surveys the cultural landscape in the midst of WWII...(words, by the way, that could aptly describe our own time as well!)

"Mankind by exalting himself has finally become the puppet and the pawn of his own success.  The child of nature has triumphed over the child of God and has found in the triumph his own inexorable defeat.  Life in two dimensions has come off with all the garlands, and they are withered.  In its long rebellion against authority, in the violent assertion of its own mastery, it has cleared from the field both God and the human soul, to wander now among the ruins...The civilization which stemmed in Greek philosophy, and towered high in medieval cathedrals, has flowered in department stores.  The ends of life have become the goods of the body.  Existence has been turned into a continuous bank-run; and the bank is now closing.  That, I submit to you, is what crisis means.  It means that when an order has become thoroughly secularized it has committed suicide.  It means that the Kingdom of God is not a by-your-leave or an if-you-please; it is still a Kingdom, and to rebel against it is to pay the price of treason."  (11)

Now that last bit is so much a scare tactic as it is a statement of reality.  A reality without God.  Without God we spiral out of control and to our own destruction.  Without God, we fill the void with drugs, sex, money, possessions, power, you name it.  Anything to satisfy the cravings of the human heart.  And what we really, truly crave is transcendance.  We long for a purpose outside of our own appetites.  But without God we stumble in the darkness, searching in vain for a reason for living.  For something more than simply the weekend party or weekly paycheck or, as is the case for more and more people, basic survival.

Thankfully, God provides.  He doesn't leave us blind, walking in the darkness forever.  He sends us those whom he calls to guide us to the light, to show us the way back to Him.  And so when we talk about answering God's call, what we are really talking about is allowing ourselves to be used by God to bring light and life and joy and meaning and purpose into this world.  So the other day, I am having coffee with this group of men and one of them shares about his prior marriages.  Immediately, I am faced with a choice.  I can go with the flow and let the conversation spiral down into the typical ex-spouse bashing that usually takes place in such situations or I can, through a few honest, heartfelt questions, help the conversation flow in another, more healthy direction where this man can share a bit of what he's learned and how he's changed.  By simply and humbly asking him to share a bit more deeply, this man opened up in some amazing ways and the following morning thanked us for letting him talk about his past so openly.  This is why answering the call to share the love of Jesus with others is so important...

How many people truly have someone in their life with whom they can be transparent?  Someone they can share their struggles, hopes, and dreams?  One in six Americans (according to a recent Gallup poll) struggle with serious depression.  Sociologists like Robert Putnam at Harvard have charted the breakdown of community over the last several decades.  As we struggle through tough economic times, people are turning to drug or alcohol or food abuse to medicate their pain.  Or tragically, they physically take out their frustrations and fears on those closest to them.  What would happen if these people, caught up in such self-destruction, could experience the tangible, incarnated love of Jesus through us?  What a difference we can make...if we just answer God's call.

Not out of guilt.  Not because we "should".  Not because we feel obligated.  Not because "God said so".  But because we authentically want others to experience the joy we have in Jesus Christ.  Because we want those who are not yet part of God's family to trade in the world's "withered garlands" for a crown of glory.  Because we long for them to trade in their flat, two-dimensional existance and exchange it for a life of full, living color lived in three dimensions.  A life defined not by what we do or how much we make or what toys we have or the difficulty of our circumstances or the pain we have experienced but a life defined and shaped solely by God's creative and redemptive purposes.  This is life in the Kingdom of God.  And it is the life God calls us to share. 

Learning from Culture...

The New New Economy: More Startups, Fewer Giants, Infinite Opportunity

Posted using ShareThis

This article is good reading on cultural shifts and how they might impact the future of "church" as we know it.

Weston and Reyes-Chow on saving the Presbyterian Establishment...

Just finished watching a live conversation via the web between the Moderator of the PCUSA - Bruce Reyes-Chow, and Elder/Professor of Sociology - Beau Weston.  To give this post some context, Weston has recently completed a paper arguing for a more hierarchical model for our church, leaning on the administrative and executive gifts of our Tall Steeple Pastors(read: pastors of large, growing churches) who will fill the important posts and wield tremendous power/influence as a means of re-establishing the health and vitality of our denomination.  It was an interesting conversation to say the least and one I was keenly interested in since I read the paper and was deeply troubled by Weston's conclusions. 

The paper was flawed on a number of levels in my opinion, but primarily because Weston never deals with the most fundamental question...why does the PCUSA exist?  What is its purpose?  I wrote in this question during the interview and our Moderator posed it to Weston. I found his answer less than satisfactory to say the least.  He talked a bit about education and history but had nothing to say about mission!  I was stunned.  Weston is not just a sociologist...he is an Elder in the church. He has been called and ordained to lead people spiritually and yet not one mention of the Gospel, not one mention of the mission of redemption and reconciliation, not one mention of making more faithful disciples of Jesus.  (Now let me hasten to say that I am sure Weston agrees with me on this point...I just didn't hear it in his answer to my question.)

This is a critically important point...an organization's leadership structure is a reflection of the self-understanding of its purpose.  So for Weston, we need to invest power and authority in our tall steeple pastors because they are the ones who have been able to succesfully navigate the career track of our denomination and now occupy the greatest positions of influence.  They clearly know how to make the institution work and we should trust their leadership ability in this area.  But is that truly the purpose of the PCUSA?  To perpetuate itself?  That's at least what I understood Weston to be saying and it grieves me.

In my opinion, the PCUSA has one purpose and one purpose alone...to follow and participate in God's mission to redeem and reclaim the world in the name of Jesus Christ.  And if this is our true purpose, then we need to be asking what kind of leadership structure is necessary to accomplish this purpose.  I don't really have the answer to that question but I submit that it will move in the exact opposite direction Weston is proposing.  I think we will be decentralizing power and authority and investing/equipping God's people to become missionaries in whatever context God has placed them.  I believe we are moving towards smaller, more mobile, more agile communities of faith that are able to react and respond to the needs of those around them and who seek to pour the majority of their resources outward rather than spend so much on themselves. These smaller communities of God's people will probably not own buildings or pay professional clergy.  In short, they will not participate in a system that perpetuates the kind of hierarchy Weston wants to return to. 

Again, I am quite shocked that Weston made this move.  I would have thought with all the theological work that is being done focusing on Missio Dei and continuous vs. discontinuous change dynamics that we would have moved beyond these kinds of archaic solutions.

However, I do thank Bruce and Beau for having the conversation and for allowing people like me to listen in!  It is conversations like these that continue to further the connectionalism and community of our church! 

"Missional" not a model...

A lot of conversation has sprung up recently concerning a definition of "missional" and if it is bearing any fruit and therefore, by logical extension, if it offers a viable way of "being church" in the 21st century.  For background, you might want to see Dan Kimball's post here, one response to this post here, another response here, another response by Tim Keller, and one final one by Michael Frost here.  I am sure there are more out there but these seem to capture the heart of the conversation right now. 

I think it would be helpful to clarify some things.  First of all, the word "missional" is being co-opted and used to define all sorts of things in the church today.  Therefore, just getting a handle on what it means is incredibly important if there is to be any kind of fruitful dialogue.  So lets clear the decks a bit if you will of some of the clutter that has been attached to this term. 

• Missional doesn't equal missions.  Many churches are using this term to bless their mission programs, mission initiatives, mission projects, etc.  While these programs and projects may be important and necessary and good in their own right, they do not represent a "missional" understanding of the church. 
• Missional is not a church growth model.  Many folks are using the term missional to describe different models for church like house church, cell groups, etc.  A lot (certainly not all) of these churches claim the term "missional" as a way of defining themselves over and against their usually larger, more traditional, attractional, even mega-church neighbors.  And while these church models may be very effective in their own contexts they certainly have no special claim to the term "missional."  
• Missional is "evangelism" by another name.  Still other people are using this term to describe their focus on evangelism/making converts.  They often place a premium on reaching those who do not know Jesus with the Gospel but because "evangelism" often carries some negative baggage with it, they are choosing "missional" as a cooler, hipper way to describe making converts. 
• Missional is not just a cool, hip, alternative version of church.  We are seeing a reaction in some quarters against the mega-church as people form alternative communities centered around a variety of spiritual practices.  These communities are incredibly diverse in how they practice their faith and many of them are calling themselves "missional" because it seems in vogue and it seems to separate them from the mega-church culture they are reacting against.  

There are probably many other ways that this term is being bandied about but these are the common misconceptions that I have encountered as I have traveled and spoken with folks around the country.  So, that being the case, what does "missional" mean? 

First of all, it is a theological term.  It is not about methodology at all.  Thus, the folks who use this term to bless their mission programs, evangelistic crusades, or their model for church are missing the boat to some extent.  Missional practitioners are not just proposing a different model for church, they are actually re-thinking church altogether.  They are calling into question the very essence of our ecclesiastical life together.  This cannot be overstated!  Missional practitioners believe that missiology drives ecclesiology not the other way around.  In our current models, whether mega-church, traditional denominational church, emerging church, etc. mission is treated as a subset of ecclesiology.  Ergo, we have mission committees.  We have mission agencies.  We have mission boards.  Mission budgets.  We have a variety of missions in and around our communities.  Again, not bad things...just not "missional." 

Missional churches put mission at the heart of our ecclesiology.  If we imagine "church" as a wheel with spokes proceeding from a centerpoint, most traditional/attractional/emerging churches that I have ever been a part of put worship at the center.  Fellowship, discipleship, congregational/pastoral care, mission, and everything else flows from this center.  Thus, when we talk about "church" we typically think of a particular place or a particular time on a particular day when we gather as a community for worship or we think of a particular organization with a budget, building, professional staff, etc.  Faithfulness in this setting is determined by the growth in attendance on a Sunday morning, growth in the physical plant, and growth in programs, budgets, mission initiatives, etc. 

In contrast, missional churches orient their communities around mission.  They exist in and for the sake of God's mission in the world.  Worship, fellowship, discipleship, evangelism, etc. all flow from this center.  Church is therefore defined and comes into concrete shape when God's people get involved with God's mission in their communities.  Missional churches believe that the church finds her identity/her life/her purpose as she participates in God's mission in the world.

This is quite obviously a paradigm shift.  Since the Reformation at least, "church" has been defined to a great extent by John Calvin's marks of the church.  He argued that a church exists where the Word was rightly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered. (To this some have added church discipline as well...)  This understanding has shaped our ecclesiology for hundreds of years.   But this ecclesiology works best when Christendom holds sway.  When Christendom begins to break down, it takes this ecclesiology down with it.  What we need, and what missional practitioners are exploring, are a new set of "marks" that will define "church" in a post-Christendom world.  I do not think we've arrived at any conclusions as of yet, but I think orienting our lives and our communities around mission is a good place to start.