Note: If you are new to this blog or feel behind because this is a #5, don't worry. It is not necessary to catch up by reading all of the previous posts, although it would help with getting a context for what this conversation is all about.
Measure your success by how you bless your community and the world over how you bless your members.
Many Churches of Christ (along with many evangelical church fellowships) have evolved into a fellowship, with their target and mission being self-focused, into a group who is more interested in serving themselves rather than blessing the world. Their idea of blessing the world is frequently limited to making them into one of us, and none too much more – with the exception of supporting mission work so far away that they do not have to be uncomfortable with the radical differences in culture, practice, worship and so forth.
I went to a conference and heard Brian McLaren quote Dallas Willard say that success in the church of the past was measured by what it did for its members while the success of the church of the future will be measured by how it blesses the world (or something like that). This comment alone was worth the price of admission (it was the Zoe Worship Conference, so it was cheap anyway).
Churches who are concerned with blessing their own do things like this: spend lots of money and resources on their building, staff their church for every life-stage segment of their congregation, purchase expensive curriculum, promote knowledge accumulation through Sunday AM/Sunday PM/Wednesday PM/Mens/Womens/ and other categories of Bible study. They become what Leadership Journal calls, “fat churches.” The majority of their efforts are geared toward making life better for themselves. Church growth expert Peter Wagner called this, "Koinonitis."
Now understand, these are good people who do have love in their heart, usually a lot of love. The problem is that they are embedded in a system that saturates their time with things to do, things to know, and things to feel, leaving no time for the world. If there was going to be any connection to the world through ministry it was going to be in extra time. But who has extra time when the church is absorbing it all? What they are doing is good, but it is insufficient. It is like they spend all of their time lifting weights with their right arm and not their left arm.
This kind of behavior makes sense in a fellowship that is more interested in being right than any other thing. However, when the obsession with rightness comes into balance (as in, no longer is the prime directive) with other spiritual responsibilities, this behavior no longer makes sense.
But, if we eliminate so much of the Bible knowledge accumulation time and all of the money, resources and staff that drive to that end, what do we replace it with? Here are a few ideas:
Equipping For Ministry: Some of the time and energy that was once used for knowledge accumulation should be used in training people to actually do something. Leadership, service, ministry, teaching, missions, art, music, and so forth.
Service Onramps: Equipping is only going to be more knowledge accumulation without a venue for ministry. The church needs to make connections with existing local ministries that serve the community or initiate their own. (And unless your idea meets a need or population that is currently not being met, then join someone who is already doing it).
Reimagine Spiritual Formation: The fear that most churches will have with eliminating some (of course not all) of the time and resources used for knowledge accumulation is that their members will become Bible illiterates, (or will no longer know why we are more right than they are - oh yeah, that does not matter anymore). Certainly this is a possibility, but what does Biblical literacy matter if all it produces is religious conversation among religious people? The church, in order to form spiritually, needs to act. In other words, what we risk in less attention to accumulation of Bible knowledge is not nearly as threatening to our member’s spiritual formation as what we risk in an absence of loving action toward the world.
These shifts are radical in nature. It would take reprogramming a church, renewing a church, revitalizing a church, re-educating a church – or planting a church. These kinds of changes cannot be ram-rodded or force-fed to an existing church. It will take loving and patient, yet, bold and committed shepherding. I have seen churches split and disintegrate by forcing good change too fast.
At the same time, not pursuing these kinds of changes is tantamount to giving up. The bottom line is that God loved the world so much that he gave His son. It begs the question: How much do we love the world?
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Monday, January 17, 2005
Post-Restoration Hope #4: Target, Mission, Let’s Go Fishin’
Now, as I grew up in my little white Church of Christ, having been significantly whitenized (I guess it didn’t take all the much social bleach to whiten me up since I am only partially Mexican, but mostly Norwegian), I never heard the terms like target in speaking about people who we thought we wanted to come to our church. The term would have been offensive. We wanted EVERYONE to come to our church. We were there to seek and save the lost, and pretty much everyone not attending our church was lost, so, we did want everyone to come to our church…Or did we?
Reading Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Church was the first time I ever read that a church intentionally went after a certain kind of person. In that book I was introduced to Saddleback Sam. He was the guy they were going after. They did their market research so well, and got it down to such a science they could probably have predicted how many “Saddleback Sams” in the area wore boxers and how many wore briefs…and how many fell into the “other” category.
Although this method of evangelism smacks of all kinds of things none too pleasant, it did several good things as well. It was honest. It was intentional. It was effective so far as its goals were concerned. It was culturally relevant so far as marketing strategies are concerned. And, one thing it did for me was help me realize that all churches have a target whether they know it or not. Churches which say they have no target may not be intentionally programmed to go get their Saddleback Sam, but their target is no less real. It is their accidental target. In fact, the accidental target (which most Churches of Christ I’ve been a part of employ) is probably even more powerful at keeping their untarget out as intentional target models are of getting their target in. I would say that they only way not to have a target is to intentionally not have one, a very challenging (idealized perhaps) vision. One of the emerging churches called, Solomon’s Porch, claims to intentionally have no target. Read Reimagining Spiritual Formation by Doug Pagitt for more on Solomon’s Porch.
The target of just about every Church of Christ I have known is this: people just like them. They are programmed for, languaged for, structured for (and on and on and on), people who already hold their beliefs, share their traditions, and speak their language.
-It is why so many churches still clutch on to the Sunday PM service: “What if someone comes in town on Sunday evening and needs to take communion?”
-It is why the idea of praise teams (or any cosmetic or semi-substantial change in worship services) is so vile - they might offend their brother (offending their sister, by the way, never seems to get a mention). The thought of offending a lost person gets even less attention than offending a sister.
-It is why small groups are initially strongly resisted and in some churches banned.
This list could get lengthy, but the point is, without an effort not to have a target, you have one whether you mean to or not. Having an accidental target is the worst kind of prejudice as it is not even aware it is doing so. The intentional target is honest, at least, but can be prejudiced. The intentional no-target is ideal, but perhaps utopian. I say shoot for inclusion.
The concept of target is closely connected to the church’s mission and mission statement. Many churches now have mission statements. Many, however, do not. I think mission statements are excellent, if they are theologically sound, culturally relevant, and actually practiced. However, you cannot tell the mission of the church by the mission statement written on the bulletin or painted on the wall, you can only tell the mission of the church by what the church does, allows, pursues, avoids, encourages, is silent about and so on. Many Churches of Christ, if their mission statement were determined by their current corporate behavior would be something benign such as:
The purpose of the “10th and Main” church of Christ is to maintain our current level of familiar activity for the benefit of other people just like us so that we do not make people just like us feel uncomfortable - Some churches would add - because the preacher and elders do not want to have to answer hard questions.
OR something a little more malignant such as:
At the “10th and Main” church of Christ, if you don’t believe what we believe and do what we do, get out. If you do not get out, we will do our dead level best to either make you feel so much discomfort that you will eventually leave or we will make you one of us, making sure all the while you realize how not one of us you really are.
OR something weak-kneed such as this:
At the “10th and Main” church of Christ, we are open to talking about new things so we can feel enlightened and forward-thinking, but it is just easier to do what we have always done – for the sake of unity.
It is time for our Churches to open up, the ones that can at least. I know that the words, diversity and tolerance are highly charged political words, and I wish there were other words that meant what I want these words to mean, but we need more of both of these in Churches of Christ and the entire RM.
I am most impressed with churches like Impact in Houston and Central Dallas Ministries. There are many, many other churches which do this well. Feel free to post them. They have “targeted” people in culturally relevant, yet countercultural ways.
Reading Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Church was the first time I ever read that a church intentionally went after a certain kind of person. In that book I was introduced to Saddleback Sam. He was the guy they were going after. They did their market research so well, and got it down to such a science they could probably have predicted how many “Saddleback Sams” in the area wore boxers and how many wore briefs…and how many fell into the “other” category.
Although this method of evangelism smacks of all kinds of things none too pleasant, it did several good things as well. It was honest. It was intentional. It was effective so far as its goals were concerned. It was culturally relevant so far as marketing strategies are concerned. And, one thing it did for me was help me realize that all churches have a target whether they know it or not. Churches which say they have no target may not be intentionally programmed to go get their Saddleback Sam, but their target is no less real. It is their accidental target. In fact, the accidental target (which most Churches of Christ I’ve been a part of employ) is probably even more powerful at keeping their untarget out as intentional target models are of getting their target in. I would say that they only way not to have a target is to intentionally not have one, a very challenging (idealized perhaps) vision. One of the emerging churches called, Solomon’s Porch, claims to intentionally have no target. Read Reimagining Spiritual Formation by Doug Pagitt for more on Solomon’s Porch.
The target of just about every Church of Christ I have known is this: people just like them. They are programmed for, languaged for, structured for (and on and on and on), people who already hold their beliefs, share their traditions, and speak their language.
-It is why so many churches still clutch on to the Sunday PM service: “What if someone comes in town on Sunday evening and needs to take communion?”
-It is why the idea of praise teams (or any cosmetic or semi-substantial change in worship services) is so vile - they might offend their brother (offending their sister, by the way, never seems to get a mention). The thought of offending a lost person gets even less attention than offending a sister.
-It is why small groups are initially strongly resisted and in some churches banned.
This list could get lengthy, but the point is, without an effort not to have a target, you have one whether you mean to or not. Having an accidental target is the worst kind of prejudice as it is not even aware it is doing so. The intentional target is honest, at least, but can be prejudiced. The intentional no-target is ideal, but perhaps utopian. I say shoot for inclusion.
The concept of target is closely connected to the church’s mission and mission statement. Many churches now have mission statements. Many, however, do not. I think mission statements are excellent, if they are theologically sound, culturally relevant, and actually practiced. However, you cannot tell the mission of the church by the mission statement written on the bulletin or painted on the wall, you can only tell the mission of the church by what the church does, allows, pursues, avoids, encourages, is silent about and so on. Many Churches of Christ, if their mission statement were determined by their current corporate behavior would be something benign such as:
The purpose of the “10th and Main” church of Christ is to maintain our current level of familiar activity for the benefit of other people just like us so that we do not make people just like us feel uncomfortable - Some churches would add - because the preacher and elders do not want to have to answer hard questions.
OR something a little more malignant such as:
At the “10th and Main” church of Christ, if you don’t believe what we believe and do what we do, get out. If you do not get out, we will do our dead level best to either make you feel so much discomfort that you will eventually leave or we will make you one of us, making sure all the while you realize how not one of us you really are.
OR something weak-kneed such as this:
At the “10th and Main” church of Christ, we are open to talking about new things so we can feel enlightened and forward-thinking, but it is just easier to do what we have always done – for the sake of unity.
It is time for our Churches to open up, the ones that can at least. I know that the words, diversity and tolerance are highly charged political words, and I wish there were other words that meant what I want these words to mean, but we need more of both of these in Churches of Christ and the entire RM.
I am most impressed with churches like Impact in Houston and Central Dallas Ministries. There are many, many other churches which do this well. Feel free to post them. They have “targeted” people in culturally relevant, yet countercultural ways.
Friday, January 14, 2005
In Search of A Clue
More Post-Restoration Hope Next Week
I have a more pressing issue. I've been thrown for a loop with a patch of scritpure. Luke 20:38. I have it below in five translations. The context is the Sadducees trying to trap Jesus in a question of the resurrection - the old seven brothers married the same women after each next brother died and none of them had children trick.
Can anyone tell me what it means that all are alive to God?
38He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.” NIV
38"(A)Now He is not the God of the dead but of the living; for (B)all live to Him." NASB
38For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. KJV
38So he is the God of the living, not the dead. They are all alive to him." NLT
38So the Lord isn't the God of the dead, but of the living. This means that everyone is alive as far as God is concerned. CEV
And whatever it does mean, what are the implications for Tsunami and mudslide victims?
I have a more pressing issue. I've been thrown for a loop with a patch of scritpure. Luke 20:38. I have it below in five translations. The context is the Sadducees trying to trap Jesus in a question of the resurrection - the old seven brothers married the same women after each next brother died and none of them had children trick.
Can anyone tell me what it means that all are alive to God?
38He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.” NIV
38"(A)Now He is not the God of the dead but of the living; for (B)all live to Him." NASB
38For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. KJV
38So he is the God of the living, not the dead. They are all alive to him." NLT
38So the Lord isn't the God of the dead, but of the living. This means that everyone is alive as far as God is concerned. CEV
And whatever it does mean, what are the implications for Tsunami and mudslide victims?
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Post-Restoration Hope #3: Mosaic
Be all things to all people, even the people who can’t figure out who they are.
Drop in on just about any Church of Christ or RM congregation and you will find a lot of people who look very much alike. Mostly the same race, mostly the same socio-economic level, mostly the same political leaning, mostly the same in a lot of ways. No one would say it out loud, but in these churches deviations from the prescribed way of doing things, being, and believing are cause for a remedy. I actually remember someone talking about (not to) an African-American fellow in a mostly white church say that “he was OK because he had been whitenized.” I’m not sure what it means to be whitenized or what processes one goes through accomplish this task, but I just can’t bring myself to think that it is all that good. Did he get bleached of his blackness? And is that better?
Anyway, I think the RM and C of C’s are guilty (by intention or by accident) of whitenizing, Republican-izing, money-izing, male-izing (OK, it’s getting’ weird now) the flock. Paul said he would be all things to all people, but the practice of the Church of Christ all too often has been the expectation that all people should become one thing – an exact reversal of the great desire and effort of Paul.
Paul sought to be all things to all people.
1Corinthians 9:20-23
19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
But he also viewed people not according to their categories of distinction:
Galatians 3:28
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
At first glance, Paul seems at odds with himself. But a closer look would reveal that the reason he is seeking to be all things to all people is precisely because he does not elevate the distinctions between people to a level that matters. The more you think about it the more it makes sense. The more the distinctions do not matter, the less you risk by being something different for the sake of the gospel. On the other hand, when distinctions of these kinds do not matter, you take a greater risk because you highly offend the people for whom these distinction are foundational, essential, necessary for them to maintain their status. Race, gender, politics, SES, are all issues around which people gravitate for the sake of power and control. You risk less from the people different from you and risk more from the people who are the same as you. Sound familiar? Sounds like something Jesus did, a lot!!!
What Paul is seeking, I believe, is a mosaic. A larger beautiful picture made from smaller beautiful pictures.
It is now more important than ever to pursue this mosaic ideal Paul conveyed because the world can no longer be thought of as black and white (it never should have been). People these days wrestle with rather than embrace their old identities and are seeking and searching for new ones. This is true across the age span, but is more frequently true for the 30 and under crowd, maybe even the 35 and under crowd. There are lots of people who do not have a clue as to who they are and don’t like the options available to them at the social and spiritual identity buffet table. The world is going postmodern and rather than blame it, we need to engage it with the same posture that we in the RM did the modern. (OK, maybe not the same posture. We swallowed the modern era hook-line-and-sinker and that was a bit naïve).
Maybe what I am about to say is some kind of crazy-eyed dream (nightmare), but I think there is coming a day when churches which are comprised of only one kind will be seen as weird, weak, impoverished, inbred, wicked, hamstrung – or even severely handicapped, getting wheeled into the Kingdom of Heaven in the most pitiful of ways. Maybe, from heaven, they are already viewed that way.
Drop in on just about any Church of Christ or RM congregation and you will find a lot of people who look very much alike. Mostly the same race, mostly the same socio-economic level, mostly the same political leaning, mostly the same in a lot of ways. No one would say it out loud, but in these churches deviations from the prescribed way of doing things, being, and believing are cause for a remedy. I actually remember someone talking about (not to) an African-American fellow in a mostly white church say that “he was OK because he had been whitenized.” I’m not sure what it means to be whitenized or what processes one goes through accomplish this task, but I just can’t bring myself to think that it is all that good. Did he get bleached of his blackness? And is that better?
Anyway, I think the RM and C of C’s are guilty (by intention or by accident) of whitenizing, Republican-izing, money-izing, male-izing (OK, it’s getting’ weird now) the flock. Paul said he would be all things to all people, but the practice of the Church of Christ all too often has been the expectation that all people should become one thing – an exact reversal of the great desire and effort of Paul.
Paul sought to be all things to all people.
1Corinthians 9:20-23
19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
But he also viewed people not according to their categories of distinction:
Galatians 3:28
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
At first glance, Paul seems at odds with himself. But a closer look would reveal that the reason he is seeking to be all things to all people is precisely because he does not elevate the distinctions between people to a level that matters. The more you think about it the more it makes sense. The more the distinctions do not matter, the less you risk by being something different for the sake of the gospel. On the other hand, when distinctions of these kinds do not matter, you take a greater risk because you highly offend the people for whom these distinction are foundational, essential, necessary for them to maintain their status. Race, gender, politics, SES, are all issues around which people gravitate for the sake of power and control. You risk less from the people different from you and risk more from the people who are the same as you. Sound familiar? Sounds like something Jesus did, a lot!!!
What Paul is seeking, I believe, is a mosaic. A larger beautiful picture made from smaller beautiful pictures.
It is now more important than ever to pursue this mosaic ideal Paul conveyed because the world can no longer be thought of as black and white (it never should have been). People these days wrestle with rather than embrace their old identities and are seeking and searching for new ones. This is true across the age span, but is more frequently true for the 30 and under crowd, maybe even the 35 and under crowd. There are lots of people who do not have a clue as to who they are and don’t like the options available to them at the social and spiritual identity buffet table. The world is going postmodern and rather than blame it, we need to engage it with the same posture that we in the RM did the modern. (OK, maybe not the same posture. We swallowed the modern era hook-line-and-sinker and that was a bit naïve).
Maybe what I am about to say is some kind of crazy-eyed dream (nightmare), but I think there is coming a day when churches which are comprised of only one kind will be seen as weird, weak, impoverished, inbred, wicked, hamstrung – or even severely handicapped, getting wheeled into the Kingdom of Heaven in the most pitiful of ways. Maybe, from heaven, they are already viewed that way.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Post-Restoration Hope #2: Wandering Cow
When you think Churches of Christ and Sacred Cows, some things come to mind immediately. The most unavoidable is the adherence to a doctrine of acappella worship. It is tempting to tackle this one head on - I've got lots of good ammo for the fight. I feel confident that I can dismantle most people in this debate over the Biblicalness (is that a word?) of this doctrine.
But I won't.
I won't talk about how it is a tradition. I won't talk about how the "beautiful voice" can be as idolatrous as the beautiful piano. I will not talk about the sin of determining fellowship based on this topic. I will not talk about how it is used as a tool for sectarian identity (spiritual pride) and is so highly elevated as a doctrinal necessity that it borders on cultish activity, I will not talk about... OK, OK, I will not talk about it.
What I do want to talk about is what I believe to be the real sacred cow. If banning instrumental music is a sacred cow in Churches of Christ, what I am going to talk about is its momma: our hermeneutic.
Our hermeneutic is our lens or set of rules for interpretting the Bible. Church of Christ have really made Biblical interpretation easy.
1. If it is commanded in the Bible, you gotta do it (or avoid it).
2. If there is an example of it in the Bible, you gotta do it (or avoid it).
3. This one is a special bonus rule to fill in the gaps: If there is an inference of something, then it can be considered binding. Naturally this caused some problems, so it turned into necessary inference. Now again, that caused some problems, so it later turned into approved necessary inference. (By the way, who gets to approve what is necessary to infer?)
These three rules are what I will identify as the mother of all Church of Christ sacred cows. Let momma cow out of the barn and all the babies come with her.
Problem #1: This is a man-made set of rules. All hermeneutics are. It is not that they are bad, per se, but that they are incomplete. There is no perfect way to interpret the Bible. There just isn't so quit thinking there is. It amazes me how a back-to-the-Bible movement like the RM could so blindly swallow this idea. I know it is a relic of modernity, but come on. Let's accept the reality that we made it up and move on.
Problem #2: This hermeneutic is reductionistic. It assumes the Bible is so easily understood. In a way it is. Any person hearing the stories or reading them would come away with something, hopefully good, may be even the essence of the gospel. But to think that you can just interact with the Word of God and fully know it is nuts. This hermeneutic assumes that if you take the Bible and squeeze it through command, example and necessary inference that you get truth. Just ain't so.
Problem #3: Assumes the Bible is written in one genre. Psalms and Paul's letters are given the same regard. Genesis and Revelation are apparently written and must therfore be interpretted in the same manner. Hey, I can hear the teenage boys, "let's go to Song of Songs and find out some necessary inferences there, if you know what I mean."
Problem #4: Buys into OT / NT divide. I know that this is not exactly part of the hermeneutic proper, but it is a partner in crime. Although it was treated as such all my years growing up, the OT is more than just anecdotal material with some really cool miracle stories and lots of stuff you just need to skip. The Bible Genesis through maps is the story of God. (It's not the complete story as that story is still being written, but I think you know what I mean.)
For these reasons (although there are more), I think that our sacred cow should be let out of the barn, slapped on the butt, and made to graze in the wide open fields.
Notice I didn't say slaughter it and have steak. I think there is good in our hermeneutic. There just isn't any good in it when it is authoritative such that it causes undue division, theologically empty arguments, and promotes a dull and artless fellowship.
I believe if this sacred cow were allowed to graze, the little sacred cows would eventually follow and our issues with instruments, women in more prominent roles, how exaclty a baptism has to happen (which one took and which one didn't), and a score of other problems would resolve themselves in the freedom of Christ we all have.
Let's exercise that freedom in love.
But I won't.
I won't talk about how it is a tradition. I won't talk about how the "beautiful voice" can be as idolatrous as the beautiful piano. I will not talk about the sin of determining fellowship based on this topic. I will not talk about how it is used as a tool for sectarian identity (spiritual pride) and is so highly elevated as a doctrinal necessity that it borders on cultish activity, I will not talk about... OK, OK, I will not talk about it.
What I do want to talk about is what I believe to be the real sacred cow. If banning instrumental music is a sacred cow in Churches of Christ, what I am going to talk about is its momma: our hermeneutic.
Our hermeneutic is our lens or set of rules for interpretting the Bible. Church of Christ have really made Biblical interpretation easy.
1. If it is commanded in the Bible, you gotta do it (or avoid it).
2. If there is an example of it in the Bible, you gotta do it (or avoid it).
3. This one is a special bonus rule to fill in the gaps: If there is an inference of something, then it can be considered binding. Naturally this caused some problems, so it turned into necessary inference. Now again, that caused some problems, so it later turned into approved necessary inference. (By the way, who gets to approve what is necessary to infer?)
These three rules are what I will identify as the mother of all Church of Christ sacred cows. Let momma cow out of the barn and all the babies come with her.
Problem #1: This is a man-made set of rules. All hermeneutics are. It is not that they are bad, per se, but that they are incomplete. There is no perfect way to interpret the Bible. There just isn't so quit thinking there is. It amazes me how a back-to-the-Bible movement like the RM could so blindly swallow this idea. I know it is a relic of modernity, but come on. Let's accept the reality that we made it up and move on.
Problem #2: This hermeneutic is reductionistic. It assumes the Bible is so easily understood. In a way it is. Any person hearing the stories or reading them would come away with something, hopefully good, may be even the essence of the gospel. But to think that you can just interact with the Word of God and fully know it is nuts. This hermeneutic assumes that if you take the Bible and squeeze it through command, example and necessary inference that you get truth. Just ain't so.
Problem #3: Assumes the Bible is written in one genre. Psalms and Paul's letters are given the same regard. Genesis and Revelation are apparently written and must therfore be interpretted in the same manner. Hey, I can hear the teenage boys, "let's go to Song of Songs and find out some necessary inferences there, if you know what I mean."
Problem #4: Buys into OT / NT divide. I know that this is not exactly part of the hermeneutic proper, but it is a partner in crime. Although it was treated as such all my years growing up, the OT is more than just anecdotal material with some really cool miracle stories and lots of stuff you just need to skip. The Bible Genesis through maps is the story of God. (It's not the complete story as that story is still being written, but I think you know what I mean.)
For these reasons (although there are more), I think that our sacred cow should be let out of the barn, slapped on the butt, and made to graze in the wide open fields.
Notice I didn't say slaughter it and have steak. I think there is good in our hermeneutic. There just isn't any good in it when it is authoritative such that it causes undue division, theologically empty arguments, and promotes a dull and artless fellowship.
I believe if this sacred cow were allowed to graze, the little sacred cows would eventually follow and our issues with instruments, women in more prominent roles, how exaclty a baptism has to happen (which one took and which one didn't), and a score of other problems would resolve themselves in the freedom of Christ we all have.
Let's exercise that freedom in love.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Post-Restoration Hope #1:
This post is too long and incomplete at the same time.
When I say post-restorationist I do not mean ex-restorationist. An "ex" means you have left, split, quit or something like that. A "post" means what comes next, as in, what was given birth to. Birth, generally, is a very good thing and a happy time.
I confess I am cheating. All of these posts forthcoming are accumulated from other people's brains into mine and I have forgotten most of where I got the information and have probably changed it so much from where I got it that the original owner of the information wouldn't claim it anyway. So, enough disclaimers.
Hope #1: Become culturally relevant and countercultural at the same time.
Leonard Allen, in his book, Things Unseen, comments on how the Restoration Movement (more specifically Churches of Christ) was an excellent cultural fit when it was born in the modern era of the 1800’s. It was a movement contemporary with the Enlightenment, and how enlightened we were. However, as the culture has begun turning postmodern, the Restoration Movement (RM) has remained quite modern. Without changing much of what it does, promotes, intends, and believes, the RM went from being avant guard to bordering on archaic in just over a century and a half. Funny how context changes meaning.
It may sound like double-speak to suggest that a person, a church, a movement can be culturally relevant and countercultural at the same time. However, that is exactly what the RM did when it was born. It fit the philosophical zeitgeist of the age, but brought the countercultural message of the gospel to that age as well. Suggesting that the RM become culturally relevant and countercultural at the same time is not to suggest that it do something new, but rather that it do something old, something it has already done in the past.
It is like this: If the RM were to begin right now it would be started by some of the leading thinkers of the time. As it developed, it would not look like it did in the early 1800’s, but rather something like some of the churches that call themselves “emergent.” It would be Biblical, sure, but not in the 19th century was of being Biblical, but in the 21st century way of being Biblical.
Huh? Isn’t Biblical just Biblical anyway you slice it? Well, yes and no. Being Biblical is kind of like looking into the sky. On a cloudy day you will see clouds (and make comments on what the clouds look like, you know, the game kids play), but on a sunny day you’ll see blue sky. So, it depends how the weather is when you look into that sky. Also, it depends on when you look into that sky. A cloudless night is very different than a cloudless day. The stars that are always there only appear on cloudless nights. Just because I can’t see them on my lunch break does not mean they are not there. Furtherm more, which stars you see depends on the season, you location in Earth and so forth.
So, the truth of the Bible is always there, but I just can’t see it all at once, and I will never see it all, period. In the 1800’s the RM saw the truth of the Bible perhaps on a cloudy day, but now it is a clear night and the sky looks very different. Same sky; different look.
Times are different now than when the movement began. What is culturally different now from when the RM originally launched, and this might be the most significant difference, is that people are looking into the sky and not just making decisions (interpretations) about what they see, but also about what they do not see. Even though they see clouds, they imagine a sun, a moon, and some stars. "Somewhere out there is a black hole, a nebula, an asteroid...and other mysterious things." It is not just about what the sky is, it is about what it could be. This is how people are viewing the Word of God and the Bible. "Yes, it says this, but could it also be saying that?" And furthermore, people are saying, “well, perhaps the Bible is God’s word, but is it His only word?”
Now, before you get all bent out of shape about the word of God being more than just what the Bible says (I'll get you even more bent out of shape in a minute), even the Bible says God speaks more than just the Bible. Nature is God’s word, to name one. God talked through a donkey as well. I won’t get into all the ways God speaks (too many to count that I know of let alone the ones I do not), but it is pointless to catalog them, a waste of time. He speaks however He wants to. Enough said.
If the RM is to become culturally relevant and countercultural at the same time, we are going to have to not only view God’s Word (Bible, nature, experience etc) for what it is, but also for what it could be. Mystery will invade certainty and surprise us all.
Now, if this feels a little risky, it is. But think about it this way: What is riskier, seeing God’s Word as only a narrow little slice of what it really is (thinking we have perfectly interpretted it when we haven't), or seeing God’s Word as more than it is (risking making mistakes)? In other words, would you rather be accused of adding to the scripture or taking away from it? The RM is guilty of taking away (by limited interpretations) , in my opinion. Now, are we willing to be guilty of adding to it? Still sound too risky? Well, we do not have the luxury or doing neither. We will be guilty of one or the other. So, in the light of being relevant, the RM needs to be as willing to be guilty of adding scripture as they have been willing to take away from it. I do not mean willful misinterpretation or making the Word of God mean anything I want it to mean. I do mean letting God's Word mean more than the RM has allowed it to mean.
Still sound too risky? Yeah, it does to me too. But I don't know what else to do. I believe our RM interpretations are too limited and therefore have contaminated the gospel. I do not want to share a contaminated gospel as much as I can help it. I believe there is an extravagance of love I do no know of (could never even learn in the old school RM), but is the whole point of the gospel, the good news.
If our drive remains rooted in grace not condemnation, goodness not rightness, faith not determinism, submission not control - and if we understand that God knows how imperfect we are AND if our mistakes are honest ones, like they were in the 1800’s, then I think we’re fine.
The gospel is countercultural. It is our responsibility to be the gospel in a culturally relevant way. I say “be” the gospel because it should be good news when you enter into someone’s life. You should be their blessing. Love God; love people. That is countercultural and culturally relevant – now and always; here and everywhere.
When I say post-restorationist I do not mean ex-restorationist. An "ex" means you have left, split, quit or something like that. A "post" means what comes next, as in, what was given birth to. Birth, generally, is a very good thing and a happy time.
I confess I am cheating. All of these posts forthcoming are accumulated from other people's brains into mine and I have forgotten most of where I got the information and have probably changed it so much from where I got it that the original owner of the information wouldn't claim it anyway. So, enough disclaimers.
Hope #1: Become culturally relevant and countercultural at the same time.
Leonard Allen, in his book, Things Unseen, comments on how the Restoration Movement (more specifically Churches of Christ) was an excellent cultural fit when it was born in the modern era of the 1800’s. It was a movement contemporary with the Enlightenment, and how enlightened we were. However, as the culture has begun turning postmodern, the Restoration Movement (RM) has remained quite modern. Without changing much of what it does, promotes, intends, and believes, the RM went from being avant guard to bordering on archaic in just over a century and a half. Funny how context changes meaning.
It may sound like double-speak to suggest that a person, a church, a movement can be culturally relevant and countercultural at the same time. However, that is exactly what the RM did when it was born. It fit the philosophical zeitgeist of the age, but brought the countercultural message of the gospel to that age as well. Suggesting that the RM become culturally relevant and countercultural at the same time is not to suggest that it do something new, but rather that it do something old, something it has already done in the past.
It is like this: If the RM were to begin right now it would be started by some of the leading thinkers of the time. As it developed, it would not look like it did in the early 1800’s, but rather something like some of the churches that call themselves “emergent.” It would be Biblical, sure, but not in the 19th century was of being Biblical, but in the 21st century way of being Biblical.
Huh? Isn’t Biblical just Biblical anyway you slice it? Well, yes and no. Being Biblical is kind of like looking into the sky. On a cloudy day you will see clouds (and make comments on what the clouds look like, you know, the game kids play), but on a sunny day you’ll see blue sky. So, it depends how the weather is when you look into that sky. Also, it depends on when you look into that sky. A cloudless night is very different than a cloudless day. The stars that are always there only appear on cloudless nights. Just because I can’t see them on my lunch break does not mean they are not there. Furtherm more, which stars you see depends on the season, you location in Earth and so forth.
So, the truth of the Bible is always there, but I just can’t see it all at once, and I will never see it all, period. In the 1800’s the RM saw the truth of the Bible perhaps on a cloudy day, but now it is a clear night and the sky looks very different. Same sky; different look.
Times are different now than when the movement began. What is culturally different now from when the RM originally launched, and this might be the most significant difference, is that people are looking into the sky and not just making decisions (interpretations) about what they see, but also about what they do not see. Even though they see clouds, they imagine a sun, a moon, and some stars. "Somewhere out there is a black hole, a nebula, an asteroid...and other mysterious things." It is not just about what the sky is, it is about what it could be. This is how people are viewing the Word of God and the Bible. "Yes, it says this, but could it also be saying that?" And furthermore, people are saying, “well, perhaps the Bible is God’s word, but is it His only word?”
Now, before you get all bent out of shape about the word of God being more than just what the Bible says (I'll get you even more bent out of shape in a minute), even the Bible says God speaks more than just the Bible. Nature is God’s word, to name one. God talked through a donkey as well. I won’t get into all the ways God speaks (too many to count that I know of let alone the ones I do not), but it is pointless to catalog them, a waste of time. He speaks however He wants to. Enough said.
If the RM is to become culturally relevant and countercultural at the same time, we are going to have to not only view God’s Word (Bible, nature, experience etc) for what it is, but also for what it could be. Mystery will invade certainty and surprise us all.
Now, if this feels a little risky, it is. But think about it this way: What is riskier, seeing God’s Word as only a narrow little slice of what it really is (thinking we have perfectly interpretted it when we haven't), or seeing God’s Word as more than it is (risking making mistakes)? In other words, would you rather be accused of adding to the scripture or taking away from it? The RM is guilty of taking away (by limited interpretations) , in my opinion. Now, are we willing to be guilty of adding to it? Still sound too risky? Well, we do not have the luxury or doing neither. We will be guilty of one or the other. So, in the light of being relevant, the RM needs to be as willing to be guilty of adding scripture as they have been willing to take away from it. I do not mean willful misinterpretation or making the Word of God mean anything I want it to mean. I do mean letting God's Word mean more than the RM has allowed it to mean.
Still sound too risky? Yeah, it does to me too. But I don't know what else to do. I believe our RM interpretations are too limited and therefore have contaminated the gospel. I do not want to share a contaminated gospel as much as I can help it. I believe there is an extravagance of love I do no know of (could never even learn in the old school RM), but is the whole point of the gospel, the good news.
If our drive remains rooted in grace not condemnation, goodness not rightness, faith not determinism, submission not control - and if we understand that God knows how imperfect we are AND if our mistakes are honest ones, like they were in the 1800’s, then I think we’re fine.
The gospel is countercultural. It is our responsibility to be the gospel in a culturally relevant way. I say “be” the gospel because it should be good news when you enter into someone’s life. You should be their blessing. Love God; love people. That is countercultural and culturally relevant – now and always; here and everywhere.
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Post-restorationist: A teaser
I read on the Blog of Adam Ellis, a few months back that he considers himself a post-restorationist so far as church goes, or movement affiliation goes, or something like that. It is the first time I had ever heard that term. According to Google, he is the only one to have ever used that term. I immediately knew what it meant, a little bit, kind of, well, not so much really. Anyway, I knew what I wanted it to mean.
So, since it is a relatively new term, over the next several posts, I will add my 2 cents in hopes for a definition. Actually, I will probably add about 10 cents. They may be a pair of wooden nickels, but I think they are worth 10 cents.
For those of you who have no idea what I am talking about and have not clicked away to a more exciting (relevant) blog by now, I am talking church, religion and a religious movement that began in the early 1800's known as the American Restoratin Movement. It launched three major Christian (dare I say it) denominations. Churches of Christ, Independent Christian Churches, and Disciples of Christ.
I am a child of the Churches of Christ of the American Restoration Movement. In my next few posts, I will be making a plea of sorts to Churches of Christ and RM churches to, as my good friend Kent Smith once said, "find out what is yet to be restored." In other words, if someone were a post-restorationist, what would they be doing?
Feel free to invite your C of C or RM friends in on this conversation. It will begin this week.
So, since it is a relatively new term, over the next several posts, I will add my 2 cents in hopes for a definition. Actually, I will probably add about 10 cents. They may be a pair of wooden nickels, but I think they are worth 10 cents.
For those of you who have no idea what I am talking about and have not clicked away to a more exciting (relevant) blog by now, I am talking church, religion and a religious movement that began in the early 1800's known as the American Restoratin Movement. It launched three major Christian (dare I say it) denominations. Churches of Christ, Independent Christian Churches, and Disciples of Christ.
I am a child of the Churches of Christ of the American Restoration Movement. In my next few posts, I will be making a plea of sorts to Churches of Christ and RM churches to, as my good friend Kent Smith once said, "find out what is yet to be restored." In other words, if someone were a post-restorationist, what would they be doing?
Feel free to invite your C of C or RM friends in on this conversation. It will begin this week.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Essence of Essential 5: Diagnosis different
I am a marriage and family therapist. In my work I see a lot of couples who act like church factions fighting with each other over little, stupid (but oh so essential) things. What happens (a long time before they see me) is that each person has an idea of how things need to be in their marriage. Usually these things are different. Since there is a difference, they each develop a set of patterns meant to convert their spouse into their way of thinking, feeling, doing and so forth. When their plans fail to make the conversation, the pattern becomes either intensified or more nuanced. Either way it is more of the same.
As time passes, and initially without their knowledge, their efforts to convert the other result in an unintended consequence: their divergence. Then the problem of their diverging paths outruns their denial and then there is a crisis - the war begins. They thought they were solving a problem when in reality they were aggressively creating it. The problem was not what they thought was a problem, but in reality was the fact that their spouse was different and that difference was identified as a problem, labeled as a problem, and treated as a problem. When different is diagnosed as wrong, THAT IS A PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I believe this is the same process that has spun off so many denominations. The reasoning is this: since we are different we cannot be together. The result? Divorce, ecclesiastical divorce: church split, denominationalism , endless protest, reprotest and counterprotest etc.
In divorce, the people who suffer are the children. In church splitting, denominationalizing and protesting the people who suffer are the "lost, pre-Christian, unsaved, pagan, unchurched, whatever." (see link for Keith Brenton's call for a spiritual thesaurus).
Rick Warren in The Purpose Driven Church suggests dealing with difference (at least in worship preference) in church by starting new kind of worship service or planting a new church. Wise words, target-directed churches and church services are not a bad idea. At the same time it still leads to an inbred, mandated way of being. It gives social pressure to be one way - to reduce rather than increase limits and comfort zones. Doug Pagitt in Reimagining Spiritual Formation suggests an evolving community molded by who God's leads to the congregation. Brian McLaren makes a pitch for an inclusive rather than exclusive Christianity in A Generous Orthodoxy.
Most new churches are just as specific as the old churches, but they are merely specific about different things, thereby necessitating a new church. What a new kind of church would do is be less, not more specific. Difference would not be seen as a threat, but rather as an exciting opportunity to enrich the whole.
Perhaps the church of the future (and I hope the near future) is about remarriage and not about divorce. If we find loving God and loving people essential, and all of our differences a delightful benefit rather than a problematic liability, then there might be some hope for the "lost."
As time passes, and initially without their knowledge, their efforts to convert the other result in an unintended consequence: their divergence. Then the problem of their diverging paths outruns their denial and then there is a crisis - the war begins. They thought they were solving a problem when in reality they were aggressively creating it. The problem was not what they thought was a problem, but in reality was the fact that their spouse was different and that difference was identified as a problem, labeled as a problem, and treated as a problem. When different is diagnosed as wrong, THAT IS A PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I believe this is the same process that has spun off so many denominations. The reasoning is this: since we are different we cannot be together. The result? Divorce, ecclesiastical divorce: church split, denominationalism , endless protest, reprotest and counterprotest etc.
In divorce, the people who suffer are the children. In church splitting, denominationalizing and protesting the people who suffer are the "lost, pre-Christian, unsaved, pagan, unchurched, whatever." (see link for Keith Brenton's call for a spiritual thesaurus).
Rick Warren in The Purpose Driven Church suggests dealing with difference (at least in worship preference) in church by starting new kind of worship service or planting a new church. Wise words, target-directed churches and church services are not a bad idea. At the same time it still leads to an inbred, mandated way of being. It gives social pressure to be one way - to reduce rather than increase limits and comfort zones. Doug Pagitt in Reimagining Spiritual Formation suggests an evolving community molded by who God's leads to the congregation. Brian McLaren makes a pitch for an inclusive rather than exclusive Christianity in A Generous Orthodoxy.
Most new churches are just as specific as the old churches, but they are merely specific about different things, thereby necessitating a new church. What a new kind of church would do is be less, not more specific. Difference would not be seen as a threat, but rather as an exciting opportunity to enrich the whole.
Perhaps the church of the future (and I hope the near future) is about remarriage and not about divorce. If we find loving God and loving people essential, and all of our differences a delightful benefit rather than a problematic liability, then there might be some hope for the "lost."
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Essence of Essential 4: The terrorist and me
I like the catch phrase, "Many ways to Jesus; One way to God." I think I get the meaning. It embraces both the unlimited paths available for each person to come to the one path of God.
If Jesus really did come to save the world because God loved the world so much (and I believe He did), then how does that salvation happen?
When I think of salvation, I think of starting lines. In a fifty meter sprint, starting at the starting line is great. Not everyone has that opportunity. Some people start a million miles from that point. Where does an Iraqi who was born into militant Islam start and where does the suburban American been-going-to-church-since-I-was-born person start?
Could it be that salvation is not so much about location, as perceived by externals, but rather direction? Who is more likely to be saved: A person moving Godward from a milion miles away or a person moving further from God at fifty feet away? Maybe nearness and distance to God (or being saved or not saved) has little to with how people measure it, how denominations measure it, and how meta-groups (evangelicals, mainline, etc) measure it.
What if a terrorist put down his or her rifle because he or she just sensed that the God they know of does not really desire the kind of killing they have been involved in? What if that terrorist paid a great price for that renunciation of terror, even his or her life? Is it good? Yes, of course it is. But is that person saved? My fellowship would say no, because that person was not baptized. Another fellowship might say no because that person did not speak in tongues. Another would ask, "did they ask Jesus into their heart?" Jesus? You mean the prophet? Who asks prophets into their heart? Remember, people only know what they have been exposed to.
What kind of courage would it take for this terrorist to lay down his or her weapons? I'd wager to say a lot more courage than I have with my faith right now. Yet, am I saved because I "did it right" and he or she is not saved because he or she didn't?
Could it be that the terrorist was moved by the Holy Spirit, but didn't know to call it the Holy Spirit? Could it be the response was to the love of Jesus, but did not know what to call it? Could it be that this person, full of courage and "faith," could be responding to the gospel, but from what he or she knows of Christianity, would never ever dream of becoming a Christian? Could it be this person's salvation is a salvation from hate, anger, murder, and death to love, peace, and life? And then on top of that, a life continuing after a bodily death?
Did Jesus not see a greater faith in all Israel come from a Roman Centurion?
If Jesus really did come to save the world because God loved the world so much (and I believe He did), then how does that salvation happen?
When I think of salvation, I think of starting lines. In a fifty meter sprint, starting at the starting line is great. Not everyone has that opportunity. Some people start a million miles from that point. Where does an Iraqi who was born into militant Islam start and where does the suburban American been-going-to-church-since-I-was-born person start?
Could it be that salvation is not so much about location, as perceived by externals, but rather direction? Who is more likely to be saved: A person moving Godward from a milion miles away or a person moving further from God at fifty feet away? Maybe nearness and distance to God (or being saved or not saved) has little to with how people measure it, how denominations measure it, and how meta-groups (evangelicals, mainline, etc) measure it.
What if a terrorist put down his or her rifle because he or she just sensed that the God they know of does not really desire the kind of killing they have been involved in? What if that terrorist paid a great price for that renunciation of terror, even his or her life? Is it good? Yes, of course it is. But is that person saved? My fellowship would say no, because that person was not baptized. Another fellowship might say no because that person did not speak in tongues. Another would ask, "did they ask Jesus into their heart?" Jesus? You mean the prophet? Who asks prophets into their heart? Remember, people only know what they have been exposed to.
What kind of courage would it take for this terrorist to lay down his or her weapons? I'd wager to say a lot more courage than I have with my faith right now. Yet, am I saved because I "did it right" and he or she is not saved because he or she didn't?
Could it be that the terrorist was moved by the Holy Spirit, but didn't know to call it the Holy Spirit? Could it be the response was to the love of Jesus, but did not know what to call it? Could it be that this person, full of courage and "faith," could be responding to the gospel, but from what he or she knows of Christianity, would never ever dream of becoming a Christian? Could it be this person's salvation is a salvation from hate, anger, murder, and death to love, peace, and life? And then on top of that, a life continuing after a bodily death?
Did Jesus not see a greater faith in all Israel come from a Roman Centurion?
Monday, January 03, 2005
Essence of Essential 3
The only thing essential to salvation or for salvation is God's decision to save. I guess you could add that God has given us so much freedom that we could choose not to be saved, and therefore by choice, be unsaved from sin and its consequences here and now, then and there.
If you want to add, what can we do for this? The answer is: Nothing.
Now, we can go ahead and ask this question: What does God ask of us? That can be summed up with this: Love God and love people. In fact, so dedicated is God to this "love God; love people," theology, that Jesus said it summed up the law and the prophets. If that sums up the law and the prophets, then what else is there?
Yes, I know there are lots of commands and directives and so forth, but isn't that all in the details? Jesus did not abolist the law and the prophets, he fulfilled them. If I love God, then I am going to listen to Him. I love my wife and I listen to her. I love my kids and I listen to them. If I love God and listen to Him, then I am going to take what He has to say seriously. When I take what He has to say seriously, and what He says is to be baptized (the link to salvation in my fellowship), what motive would I have to avoid this act? However, to say that this specific obedience is the salvationary link smacks of worshipping baptism over worshipping the God of baptism.
When we get the focus messed up, we get into trouble - and fast! It's like this:
What do I have to do to be saved is not very romantic. It is not what a comfortable person asks. It is what a desperate person asks. We Christians spend too much energy trying to convince people that they are desperate, but we come across as arrogant, self-righteous, and elitist. Jesus didn't have to convince anyone he or she was desperate - check that, he pounded on the Pharisees about their desperation in the context of their feeling superior, comfortable and in control.
Why do so many Christians treat the "lost" like Jesus treated the Pharisees?
I think we're putting the wrong people in checkmate.
If you want to add, what can we do for this? The answer is: Nothing.
Now, we can go ahead and ask this question: What does God ask of us? That can be summed up with this: Love God and love people. In fact, so dedicated is God to this "love God; love people," theology, that Jesus said it summed up the law and the prophets. If that sums up the law and the prophets, then what else is there?
Yes, I know there are lots of commands and directives and so forth, but isn't that all in the details? Jesus did not abolist the law and the prophets, he fulfilled them. If I love God, then I am going to listen to Him. I love my wife and I listen to her. I love my kids and I listen to them. If I love God and listen to Him, then I am going to take what He has to say seriously. When I take what He has to say seriously, and what He says is to be baptized (the link to salvation in my fellowship), what motive would I have to avoid this act? However, to say that this specific obedience is the salvationary link smacks of worshipping baptism over worshipping the God of baptism.
When we get the focus messed up, we get into trouble - and fast! It's like this:
What do I have to do to be saved is not very romantic. It is not what a comfortable person asks. It is what a desperate person asks. We Christians spend too much energy trying to convince people that they are desperate, but we come across as arrogant, self-righteous, and elitist. Jesus didn't have to convince anyone he or she was desperate - check that, he pounded on the Pharisees about their desperation in the context of their feeling superior, comfortable and in control.
Why do so many Christians treat the "lost" like Jesus treated the Pharisees?
I think we're putting the wrong people in checkmate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)