Always fun.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Monday, April 03, 2006
The Shaping of Things to Come (part IV)
"The heart of the problem [with modern church planting] is that we have been planting churches that are (smaller) carbon copies of the already beleaguered, failing Christendom-style church. The Christendom virus is passed on... In fact, it's more often than not been the case that Sunday services are planted rather than missional Jesus communities... The overly reproduced Christendom-mode church has at its core a number of fundamental flaws. These flaws occur in the model's very DNA. The way forward is not to tinker with its external features, but to rebirth a new movement on different ground."
-page 18
This is a very condensed quote from 2 amazing paragraphs, which then goes on to address three main flaws in the modern, Christendom, church: it is attractional, dualistic, and hierarchical. Although I'd like to talk about those three areas of concern, I will instead focus just on the above paragraph because it speaks very deeply to me.
The Sunday service plant; why is it that we think we can just take a model of "doing church," move it to a new location, and think that is the best way to form a new community of believers? One of my strongest convictions is that the shape of a church's gatherings has to come from the shape of the community itself. I'm learning that this is the path to being a true church. But it is harder. It is so much easier to just draw-up a church plan and fall into the routine of doing it every week: 5 songs, announcements, sermon, 1 song, go home. Too often I've seen church employees (specifically mega-church) sitting around a table talking about how they can "be creative," and deciding they could throw a song in the middle of the sermon and really throw everything off with their creativity. Wow.
Worse than all of that, when a new church is planted it typically takes with it not only the problem of focusing solely on Sunday mornings and the only way of doing them, but it takes the shape of the entire church structure with it. What is this structure? It is the hierarchical structure where the senior pastor is elevated to a point of reverence. When people talk about the church they "attend," they talk about how great his sermons are, and when he doesn't preach one weekend, attendance and financial giving go down that week.
What Frost and Hirsch are advocating is an organic church. It is a church body that rises up as believers meet together, praying and dreaming over what could happen to their neighborhood as the Spirit moves within it. It is more about them praying together, doing life together, than forming a church service and a congregational hierarchy. Sooner or later the meetings breed a sort of form of their own that continues to change, shift and move as members grow in faith and new ones join the family.
When Luther left the Catholic church, he kept a lot of baggage. This isn't surprising considering he never wanted to fully leave it. So we kept much of the Catholic way of being a church within the Protestant way. I think it's time to try to drop-off our Christendom baggage and go the path of the minority of churches who are taking risks and getting rid of church models, curriculum, etc and just trying to really be the church together. That sounds a lot healthier to me.
Peace,
Matt
Currently Reading: Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad.
-page 18
This is a very condensed quote from 2 amazing paragraphs, which then goes on to address three main flaws in the modern, Christendom, church: it is attractional, dualistic, and hierarchical. Although I'd like to talk about those three areas of concern, I will instead focus just on the above paragraph because it speaks very deeply to me.
The Sunday service plant; why is it that we think we can just take a model of "doing church," move it to a new location, and think that is the best way to form a new community of believers? One of my strongest convictions is that the shape of a church's gatherings has to come from the shape of the community itself. I'm learning that this is the path to being a true church. But it is harder. It is so much easier to just draw-up a church plan and fall into the routine of doing it every week: 5 songs, announcements, sermon, 1 song, go home. Too often I've seen church employees (specifically mega-church) sitting around a table talking about how they can "be creative," and deciding they could throw a song in the middle of the sermon and really throw everything off with their creativity. Wow.
Worse than all of that, when a new church is planted it typically takes with it not only the problem of focusing solely on Sunday mornings and the only way of doing them, but it takes the shape of the entire church structure with it. What is this structure? It is the hierarchical structure where the senior pastor is elevated to a point of reverence. When people talk about the church they "attend," they talk about how great his sermons are, and when he doesn't preach one weekend, attendance and financial giving go down that week.
What Frost and Hirsch are advocating is an organic church. It is a church body that rises up as believers meet together, praying and dreaming over what could happen to their neighborhood as the Spirit moves within it. It is more about them praying together, doing life together, than forming a church service and a congregational hierarchy. Sooner or later the meetings breed a sort of form of their own that continues to change, shift and move as members grow in faith and new ones join the family.
When Luther left the Catholic church, he kept a lot of baggage. This isn't surprising considering he never wanted to fully leave it. So we kept much of the Catholic way of being a church within the Protestant way. I think it's time to try to drop-off our Christendom baggage and go the path of the minority of churches who are taking risks and getting rid of church models, curriculum, etc and just trying to really be the church together. That sounds a lot healthier to me.
Peace,
Matt
Currently Reading: Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad.
Friday, March 31, 2006
A World-Changing Day
Yes folks, today we celebrate an event that changed our entire world for the better. It was 47 years ago today that Australia, and dare I say, the universe, was forever altered for the better. 47 years ago today something happened, something was brought into being, that would shock us, compel us to frenzied excitement, and salute us directly before we began to rock. Yes, it was 47 years ago today that Angus Young was born. Happy birthday Angus; for he who continues to rock, we salute you.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
What the Crap?
Would you like to see a 27 year old, sworn non-violent resister go on a massive killing spree against his own brothers and sisters in Christ? Show me a few more of these, and we'll be getting pretty close.
(For my fellow Americans living in a constant state of fear of those terrorists hiding behind every bush that once hid the reds, don't worry, the killing thing is meant to be humorous, not terrorist...)
(For my fellow Americans living in a constant state of fear of those terrorists hiding behind every bush that once hid the reds, don't worry, the killing thing is meant to be humorous, not terrorist...)
The Shaping of Things to Come (part III)
"What do 'holy ones' do? They live holy lives. This is what scholars have called the indicative and imperative. The indicative defines us, and the imperative calls us to live the definition out in daily life. Incidentally, this is how the New Testament, especially the Pauline Epistles, is structured. In almost every case the first half of Paul's letters are framed in the indicative (you are saved, justified, etc.). The second half is framed in the imperative (therefore live as...). Who I am, or rather who I have become, in Jesus, must change the way I behave and determine to a great extent what I do... Our primary identities determine our primary purposes in life."
-page 148.
The mega-church all-star John Ortberg once told a hypothetical story of a man who was a total jerk, became a Christian and attended church every Sunday and participated in everythin that went on, and died years later, still a complete jerk. How could this happen? Especially, how could this happen to somebody who is supposedly "active" within a church?
The modern church expects people to "attend." Sometimes it lays out the challenges that go something like this:
-page 148.
The mega-church all-star John Ortberg once told a hypothetical story of a man who was a total jerk, became a Christian and attended church every Sunday and participated in everythin that went on, and died years later, still a complete jerk. How could this happen? Especially, how could this happen to somebody who is supposedly "active" within a church?
The modern church expects people to "attend." Sometimes it lays out the challenges that go something like this:
- Invite your friends
- Don't have sex until you're married
- Don't be addicted to anything
- Vote Republican
- Serve somewhere in the church (like a greeter...)
- Read your Bible
There's more, but you get the idea. What does any of this have to do with being a disciple of Jesus? I will not deny that there is an ethical charge within our faith, but it comes from who we are in Christ, as Frost and Hirsch discuss in their summary of Paul's letters. We are transformed in Christ, and the changes occur from there. The church has dropped the ball on this, saying little about what it means to have a new identity in Christ, then saying even less about what that means for your day-to-day life. True transformation is when we look at a person and can barely recognize them because the Spirit has obviously changed them in radical ways, first inwardly, then outwardly.
Part of this is a re-grasping of holiness. This is going on right now in some church circles and I think it is a step in the right direction. There is a lot of bad connotations with the word, but it is Biblical and needs to brought back out of the cellar and put to the use originally intended by God, who is holy, and says that we are as well. I think holiness is the connection between the indicative and imperative mentioned by Frost and Hirsch. I think this is a large part of our Kingdom calling. Let's be holy.
Peace,
Matt
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
The Shaping of Things to Come (part II)
"...it's one of the core tasks of leadership to help the community to dream again. It's a disturbing trait of the more gung-ho Christian leader today to believe that he (usually male) is the sole visionary and the people are mere receivers of teh vision and must adhere to it because of the position of the leader in the organization...A much more wholesome view of vision and visionary leadership is contained in the idea of the management of meaning. Considered philosophically, all that a great visionary leader does is awaken and harness the dreams and visions of the members of a given community and give them deeper coherence by means of a grand vision that ties together all the 'little visions' of the members of the group."
-page 188
Working now in my second mega-church, I'm beginning to realize how silly our modernistic, heirarchichal conceptions of a visionary leader really are and have always been. Some yuppie male stands up in front of 2 to 30 thousand people and tells them he knows where God is taking them for the next year, 5 years, or even 30 years. Typically one of two things happen in the time to come; either he sets too bold of a vision and ends up leaving or replacing it later on and proving it was not God's vision because it didn't even come close, or else he sets a bland, broad, generic vision that is easy to fulfill because it just isn't from the Lord at all. Luckily, all the mega-churchateers are blind followers and stick with him no matter what.
Frost and Hirsch have a different idea for leadership, as was shown in the initial quote above.
The implications of that paragraph are enormous. First, it means pastors have to really know their church. By "really know," I mean a pastor spending a minimum of half of his or her work week with the people of the church, listening to their needs, hearing their dreams and visions and imaginations and hurts and frustrations and pasts and everything else. I think this is a big reason why Eugene Peterson chose to never lead a mega-church; he wanted to know the visions of his congregants!
Secondly, the hierarchical model of church is toppled. Few people deny that there will not still be some sort of leadership structure, but it is changed now. A real priesthood of all believers becomes possible when the pastor becomes a shepherd and vision sharer rather than a celebrity and lead salesman. Only in a non-heirarchical church can the body of Christ have only one head rather than two.
Lastly, people are able to really become disciples of Christ in the church. Honestly, I think the church makes it hard right now for this to happen. Like the Pharisees, we travel across the world to convert one person, then make it impossible for them to actually follow Christ in a true life of discipleship. Our current way of "making" disciples is to talk at them on Sunday mornings then have them go to a small group where they do Bible study and learn more. If knowledge is all it takes, why don't we just make Satan our lead pastor? Obviously there's something missing. I do not think discipleship is possible in the church unless people are aloud and invited to fully participate in everything.
All this being said, I would only add how much I love this view of leadership. It's like creating a song, pulling together all of the instruments to make something beautiful. Currently we have one man trying to entertain everybody as he attempts to play 10 instruments well at once (there is a guy in Seattle who does that quite well by the way). I look forward to a time where everybody is invited to join in. Isn't that what being part of the body is all about anyway?
Peace,
Matt
-page 188
Working now in my second mega-church, I'm beginning to realize how silly our modernistic, heirarchichal conceptions of a visionary leader really are and have always been. Some yuppie male stands up in front of 2 to 30 thousand people and tells them he knows where God is taking them for the next year, 5 years, or even 30 years. Typically one of two things happen in the time to come; either he sets too bold of a vision and ends up leaving or replacing it later on and proving it was not God's vision because it didn't even come close, or else he sets a bland, broad, generic vision that is easy to fulfill because it just isn't from the Lord at all. Luckily, all the mega-churchateers are blind followers and stick with him no matter what.
Frost and Hirsch have a different idea for leadership, as was shown in the initial quote above.
The implications of that paragraph are enormous. First, it means pastors have to really know their church. By "really know," I mean a pastor spending a minimum of half of his or her work week with the people of the church, listening to their needs, hearing their dreams and visions and imaginations and hurts and frustrations and pasts and everything else. I think this is a big reason why Eugene Peterson chose to never lead a mega-church; he wanted to know the visions of his congregants!
Secondly, the hierarchical model of church is toppled. Few people deny that there will not still be some sort of leadership structure, but it is changed now. A real priesthood of all believers becomes possible when the pastor becomes a shepherd and vision sharer rather than a celebrity and lead salesman. Only in a non-heirarchical church can the body of Christ have only one head rather than two.
Lastly, people are able to really become disciples of Christ in the church. Honestly, I think the church makes it hard right now for this to happen. Like the Pharisees, we travel across the world to convert one person, then make it impossible for them to actually follow Christ in a true life of discipleship. Our current way of "making" disciples is to talk at them on Sunday mornings then have them go to a small group where they do Bible study and learn more. If knowledge is all it takes, why don't we just make Satan our lead pastor? Obviously there's something missing. I do not think discipleship is possible in the church unless people are aloud and invited to fully participate in everything.
All this being said, I would only add how much I love this view of leadership. It's like creating a song, pulling together all of the instruments to make something beautiful. Currently we have one man trying to entertain everybody as he attempts to play 10 instruments well at once (there is a guy in Seattle who does that quite well by the way). I look forward to a time where everybody is invited to join in. Isn't that what being part of the body is all about anyway?
Peace,
Matt
Monday, March 27, 2006
The Shaping of Things to Come (Part I)
"The truth consists not in knowing the truth intellectually but in being the truth... Knowing the truth is something which follows as a matter of course from being the truth, and not conversely. And it is precisely for this reason it becomes untruth when knowing the truth is separated from being the truth, or when knowing the truth is treated as one and the same thing as being the truth, since true relation is the converse of this: to be the truth is one and the same thing as knowing the truth." -Kierkegaard, "Training in Christianity"
I read this quote late last night in Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch's revolutionary book The Shaping of Things to Come. I had a terrible case of insomnia last night, literally getting less than one hour of sleep. The problem was that my mind was racing. And my mind was racing mostly because of thoughts that had been planted in my head over a year ago when I read this book while taking a class at Mars Hill under Dwight Friesen.
I have to admit I was not originally impacted very much when I read it, but it never really left my mind, until I finally had to reread nearly the entire thing last night! My plan is to share some quotes and thoughts from it in the days to come (but not in a systematic manner). This quote from Kierkergaard is worth reading a few times, though I think it speaks for itself. We need to embody our faith. This seems obvious, yet we as the church rarely challenge people to do this, at least not fully. In the past few days I have seen some people take bold, drastic steps because of the Gospel, and have felt a renewed calling on my life that scares me to death, yet seems to be a challenge to faithfulness from God, asking me whether or not I can stop just teaching and knowing truth and actually be the truth. We will see.
Peace,
Matt
Currently Pondering: Immigration laws, impeachment possibilities, the rave scene, the horn of Africa, cancer, the pitfalls of Emergent, Solomon/wisdom, and the absolute arrogance of Western culture.
I read this quote late last night in Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch's revolutionary book The Shaping of Things to Come. I had a terrible case of insomnia last night, literally getting less than one hour of sleep. The problem was that my mind was racing. And my mind was racing mostly because of thoughts that had been planted in my head over a year ago when I read this book while taking a class at Mars Hill under Dwight Friesen.
I have to admit I was not originally impacted very much when I read it, but it never really left my mind, until I finally had to reread nearly the entire thing last night! My plan is to share some quotes and thoughts from it in the days to come (but not in a systematic manner). This quote from Kierkergaard is worth reading a few times, though I think it speaks for itself. We need to embody our faith. This seems obvious, yet we as the church rarely challenge people to do this, at least not fully. In the past few days I have seen some people take bold, drastic steps because of the Gospel, and have felt a renewed calling on my life that scares me to death, yet seems to be a challenge to faithfulness from God, asking me whether or not I can stop just teaching and knowing truth and actually be the truth. We will see.
Peace,
Matt
Currently Pondering: Immigration laws, impeachment possibilities, the rave scene, the horn of Africa, cancer, the pitfalls of Emergent, Solomon/wisdom, and the absolute arrogance of Western culture.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Creativity, Imagination, Culture, etc.
Yesterday I had the distinct privillege of having lunch with a kind New Testament scholar named Ron Hermes, who coincidentally just started teaching at my old school, Mars Hill. My friends and I were able to pick his brain as we prepare for our retreat teaching on Revelation (see last post on how I feel about it). Ron was very gracious and helpful, and brought up what I was already talking about, yet fearful of at the same time. If we are going to explore Revelation, we have to get into creativity and imagination, do some cultural exegesis, then let people go wild.
Scholars from Eugene Peterson to Walter Brueggemann to N.T. Wright are exploring the role of imagination when dealing with scripture, and I honestly appreciate it and am glad for it. The hard part is to deal with it on a pastoral level. Some people don't want to use their imagination, or don't think they are creative, or just don't see how any of it has to do with the Bible. They "just read the Bible and do what it says." You can't go very far in a study of Revelation before you realize how much John understood his culture (at a much deeper level than most "culturally relevant" church-people do today), and how creative he was in bringing the imaginative, apocalyptic literature of his day into a dialogue with Old Testament writings and his brilliant cultural exegesis.
I think we can do something very similar today to what John did. In fact, I think it's needed sorely. But who should do it? Many of us would gladly stand and say "here am I, send me," but our willingness is not the same as a calling from God. As I ponder inviting high school students into a space where they get to test their own prophetic voices as they wrestle with their dialogue with culture and how to bring creativity and imagination to it, I walk with a great amount of trepidation. Who has the right? Who has the authority? All of us? Few to none of us?
I'm getting closer to what I've always dreamed of doing with high school students, yet am becoming more confused and fearful than ever. It's a fine line, but one that obviously needs to be looked at from time to time. It does sound like a beautiful thought; high school students taking up a prophetic voice and speaking to the followers of the way in Whatcom County, calling them to a new way of life that honors God where they live. Awesome. Scary.
Thoughts? Suggestions?
Peace,
Matt
Currently Reading: Simulacra and Simulation by Jean O Baudrillard. It's fascinating, and I have no doubt that I'll be blogging some stuff about it quite soon, especially as I continue to attempt my own deep reading of culture.
Scholars from Eugene Peterson to Walter Brueggemann to N.T. Wright are exploring the role of imagination when dealing with scripture, and I honestly appreciate it and am glad for it. The hard part is to deal with it on a pastoral level. Some people don't want to use their imagination, or don't think they are creative, or just don't see how any of it has to do with the Bible. They "just read the Bible and do what it says." You can't go very far in a study of Revelation before you realize how much John understood his culture (at a much deeper level than most "culturally relevant" church-people do today), and how creative he was in bringing the imaginative, apocalyptic literature of his day into a dialogue with Old Testament writings and his brilliant cultural exegesis.
I think we can do something very similar today to what John did. In fact, I think it's needed sorely. But who should do it? Many of us would gladly stand and say "here am I, send me," but our willingness is not the same as a calling from God. As I ponder inviting high school students into a space where they get to test their own prophetic voices as they wrestle with their dialogue with culture and how to bring creativity and imagination to it, I walk with a great amount of trepidation. Who has the right? Who has the authority? All of us? Few to none of us?
I'm getting closer to what I've always dreamed of doing with high school students, yet am becoming more confused and fearful than ever. It's a fine line, but one that obviously needs to be looked at from time to time. It does sound like a beautiful thought; high school students taking up a prophetic voice and speaking to the followers of the way in Whatcom County, calling them to a new way of life that honors God where they live. Awesome. Scary.
Thoughts? Suggestions?
Peace,
Matt
Currently Reading: Simulacra and Simulation by Jean O Baudrillard. It's fascinating, and I have no doubt that I'll be blogging some stuff about it quite soon, especially as I continue to attempt my own deep reading of culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
