Reasons I'm not emergent...

I found this rather funny list of the "Top 50 Possible Reasons I'm Not Emergent." Some hit too close to home... very funny. A few that amused me most:

46. I don’t like Rob Bell’s hair.

36. I heard you had to take yoga.

31. I’m not white.

30. I’m over 40.

29. I don’t have any cool, black eyeglasses.

28. I don’t like coffee or Guinness.

27. It’s immoral to smoke pipes or cigars.

24. I’m allergic to candles.

19. I’m not uber-cool. In fact, I don’t even know what “uber” means.

16. All they want to do is love. Where’s the truth in that?

11. I refuse to switch to Apple

I'm in trouble, especially since I don't like coffee or Guinness... but I have gone Mac and I'll never go back!

Pentacost Prose

When Jared and I went to a conference in Minneapolis two summers ago (2006), we had the chance to visit Solomon’s Porch on a Sunday. As it turns out, it was Pentecost Sunday, and it was an amazing experience.

Anyway, I was given a small piece of prose to read. I don’t know who wrote it. But I recently refound this scrap piece of paper, and the power of the words spoke to my heart. I share it here:

I heard about your tongues of fire
Spreading word to heart and soul
Burning goal; burning desire
Redeeming the dead the broken the torn
All to mission; none to mourn
But I want to speak fire now
And it rains in my heart.
Bow! Spark!

---

How a Christian song turned me into a humanist...

Well, sort of.

I was randomly singing my favorite song yesterday, which is "Micah 6:8" by Charlie Hall. For reasons I don't fully understand, the lyrics that I have always loved and admired suddenly struck me as not just a powerful call to living right, but as a musical embodiment of a powerful truth, the implication of which came rushing into my brain all at once. Here is the first verse and chorus:

You could feed the whole world with the crumbs of old bread
Spread the good news through dreams and stones
With a breath of the wind You could raise up the dead
But You ask us to go

chorus
Help us love mercy, help us do justly,
Help us walk humbly with You God

I had previously resonated most with the call to action and simplicity of the message. But it suddenly struck me - the song is right. God could have done those things, but instead chose to give us the responsibility. God has shifted the focus of activity from himself (best seen in the 'Creation' account) to humanity. We are not only the focus of activity, but the source of the activity.

That's not to say that I believe God isn't actively involved; I believe that he is. But the ring of 'truth' in the song is impossible to ignore. We, as humans, are called to help our fellow Man become what God has modeled for us in Christ.

While some may bristle at this theological humanism, a few others (often spurred by Jared) and I have been exploring theological humanism for a while now. It doesn't make me abandon God (in a personal, relational way), or even distance God (in a deistic sort of way). In fact, it makes me feel more alive and connected to God to realize the honor and power he has given humanity... and "with great power comes great responsibility."

True, there are huge implications about this thought that has been so succinctly embodied in this Charlie Hall song and that pierces my soul; but I don't shy away from them. I don't feel that I'm abandoning God, only perceptions of God that are not really justified, by the Bible or otherwise. For me, pondering this doesn't make God less real, but actually makes him more real.

I wonder if I will ever start living what I am being convicted of. I wonder if I will ever fully comprehend the implications of the 'truths' embodied in thoughts like this. I wonder what is realistic for me to achieve in my life.

I simply pray to God, daily now, "Help us love mercy, help us do justly, help us walk humbly with you God."

The Rural Kingdom?

My time in the beautiful high country of Arizona has brought to surface a perennial problem I am having since I’ve been exposed to the idea of actually bringing the kingdom to the world around me. The problem is struggle with is how to bring the kingdom to those around me in meaningful ways. All the discussions and models of radical kingdom living that I have been exposed to have been situated in urban areas. The idea of practicing resurrection is easy to envision in an urban area where consumeristic self interest have left decaying urban cores, and where historic oppression in the form of discrimination have created lingering divides that need healing. The needs are obvious.

But what does it mean to be the kingdom in rural areas? What does it look like? My friends Jared and Tina are trying to answer that question while living on a farm outside of Canton. My friends Robert and Kirsten are trying to answer that question while living in the suburbs of Akron. And so the question that I have is, “How do people embody the kingdom in rural areas?”

On his joint blog, Canonfodder.org, Robert has been struggling with the homogeneity of his suburban community. But the answers are far from clear. The answer for him and his family may be to move into a more diverse community, where racial reconciliation (one of several aspects of reconciliation) is easy to engage. But clearly, that is not a “kingdom solution,” to the extent that the massive relocation of people to achieve some hypothetical level of diversity is not only impractical, but likely also harmful. It may be a great answer for how some (comfortable middle-class) people can answer the question for themselves; but what about people who don’t have the means or desire to move? What about those who have been oppressed, and finally have the means to escape that oppression by moving into a different (more affluent, though likely as homogenous) location? Are these people working against the kingdom? I certainly can’t say that with any moral authority.

But I digress. Are not the rural areas of the country, the small and fairly homogenous enclaves that predominate in many parts of the country, equally in need of the kingdom? Are not the areas where “post-modern enlightenment” are just whispers from “liberal city-folk” in need of the kingdom?

I have no plans on moving to a rural area anytime soon (well, technically, I live in a rural area, but I'm only 20 minutes to a mall and 15 minutes to downtown Canton, so I don't think of it as rural... or is it because my heart is really in Canton anyway?). But life is full of uncertainties. Who knows where opportunities will take me in the future? But in any case, can I really claim to have a message of the kingdom that only envisions urban manifestations? I think this is one area of the emergent discussion that needs more attention. I hope that through prayer, creative meditation, experience, and discussion that I will be contributing to the discussion more fully.

Formational Message

Formational Message Summary from Sunday, August 19, 2007

This is a summary of what I shared at our Sunday gathering. We have been sharing regarding the broad topic of “the Good News.” I prefaced this talk by saying that it was prompted by a deeper (and still developing) thought process, but that today I would present two somewhat unrelated “seeds” that I hope will germinate more later.

I recently came across a verse that, though I have read dozens of times if not more, I had never really seen. It is a statement that John makes in the middle of a totally different topic, and is found in 1 John 3:

7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is
right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful
is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The
reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. 9 Those who are
born of God will not continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them; they
cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know
who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Those who do
not do what is right are not God's children; nor are those who do not love their
brothers and sisters. (TNIV)

Verse 8 states that “the reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.” What a great way of describing the work of the Christ! (I am told by Jared that the thought of atonement situated in this understanding is called the Christus Victor –Christ the Victor- understanding.) So, what are the “works of the devil?” Since John refers back to “the beginning,” it makes sense to look there too. In the Genesis account, the serpent (the Adversary, ie, the devil) is seen as the instigator or cause of at least three main consequences of Sin: 1) Death; 2) Hard labor; and 3) Broken relationships (between Man and God, and man and woman).

At different times in history, and in different locations with varying societal wealth, different parts of Christ’s victory over the works of the devil have been appealing. In our current, fragmented, yet fairly wealthy 21st Century America, many are looking to the restoration of relationships. Indeed, the restoration of relationships between ourselves and others, within ourselves, and between ourselves and God is truly Good News.

But what does that look like? Why doesn’t that seem to fit with the common picture that contemporary Christianity presents? What does it mean that Christ came to undo the works of the devil? To understand that, and be able to share it as “good news” and not just religious psycho-babble, we have to become better story tellers, story tellers that can take the stories everyone “thinks” they know from Christianity, and retell it in a different, captivating way.

In fact, this is exactly what Jesus did on the road to Emmaus. You can read the account of the interaction between Jesus, Cleopas, and another disciple (possibly his wife, Mary? See John 19:25) in Luke 24:13-35. The story that Cleopas, and really all the early disciples, had been told for generations was centered on several key prophecies, like the one of the Servant in Isaiah 42, that promised justice (read that as freedom from oppressors with punishment) for the world and that Israel would be a “light to the Gentiles.” The story of the Messiah was one of a military leader who would bring final and complete freedom from oppressors (In the days of Jesus, that was the Roman Empire) and make Israel great again, like in the days of Solomon, when the whole world came to bring tribute and seek wisdom from Israel. In the stories of right and wrong, and who was approved of God, anyone who hung on a tree was cursed; in other words, God’s favor was not with that person. The Messiah was to bring sight to the blind, proclaim freedom to the oppressed, etc. Luke’s account says that Cleopas had hoped Jesus was the Messiah, but that his cruel and final death on a cross (tree) showed God’s hand was not with him. And now there were rumors of a missing body. According to the way the stories had been told to Cleopas, there was no hope; Jesus was not the Christ. But Jesus appears to the disciples, and starts speaking to them. They were “prevented” from recognizing him. I tend to think that the stories of the Christ, as well as life and death, had prevented them from recognizing Jesus. But as they walk, Jesus starts telling the story a different way. He used the same Scripture, but told it differently, so that when Jesus was breaking bread (a symbol of the New Covenant), suddenly everything fit together, and they recognized him, and apparently began to see how it could be that he was in fact the promised Christ.

Many think that the Scriptures are “self-evident.” That there is some “obvious, objective” way to understand them. That is total non-sense. We can never divorce the Scriptures from the stories that birthed them, nor from the stories that shaped them. Sharing the Good News, like the idea that Jesus came to undo the works of the devil, can most effectively be shared when a person sees how the story has built up to that point, and that they are a part of that story.

To share the Good News of the Victory of Jesus, we need to learn other people’s stories, and tell the story of God in a way that makes them a part of it.

Emerging Leadership and Nomenclature: Part 3

Leadership Nomenclature

The confusing state of emerging church/spiritual leadership that I have previously addressed is seen in the nomenclature used to refer to different leadership positions and functions. As already mentioned, Solomon's Porch has a "Leadership Co-Op," with elected, rotating members. The term "co-op" has a more egalitarian and postmodern sound than a "board of directors" (which sounds thoroughly corporate-model). Yet, they also have a "lead pastor" who is always in the Leadership Co-Op. Almost all churches, emerging or not, have a "lead pastor" who is the real or figurehead leader. This term is still embraced by many, if not most, emerging churches. Other churches have leadership teams, but always a lead pastor. By definition, that term means that that person is in front, seeing the terrain, and blazing the spiritual trail for the rest to follow. (Senior Pastor is also used, emphasizing authority from experience and wisdom, but the same criticism still applies.) These "lead pastors" are the primary voice in that community. Otherwise, again by definition, they would not be lead pastors.

I have blogged before about the very term "pastor," and therefore will not repeat the thoughts from there. But it is interesting that we still don't have many new (and more accurate?) names of our leadership positions. There are some churches who look back to the ancient order and draw upon that deep well. On one site, the leadership link was titled "Elders." This is a very ancient and well-known term that implies a great deal. I had respect for an emerging church that would use such terminology for its leadership positions. When I clicked on the link, their "elders" were the lead pastor and the worship leader. From their pictures and bios, both were likely between 26-34. Hardly congruent with the term "elder." The ironic thing is that the New Covenant writings are filled with synonyms for elder that don't have such obvious implications, such as shepherds or bishops. Yet these are not used (again, very limited sample size, admittedly).

I don't have any answers, or suggestions. But nomenclature means something. What most people in modern churches think of as "pastors" are usually gifted teachers, or proclaimers, or even "prophetic voices" turning the hearts of God's people back to Him. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a pastoral co-op? With rotating voices? Or shepherds who actually guard and tend the flock, who know each by name, and attend to the wounded, rather than fix budgets and hire staff? What could this body of leaders be referred to that would accurately reflect what they do, while also shaping their actions?

I don't mean to pick on anyone or any church. I bring out this state of nomenclature to identify a lag between emergent thinking and emerging church structures. I certainly have more to contemplate, and will be more aware of what our labels, or lack thereof, say about our communities.

Emeging Leadership and Nomenclature: Part 2

Emerging Leadership?

Previously, I briefly reviewed my understanding of how leadership has evolved through the centuries. As I examine leadership in the era of change from a modern mindset to a postmodern one (whatever that means), it seems that little is changing.

When I explore what leadership actually looks like in emerging churches, I get a very modern picture of leadership. (Please note: When I say "explore" I usually mean by engaging a church's website, which is far from an accurate picture, but I still believe that much can be learned about leadership in how it is presented.) Some churches, such as Imago Dei, have a board of elders that includes all the pastoral staff, and a board of directors (program directors, I presume). At Solomon's Porch, there are dedicated staff members and a Leadership Co-Op (with the senior pastor always being a member) composed of members that are elected for two year terms, with only two consecutive terms permitted. From the description, the Leadership Co-Op acts like a board of directors of a corporation, hiring and firing, and overseeing the budget while putting out communal fires. Jacob's Well is apparently similar.

What is my point? I don't know. (Thinking out loud here, remember!) I guess when I look at all these emerging churches, I expect to see new, emerging forms of leadership. Instead, the structures remain the same, there is just more diversity of people. All these churches have a lead pastor. Essentially, it seems the leadership structure is still very modern, with one primary voice and the corporate board of directors dealing with the budget and "big issues." Why are there no co-pastors? Is there something inherent to spiritual leadership that demands only one prominent voice? Or is it that our structures have not caught up to emerging rhetoric?

In our house church, we have no official leaders. Jared and I step up to the plate with our natural leadership abilities frequently, but each is often not able to accomplish what we would like or envision, simply because the community doesn't want to or has another idea. Jared is the "prophetic voice" so to speak, so he is often viewed by visitors as the pastor, but that is likely to change as we recently decided to try some different approaches, getting even more people involved with feeding and leading thoughts. But we have had our share of challenges in terms of decision making as a community. And there are small, practical issues every once in a while.

So maybe the one-voice, board oversight structure is not a "modern" function. Perhaps it is the most logical for our human condition, the concept that has survived the "evolutionary" forces of social change through the centuries. Or perhaps, there can be a different form of leadership, intensely spiritual, yet looking nothing like modern churches. Perhaps the lack of new leadership structures in general, even among emerging churches, and the hardships we face in our home church, are just evidence that we are still in the early staging of emerging from a modern mindset, at least in the church. And then again, to throw a wrench in it, there are some who see emerging spiritual culture looking for the ancient paths of epistemology and ecclesiology. Perhaps emerging churches will actually become more hierarchical as the importance of community formation and voice are emphasized.

"How many licks does it take to get the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop? The world may never know."

Emerging Leadership and Nomenclature: Part 1

Introduction to this series of thoughts:

To many people, the concepts of leadership and nomenclature have little to do with each other. But I have realized that the two are intimately connected. In fact, for emerging generations who are very sensitive to labels, titles, and names, nomenclature is constantly being considered. Even the very carefully conceived concept of "emergent" as a conversation demonstrates this important connection between nomenclature and concept formation. Another case in point: look at a list of church names who are part of the emerging conversation (Imago Dei, Solomon's Porch, Jacob's Well, The Center, One Place, etc). These carefully chosen names are not only meant to reflect the values of the community, but to shape them as well. I'll talk more about nomenclature, especially as it relates to leadership, in my second post. In this post, I want to talk out loud about leadership and the emerging church.

Again, I'm just going to be "talking out loud" here. I struggle for a picture of what spiritual leadership can/should look like in the church of the 21st Century. The original, ancient church (Israel) was governed by tribal leaders, older men mostly (I assume). There would be wise heroes who would lead by example and gain admiration and "authority" by acting boldly, decisively, and wisely, during the time of the judges. Then came the Kingdom, with all the bureaucracy that that entails. Again, mostly dominated by men, who either inherited their power, earned it through war, or gained influence through wisdom.

What was leadership like in the New Israel, the church of Jesus Christ? Again, it is difficult to say how they actually functioned. But it seems that there were prominent, gifted men who led by example and went about the known world encouraging and preaching. Local communities of believers apparently had groups of elders (also called pastors, shepherds, bishops, presbyters) who were anointed and led the community. Of course, in a male-dominated society with well-established social and communal hierarchies, this form of communal leadership made sense, and would have been a natural state, neither forced nor artificial. Throughout history, it began to be more common, and even expected, to have one leading voice, one top dog (so to speak) oversee the community. Often supported by a council of some sort, this main leader would be the face (and voice) of the community. This is very much the model of leadership in most modern churches. And it makes sense in a modern mindset, where objectivity and reason are thought to lead to inescapable conclusions, ultimately leading to a saving faith. It makes sense, in this mindset, to have one voice, usually a well-trained (translation - seminarian) individual who can reason well, knows his or her facts well, and can articulate a mechanistic formula for continued survival and growth. This often involves overseeing a corporate-style institutional staff of people hired to accomplish specific tasks. The modern church looks very much like a large corporation (very generally speaking).

But emerging generations are more egalitarian. They are more persuaded by the communal voice than the single voice. "Knowledge" is fluid, and facts are readily shared. So emerging churches often emphasize the communal nature of decision making. They want to emphasize the diversity of its leadership, and its more horizontal structure.

I hope to explore this interplay of modern and postmodern leadership ethos in my next post.