Communion...I think it's a big deal...

As I begin to write this I am feeling a bit like I am walking on sacred ground.  In the Protestant tradition we only have two sacraments: communion and baptism.  I have been thinking a great deal about the role of both. As I mentioned before communion is on the top of my mind because I just finished reading a book about it by Robert Letham. It was fantastic!

First, what I am not going to do.  I am not going to argue for the merits of the Reformed version (read Calvin's) of communion.  I will leave that to the places where it has been dealt with in full.  If you want to know the differences between Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed understandings check out Letham's text or the Westminster Confession of Faith.

So, what's the big deal?  We take communion once a month in our church and it's a nice ceremony with saltine crumbs and a thimble of grape juice.  This is the consistent mode of taking communion in any church I have been in. I have witnessed Catholic mass and also Lutheran communion. There really doesn't seem to be much difference in "how" we go about doing it. There are obvious differences in why and what it means.

So, it's a nice ceremony.  The Elders always look good in their suits and the men and women who serve communion are very solemn. It's nice.

But, is communion supposed to be nice? Is it supposed to be so solemn? Isn't it supposed to be "communion" with the risen Jesus? If so, then so much of this ceremony seems to be a little askew from what it must really be.

Sitting in my chair I realized how individualistic communion is currently.  Think about the first "supper".  The disciples and Jesus hanging out in an intimate setting, one of the boys even reclining on his chest.  They were in a circle.  They could see each other. They could smell each other's nasty feet. I have been in a setting with college guys many times like this. My poor wife wouldn't even go into our basement until I lit a match to "de-man" after Bible study.

I think that communion needs to be let loose. We need to realize what is really happening. We are coming into, entering into, the very presence of the risen Jesus. We take the "bread" and drink the "wine" and in so doing are united with Christ in community with other brothers and sisters in the body. I can't see who is joining with me with Christ.

It's me and Jesus.

This is not communion, not in its fullest sense.

In this culture we need to re-engage with the mystery, beauty, glory, and awe that communion necessarily is. We must elevate this sacrament back to its high, honorable, and lofty place.

It is mystical.

It is awe inspiring.

It is fearsome.

It is physically, emotionally, spiritually uniting with our Jesus.

Why don't we use real bread? It's inconvenient.

Why don't we use real wine? It might be offensive.

Was the crucifixion convenient? Was Jesus blood spilled not offensive?

The "supper" is to bring us together to experience community with one another and with Christ. I think we need to move back into a mode of doing communion where we actually see each other. Where we rise and go to the front together. Where those under discipline can't hid in their chair. Where the one outside the faith feels being left out. Where those in relationship with Jesus physically rise and stand shoulder to shoulder with their brothers and sisters.

Our covenant children watching and experiencing the longing to rise too.

The weight of glory as we together break bread and drink the wine. We would touch the broken bread.  We would smell aroma of the wine and feel the warmth in our bellies as the wine hits.

In a culture that sees through the bull it is time that we return and embrace together the beauty and holiness of communion.

Think about it this way: What must communion have been like in the first century when the faithful were accused of being cannibals (eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus) and of practicing incest (for they were 'brothers' and 'sisters') in the midst of their love feasts? Our communion doesn't inspire this kind of response from a watching world.

I pray that we will embrace communion: the uniting of ourselves as the body of Christ with our head, the risen Jesus.

Read More

Some of what I am reading...

As I was catching up with my blog reading today in my quiet home, I thought, "It would be cool to link the blog to the stuff I am reading."  So, here it is: Stuff I am Reading

Read More

Phase two...

So, I have been writing a bit about the big picture of what missional is and exploring some things here and asking questions. Most of these questions I don't have answers for, it's a bit frustrating for a guy who usually has answers for EVERYTHING!

It's hard to be in a place where you feel like everything is up for grabs.  Where you are evaluating so much of what you believe and what you think.  It's good though because I am realizing how little I know and how little really matters.  But, the things that do matter are critical.

In light of all this, I want to take a bit of a detour.  I have been thinking a bit about two issues that seem to me as very important for our time.

Communion.

Baptism.

It seems that both of these issues are ones that either have been forgotten about (communion) or are taken for granted (baptism).  Over the next couple of weeks or so I am planning on wrestling through why I think these two things are critical for recovery in this generation as we seek to engage with our God in his mission.

I just finished reading The Lord's Supper by Robert Letham, so I will take up Comunion first and then Baptism.

Read More

Who leads this whole thing?

The one questiont that I have been wrestling with in conversation with a friend and as a result of reading The Forgotten Ways is the issue of authority.  What does it mean?  Who is in authority? Is there leadership anymore? What does it all look like in reality, right here, right now? Are we all to do what is right by our own personal hermeneutic? Are we simply to do what feels good?  Is it "just Jesus and me"? What is the role of the community of God's people? What are the individual roles within that body?  Are some called to lead?  Are some called to follow? What do we do with the Bible? What do we do with our heritage of the visible church?

The answers are not easy in coming.  But the list of questions continues to grow. Check out our conversation here.

Read More

Stepping out...

So, I have begun thinking about "programming" in the church.  It's something that I have been wrestling with for a while and my thoughts are beginning to clarify a bit more.  I studied some pretty large chunks of Acts this winter and spring.  Something that really hit me was how "out there" the first and second generation Christians were (Paul is a second generation, let that one sink in for a moment).

They met together and ate food.  They worshiped out in the open at the Temple.  There was no real distinction in their mind of anything sacred or secular.  There certainly did not appear to be any kind of "holy huddle" going on in the early church.  There was rhythm to their life.

They broke bread, they served, they remembered the Lord, and they sat under the teaching of the leaders. They did all this in a culture that was just as pluralistic as ours.  They did this in a culture where the Empire was more oppressive (atleast in the persecution sense).

The question I have been pondering: Why do we pull out so much? Why do we feel the necessity to program EVERYTHING. Why can't we set aside a day for corporate worship, teaching, etc...Then the rest of the week what if we gathered together outside the walls of the church and followed Christ in community "out there" in the midst of a lost and dying world? What if we did more in our homes?  What if we even invited our neighbors? What if?

Read More

>Living on a Need to Know basis

>submitted by Robin Schmidt

It is the information age. We can find out pretty much anything through books, television, or the world wide web.

We value knowledge and pursue it. We have game shows where people compete to see who possesses greater knowledge. Remember Ken from Jeopardy? He seemed to know EVERYTHING. We believe knowledge is power. If we know then we are in control.

My father-in-law is not a doctor, but he plays one on the internet. With a small amount of research he can diagnose symptoms, attempt to manage treatment and presume to advise doctors. Sometimes a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Recently, I have been reflecting on the connection between knowledge and fear.

In the beginning there was a tree and it was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Of all that God created this was the one tree whose fruit man and woman could not eat.

Then came the lie. You will not die if you eat this fruit, said the serpent, eat it and your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

You will be like God. What did the woman think that meant? Exactly like God? Equal to God? Did she get that it was just like God in knowing?

Fast forward a few hundred/thousand years and consider some shepherds outside of Bethlehem. An angel appeared to them, and his first words were: Fear not. Why? Because an angel appeared to the shepherds and suddenly they knew. They knew that angels existed. They knew they were not alone. They knew what an angel sounded like, looked like, and they were afraid, sore afraid.

Faced with the knowledge of an angel, we know we are not the biggest thing going. We are NOT God, we are little and powerless and vulnerable and we become afraid. Very afraid. Sore afraid.

We are made in God's image but we don't have his perspective, his power, you name it we ain't got it. So, here we are, NOT a lot like God, only now we know.

The woman saw that the tree was good for food, it was a delight to the eye and it was desirable for gaining knowledge. She desired knowledge so she took it and ate and gave it to the man.

You might say she had a hunger for knowledge. So do we.

They ate the fruit and they recognized their nakedness and attempted to hide it and then hid themselves from God because they were afraid.

Afraid of what?

I'm thinking they were afraid of what they knew.

God told them not to eat from that tree, presumably because they didn't need to know good and evil. God walked with them in the garden and was asking them to live on a need to know basis. But knowledge is power and we want to know.

The thing is, they already knew all they needed to know. They knew God.

Read More

Applying the paradigm...maybe?

Here is something I put together about applying the missional concept to the role of "Youth Pastor".  What do you think?

Introduction

There has been a fundamental change in the way the world works over the last twenty-five years. The shift has been called “post-modernism” or “hyper-modernity” or “post-Christian” or “post-Christendom”.  Regardless of what one calls the paradigm change, the change has indeed happened. The way that most people see and understand the world is very different than it was not very long ago.   You could say, “this ain’t your mama’s world anymore”.   The kind of shift that has happened is as thoroughgoing as the shift that took place in the 1960’s, maybe even more so.

The environment that the children of the emerging generations  are growing up with is a unique one that the church, their parents, and their educators have not ever experienced.  The rampant individualism, the emphasis on a radical consumerism, and the overdevelopment of the institutional church are leaving the emerging generations out of the spiritual conversation.  If we are going to reach the emerging generations there has to be a change that takes place on a fundamental level.
Consider briefly the reality that the Benoit Mindset List tells us of this year’s graduating seniors:
“Most of the students entering College this fall, members of the Class of 2011, were born in 1989. For them, Alvin Ailey, Andrei Sakharov, Huey Newton, Emperor Hirohito, Ted Bundy, Abbie Hoffman, and Don the Beachcomber have always been dead.

1. What Berlin wall?


2. Rush Limbaugh and the “Dittoheads” have always been lambasting liberals.


3. They never “rolled down” a car window.


4. They may confuse the Keating Five with a rock group.


5. They have grown up with bottled water.


6. General Motors has always been working on an electric car.


7. Nelson Mandela has always been free and a force in South Africa.


8. Pete Rose has never played baseball.


9. Rap music has always been mainstream.


10. Religious leaders have always been telling politicians what to do, or else!


11. “Off the hook” has never had anything to do with a telephone.


12. Russia has always had a multi-party political system.


13. Women have always been police chiefs in major cities.


14. Classmates could include Michelle Wie, Jordin Sparks, and Bart Simpson.


15. Wal-Mart has always been a larger retailer than Sears and has always employed more workers than GM.


16. 16.    Being “lame” has to do with being dumb or inarticulate, not disabled.


17. When all else fails, the Prozac defense has always been a possibility.


18. Multigrain chips have always provided healthful junk food.


19. They grew up in Wayne’s World.


20. U2 has always been more than a spy plane.


21. Stadiums, rock tours and sporting events have always had corporate names.


22. Commercial product placements have been the norm in films and on TV.


23. Women’s studies majors have always been offered on campus.


24. Being a latchkey kid has never been a big deal.


25. Thanks to MySpace and Facebook, autobiography can happen in real time.


26. High definition television has always been available.


27. Microbreweries have always been ubiquitous.


28. Virtual reality has always been available when the real thing failed.


29. Tiananmen Square is a 2008 Olympics venue, not the scene of a massacre.


30. MTV has never featured music videos.


31. They get much more information from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert than from the newspaper.


32. They’re always texting 1 n other.


33. They never saw Johnny Carson live on television.


34. Avatars have nothing to do with Hindu deities.


35. The World Wide Web has been an online tool since they were born.”

Biblical Foundations

The change is simple and yet so radical that we might simply dismiss it out of hand without thinking through the consequences.  The fact of the matter is that we as the church are like most auto manufacturers.  We are seeking to outsource the spiritual formation of the emerging generations.
Biblically the primary function of the parent is to “bring them [children] up in the training and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4).  Interestingly, the emphasis is on the father here.  He is not to “exasperate” his child.  This is the role of the parent.  It is their responsibility to train and instruct their child in the Lord.

This idea is not new to the Newer Testament but is found throughout the Older Testament as well.  A key passage is in Deuteronomy 6:1-9:

“1 These are the commands, decrees and laws the LORD your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess, 2 so that you, your children and their children after them may fear the LORD your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life. 3 Hear, O Israel, and be careful to obey so that it may go well with you and that you may increase greatly in a land flowing with milk and honey, just as the LORD, the God of your fathers, promised you.

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.”

The concepts of the parents passing on the fundamental truth about who God is, is placed on the shoulders of the parents.

It is not the responsibility of the youth pastor. It is not the responsibility of the Christian school. It is not the responsibility of the Sunday School.  The spiritual formation of the child is the parent’s responsibility.

The body of believers is then to come alongside the parent to aid in that process of spiritual formation.  This is communal.  Think about what you just read there in Deuteronomy 6.  Could you imagine being a child and every home you went to had Deuteronomy 6:4, 5 written on the doorposts?  You would be exposed to it at every turn.

The other key thing is that at a very early age (probably 13) boys and girls were understood to be fully a part of the community of faith. The disciples of Jesus were most likely teenagers.  The covenants were bestowed on children at eight days old!

Today, most people younger than 35 in our faith communities are seen as children who are not ready to exert leadership.  It’s nice if they want to be in a choir or a play, even play in the band.  But, they are not challenged to teach, to engage as leaders in the community.  How many conversations take place around the dinner tables in our homes about spiritual things?  Does family worship take place? Is there intentionality of the parent to teach their child spiritual truth?

Missional Paradigm Applied

Approximately 80% of churched children do not continue in their faith after high school.  The keys to retention seem to be pretty straightforward, discipleship and parental involvement.

Most churches however, hire “Youth Pastors”.  The job descriptions are simple.  Reach out and care for our High School and Junior High students while providing support for K-5.

The consistent pull in youth ministry over the last twenty-five years has been to create a bigger, better program.  If you entertain them, they will come.  The hard part is that you keep them by how you get them.  The entertainment has to be bigger, better, and more awesome each week or they will go down the block to the other church.

What if we saw the children in our congregation as not simply kids but as image bearers of the triune God?  What if the parents were engaged in the spiritual development of their children? What if we sought to actually send our kids out as ambassadors and engaged with them as brothers and sisters in Christ?

To achieve this there would have to be a fundamental transformation in the role of the “Youth Pastor”.  He would have to become a “Family Pastor”.  To understand what “Family” pastor means one must first define what is meant by “family”.

Family is the core building block of a community.  This would include young married people to those who have sent their children to college.  This would also include single parents and blended families.  The reason is that marriage is the primary foundation for godly parenting.  The Family Pastor would first help marriages to be healthy and then build on that foundation when as people have children.  He will help in the transition from no kids to one child to elementary to middle school to high school to college.

This role would have him focusing on the discipleship of parents, helping them to engage their children in spiritual formation. He would then be freed to foster the “youth” of the church to be missionaries to their peers.

This means that the ministry of the church to the youth would have a focus on pulling the children into mission as opposed to pushing them through a program. The emphasis would be on training.  Sending them to their peers as ambassadors for Christ.

A developing community of Christ followers who happened to be young people would replace programs.  “Church” would become a place to connect with other Christ followers on mission.  Sunday mornings would be a time of worship, prayer, training, and teaching.

Young people would be pulled into the rest of the community.  They would be influenced by 80 somethings, 70 somethings, and on and on.

Generational differentiation would be replaced as young people are seen as participating members of the community.  The Family pastor would help to bridge the gaps between generations.
Youth involvement would move beyond babysitting and singing in the choir to a full engagement in the life of the church.  Youth would be seen and understood as people created in the image God along with adults.  Believing youth would be recognized as fellow believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit with spiritual gifts.

As emerging generations graduate and leave the context of the church and enter the world, they will leave with a firm grasp of their faith, and how it functions in the context of the body of Christ.
To move from program to organic community in realm of families and youth will require time.  There will be consolidation.  But, when the gospel is embraced by a generation (be it emerging, Boomer, or even X) the results are explosive.

Nuts and Bolts
The big question that must be answered is practically what does this look like in a job description for a search committee of a church that desires to apply the missional approach to “youth” ministry.  The key would be not the development of programs but a pastor who is focused on discipleship as his primary ministry. I think that it could look something like this:

• An embracing of the concept of covenantal family.


• This points to the fact that within the body of Christ there are covenantal families that comprise it.


• Children are brought to adulthood, recognized as adults, and differentiated from their parents.


• Shepherds families (as defined above)


• Marriage support


• Parenting training


• Oversees and develops volunteers in all youth ministries.


• Disciples parents and trains them to engage in spiritual formation of their children.


• Disciples teens and sends them out on mission to their peers.


• Develops an environment of spiritual formation for youth church-wide cross generationally so that all believers are embraced and sent as laborers.


• Recruiting and developing multi-generational disciplers.


• Drawing teens into discipleship relationships beyond their parents and peers.


• Develops an organic community among youth and families where youth are continued to be developed into adulthood and maturity in the faith.


• Develops and provides opportunities for training and involvement in mission in the peer and familial context.


• Develops an environment where the family is the first discipler but not the only discipler, thereby creating an environment where teens are prepared to be discipled outside the family context.


• Teens are developed and sent as adults and mature believers upon graduation.


• An acknowledgement from the church that this will be an imperfect and messy process.

Imagine…
Imagine generation after generation of covenant children embracing their relationship with God as their own…

Imagine sending High School seniors as ambassadors for Christ to the university, work force, and the world, year after year…

Imagine healthy marriages that foster an environment for healthy parenting…

Imagine parents and children engaged with Jesus together...

Imagine generation after generation Christ-followers being born, grown, and sent to the world...

Imagine our church changing the world by sending laborers to the harvest one son and one daughter at a time…
Imagine the Lord smiling and saying to each generation of parents, “Well done, my good and faithful servants.”

Read More

The Forgotten Ways, Part 8

It's hard to imagine a few weeks ago when I sat down with my friend Doug at the Bean and he encouraged me to read Allelon.org's blogs about the missional church that it would have led to a month of thinking more deeply about what it means to be the church.  The next day I walked into the library at Michigan Theological Seminary and grabbed a little book called The Forgotten Ways.  This is post eight, the last chapter of the book: Communitas, not Community.

I think that the opening quote from Paulo Coelho is best summary of the chapter where he says, "The ship is safest when it is in port. But that's not what ships were made for."

The quote says it all.  In recent times there has been an emphasis on "community".  This emphasis has always highlighted the church being a safe place, a retreat from the world.  The metaphor of a hospital has been used.  The community was a place where you can come and be yourself and be accepted and find rest.

Hirsch argues this is the Constantinian, institutional, Christendom at its best! I agree.

The difference between community and communitas is the purpose for the gathering of the people. There are many similarities but there is one key difference. That is mission.

Hirsch uses a number of illustrations for communitas but the one that resonated with me the most is the Fellowship of the Ring. This radical little band of hobbits, men, an elf, a dwarf, and a wizard set out to defeat the ultimate evil.  They start as tolerating each other at best. But, by the end of the mission they are something different.  They experienced communitas.

The organization that I work for has something called "Summer Project".  In the states it is a 10-12 week mission experience for college students.  They work at the local McD's or Starbucks.  They proclaim the gospel on the beach. The best summer projects are those that have communitas, where the mission of turning lost students into Christ-centered laborers is always present and being pursued.

The problem with communitas is that it requires there to be conflict. The Fellowship of the Ring fought against insurmountable odds. Summer project students have to face support raising and spiritual attack. Or consider a sports team, like the Detroit Red Wings who had to face injury, horrible officiating, and a league front office that did everything they could to keep them from winning Lord Stanley's Cup.

The church in the West since the time of Constatine has for the most part not faced very much conflict. Sure there have been internal struggles mut not much outward. There is no persecution.  Just a calm acceptance of the church's presence.  The church has become comfortable and lost its sense of mission (does this sound familiar? If not read parts 1-3).

When a community goes on mission together it ceases to be community and becomes communitas. It experiences pain, conflict, joy, victory, defeat. It goes through something toward something. I think that's why when churches are ramping up for a program they experience something different but then the program happens and the experience is not sustained. That's because the ramp up feels like mission but in the end it is not.

To experience communitas requires the radical transformation of the very reason for why we gather as a community. Will we gather as a community to sing? To pray? To hear the Bible taught? All nice things.  All things that will develop community.  But if we gather to do these apart from being on mission then we are missing something, we are missing communitas.

Community is a ship in port.  Communitas is a ship at sea. The ship is not designed for port. The ship is designed for the sea. The church is not designed for community.  It is designed at its core DNA to be communitas.

Th ramifications of this are so huge that I might develop carpal tunnel syndrome trying to write them. The key thing that I want to think more about though is how can we send every part of the church on mission? A week in Mexico is a nice beginning but it is barely scratching the surface. What does it look like to be on mission as a people of God everyday, from young to old? This is the core question of communitas.

Quick link to all posts in this series: The Forgotten Ways

Read More

The Forgotten Ways, Part 7

As I sit here at home I have just finished the book! So we are on the home stretch with only a couple of posts on The Forgotten Ways remain. This chapter was one that I was not particularly looking forward to.  As a result it took a while to chew through it.  However, it turns out that "Organic Systems" are actually pretty cool things!  Who knew?

I think that the best way to understand the concept of "Organic Systems" in Hirsch's mindset is to think about a spiderweb.  The whole web is connected to itself.  There are multiple nodes and lines.  The whole thing is interconnected.  This is what an organic system is all about.

Consider our body.  There are multiple little systems like the nervous system, skeletal system, or epidermal system, but each one by itself does not a body make.  They all come together and create a body. This is what the church ought to look like.

The church, Hirsch argues, is a living system.  This means that it is marked by certain elements that set it apart from a static system. A static system represents something solid.  Consider a chair or some other inanimate object.  It is assembled and when finished does not change. No matter what room it is in the chair remains exactly the same.

Now, consider a living system.  It is always growing, adapting, and changing.  Think of a plant.  If it is in a room where a window is to its left the plant will grow towards the light and have a bit of leftward orientation.  If you move the plant to the other side of the window then it will change its orientation to the light. It is liquid and not solid.

Hirsch makes a compelling argument that the church is to be like this plant.  It is to be liquid.  The church is to be ever changing as it pushes forward into new cultures and times and people groups.  The manifestation of the church must look different for each context within which it finds itself.

To achieve this it must have a system that is liquid and not static. This means that there must be a movement ethos within the church itself.  A movement ethos is that mindset of being on mission with Jesus towards the ends building his kingdom for his glory.

Leadership within this system is decentralized and spread out.  Hirsch points to Al Qaeda as a picture of how this works in reality.  Each individual cell has the DNA to reproduce the entire movement.  This is why all the armies of the first world cannot stomp it out.  This is why the persecuted church grows with such rapidity.  The leadership is not centralized in one person or in a group of persons.

The church must be constantly birthing new cells with their own leaders who can and do embed the mDNA.  This is very different from the way the institutional church plants.  Hirsch argues that the Christendom model is cloning as opposed to birthing.  In a clone the new church seeks to look just like the parent church.  In birthing there is a combination of different factors that bring about something new (not to mention the fact that making a baby is more fun than cloning one).

Hirsch uses the example of Willow Creek and Saddleback to paint this picture.  A church plant from these places will have difficulty in reproducing the level of programming and excellence that the original brings, because by its very nature it does not have the critical mass to do so.  However, if you birth a new church it will take the mDNA of the parent and combine it with a new context thus creating a whole new church that belongs in the family of the parent but is itself a unique embodiment of the mDNA.

This is what organic systems are all about.  He argues that organic systems grow by hyperbolic multiplication as opposed to linear addition.  The example he cites is Pay it Forward the film that protrayed the story of a boy who is assigned the task of changing the world.  He devises a plan where you don't pay back someone for doing something good but you pay it forward. The effects were deep and lasting. The arrangement was that you pay forward two good deeds when someone does something good to you. This rippled to the other side of the country.

Hirsch argues that it is this hyperbolic growth that saw the Chinese church grow from 2,000,000 to 60,000,000 in forty years.  The picture is quite simple.  Each individual covenants to lead two people to trust Christ and disciple them sending them out to do the same.  Each church covenants to plant two churches and pushes them to do the same.  It would not take long to reach the whole world with the gospel.

This chapter is simple spiritual multiplication.  It is something that most of us have known about for years and years.  However, most of our churches have not embraced this.  We have moved into a fortress mentality where bigger is better and safer.  We pull people in and out of the world as opposed to discipling them and sending them out.

What would happen if our church, your church, grasped and applied this principle of hyperbolic growth?  Are we willing to change?  Are we willing to push leadership to the edges?  Are we willing to send, send, send?

Quick link to all posts in this series: The Forgotten Ways

Read More

The Forgotten Ways, Part 6

If the church is going to become this embodiment of Jesus in a communal way then there is a foundational issue that must be dealt with. That is our conception of what it means to lead. How do we lead if we have set aside the corporate and the coercive models of power?

Hirsch argues that there is a change in the leadership environment of the church. This means that there must be an embracing of what he calls "Apostolic Leadership". This kind of leadership he argues is one of function and not office. The concept of leadership as being function and not office is a big deal in the tradition that I come out of. Offices are critical to the leadership of the church in my tradition, those of Elder and Deacon.

To move our leadership beyond these offices is not something that can be taken lightly. However, this idea of function means quite simply that anyone, regardless of office, can lead. So, what are the functions of the apostolic leader?

1. The apostolic leader embeds mDNA through the taking of new ground for the gospel and the church. The church is to be dynamic and ever growing, therefore, the leadership must transcend sitting at a desk, to actually engaging in the mission of the church. This means that the apostolic is building into others the mDNA.


2. The apostolic leader guards mDNA through the integration and application of apostolic theology. This means that the apostolic leader is not just pioneering new things but she is also making sure that the church stays on course as the dynamic people on a mission.


3. The apostolic leader creates the environment for even more ministry to emerge. The apostolic ministry is the one that is the touchstone for all other ministries. This means that a teacher can't teach if he has no people. A pastor can't shepherd an empty community. The apostolic ministry creates the environment that brings about the possibility for all the other ministries listed in Ephesians 4 to exist.

Apostolic ministry (this is the touchstone ministry) creates the environment for the prophetic ministry (without this ministry evangelism becomes hollow and God himself becomes an idol) which creates the environment for the evangelistic (it opens the hearer to the message of the evangelist) which creates the ministry for the pastoral (exposes the disciple to their need for understanding) which creates the environment for the teaching (teaching from the revealed will of God that brings understanding).

The apostolic leader is one who comes into leadership not through the appointment of a role but is a leader because of who he is. This Hirsch terms "greatness". This greatness is organic, inspirational, and profoundly spiritual. The example of the apostolic leader is Jesus. Jesus led with an amazing humility and authority that drew people into not just a follower but a discipleship where they sought to become like him.

Hirsch argues that an apostolic leader is one who can create "webs of meaning". This means that he is able to bring about the connections of many different people, groups, and agencies by creating the apostolic environment where meaning is brought about by focusing on the mission of Jesus.

There is so much more detail in the Hirsch's chapter that I can't possibly cover it all. I think that this is a decent synopsis of the Apostolic Environment. The impact of this is important to keep in mind. Too often the person who is wired for apostolic ministry is seen as a trouble maker. She is never satisfied with the status quo. He is frustrated with the lack of outward looking concern for the people on the fringes. The questions that are before us are simple, are we willing to embrace these people as opposed to shunning them? Are leaders willing to learn how to be apostolic? Are pastors willing to bring others into leadership?

In my tradition where there is a plurality of leadership there is great opportunity. The question is though are we willing to disciple new elders who fit in all five kinds of leaders: apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors, and teachers?

Quick link to all posts in this series: The Forgotten Ways

Read More

The Forgotten Ways, Part 5

Part five is upon us! The Missional Incarnational Impulse. What the heck does that mean? This is another chapter where Hirsch makes it pretty clear that he must define his term in the negative, what I mean is that, a positive declaration of "missional-incarnational impulse" is difficult in and of itself to define, therefore, you have to state what it is not to bring clarity to what it is!

Missional-incarnational impulse is basically the opposite of the attractional model of the church. What is the attractional model, you ask? Well, it is the idea that we are to draw people into the church building by providing the best, most exciting, and most relevant programming that we can possibly fathom. I think the best way to illustrate the attractional model of the church is from Field of Dreams, "If you build it, they will come."

The opposite of this is the concept of mission. What do you think of when you consider the word "missionary"? Mostly you think of Wycliffe or New Tribes or the Jesus Film or some ministry that send white folks to places where "no man has gone before". They live in huts and try to bring Christianity to a people far, far away. However, this is not the heart of "mission". Hirsch, I think rightly, argues that when you think about being a "missionary" the person in the mirror ought to come to mind.

To that end he provides the theological backdrop for the fact that the people of God are on mission and not to be cloistered in a church building. He argues from John 20:21, "As the Father has sent me, I am sending you (cf, 5:36-37, 6:44, 8:16-18, 17:18; I also think you could back to Genesis and the Abrahamic covenant in Gen 12 and 15 and you see the sending heart of God there, in the beginning)." So, from the beginning of the Jesus movement the focus was on sending as opposed to attracting. Hirsch calls this the "sneeze effect." The movement of the gospel is to be like a sneeze sending germs out! It is a web of multiplication as opposed to a straight line of addition.

That defines "mission" but what is incarnation? John 1:1-18. The word became flesh. Jesus is the God-man. The perfect embodiment of God and man. Two natures. One person. Jesus, Emmanuel, God with us. This is incarnation. It is a mystery. In light of this Hirsch points out four dimensions of the incarnation (here I will quote extensively from page 132):

1. 
   Presence: In Jesus the eternal God is fully present to us; he was God in the flesh (Jn 1:1-15; Col. 2:9).


2. 
   Proximity: God in Christ approached us not only in a way we can understand but in a way we can access. He not only called people to repentance and proclaimed the direct presence of God but befriended outcast people and lived life in proximity with the broken and "the lost" (Luke 19:10).


3. 
   Powerlessness: In becoming "one of us", God takes the form of a servant and that of someone who rules over us (Phil 2:6ff; Luke 22:25-27). In acting in this way he shuns all notions of coercive power and demonstrates for us how love and humility (powerlessness) reflect the true nature of God and are the key means to transform human society.


4. 
   Proclamation: Not only did the Presence of God directly dignify all that is human, but he heralded the reign of God and called people to respond in repentance and faith. In this he initiates the gospel invitation, which is active to this very day.

The issue then is that we must apply these four dimensions to our own lifestyles. So consider my own reflections about how this looks:

1. 
   Presence: We must be "in" our neighborhoods and communities. That means that we play a role in the life and rhythm of our neighborhoods. Go to an association meeting. Join in cleaning up the neighborhood greenspace. Coach baseball. Be a part of the PTA. Volunteer somewhere. A friend of mine once said that 99% of ministry is just "showing up". We need to show up.


2. 
   Proximity:We must make ourselves available to relationship. This means that we make time for chatting at the mailbox with the neighbor. This means that we invite someone over to watch the big game. This means that we go when invited to watch the big game! This means that we havet to be willing to open our lives and invite people in. But, the same goes for our churches. It's awful tough to invite someone to worship when it's 25 miles away. Proximity is also the physical closeness of the gathering of worshipers.


3. 
   Powerlessness: We must be servants. Shovel your neighbors walk. Watch their kids so they can go on a date to work on their marriage. Actually listen and care about what is going on in their lives and not waiting for an opportunity to "share the gospel". Powerlessness means in the church envrionment that leaders are working at raising up more leaders and discipling themselves out of a job.


4. 
   Proclamation: Recognizing that we are part of a "message tribe". This means that in our opening our lives we are faithfully communicating the story of Jesus in our lives (actions) and in words. This means that we UNASHAMEDLY communicate the need to know Jesus and that he is the center of who we are. We need to be bold and clear. Believe it or not if we hide this about ourselves and then "spring" it on people they will actually be more offended.

This living will require us to know what is going on around us. We will have to study our communities like a missionary going to a foreign land. We will have to know with certainty the language they speak (are they Losties or into McDreamy? And if you don't know what I am talking about then it's time to get our from under your rock).

Ultimately this missional-incarnational impulse means that we take church to the people.

Think about what would happen if we were to actually take the gospel to people. It would spread. It would spread everywhere. We would be living locally and caring deeply for people. Our communitites would change. But, something else would happen. The gospel would spread out to their webs of relationships. Soon, the gospel will go all over the world.

This spreading creates the necessity for new churches. New local communities of worshippers (isn't this what we see in Acts?). These new communities continue to spread and send. The gospel takes root in new cultures and communities and then gets passed on again.

Finally, how do we get all this in order. Simple. Christology determines Missiology determines Ecclesiology. What does that mean? Our understanding of who Jesus is determines what we believe our mission is and what we believe our mission is determines "how" we are the church!

If we believe that Jesus is sending us out then we must go and be incarnational, like him. If this is our mission, then the church building becomes less of a central place for programming and becomes a gathering place for the discipleship and sending of missionaries!

I am beginning to think that this is huge! One thing that Hirsch has not really addressed in this idea of incarnational is that the Holy Spirit lives in us. Think about the reality of this! The third person of the Trinity of God lives inside me, you, and any person who follows Jesus. We ARE incarnational. This "transition" from attractional to "incarnational" is one that actually WANT to make but simply fear it. Because if we do, then something messy results. We become powerless and have to relinquish ourselves to the Holy Spirit.

Quick link to all posts in this series: The Forgotten Ways

Read More