March 28, 2008

Book Review: Jesus for President (Part 1)

We are seeing more and more that the church has fallen in love with the state and that this love affair is killing the church's imagination. The powerful benefits and temptations of running the world's largest superpower have bent the church's identity. Having power at its fingertips, the church often finds "guiding the course of history" a more alluring goal than following the crucified Christ. Too often the patriotic values of pride and strength triumph over the spiritual virtues of humility, gentleness, and sacrificial love.

As you can tell, subtlety is not what Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw were aiming for when they co-wrote, Jesus for President. Apart from the provocative content - a mix of stories, biblical narrative, and political manifesto - even the look of the book provokes a reaction. The pages are filled with photography, artwork, doodles, and strange typesetting. Some will appreciate the book's creative format and others will find the style too different - not unlike the authors themselves.

For those unfamiliar with Claiborne and Haw, both are associated with what has been called the New Monasticism movement. Known for their emphasis on community, racial reconciliation, and peacemaking, many of these new monastics live and serve in what they call the "abandoned places of Empire."

Contradicting the popular image of monks as recluses, Claiborne seems to be everywhere these days. His first book, Irresistible Revolution, remains on Amazon's top 20 list of Christian Living books two years after publication. And in addition to regular speaking engagements, Claiborne and Haw are about to launch a nationwide tour in support of Jesus for President. In an evangelical subculture of bad suits and comb-overs on one end of the spectrum and techno-glitz on the other, you've got to wonder how these postmodern monks have found such a large audience. Jesus for President's combination of prophetic zeal and prankster's wit may be a clue.

The book is divided into four chapters, with the first two serving as a summary of the Scriptures, new monastic-style. A few tidbits:

-You can tell a true prophet because he or she will either get killed or get "a national holiday in their honor."

-Regarding Old Testament laws protecting strangers and aliens, "God would have some harsh things to say about laws prohibiting dumpster diving for food."

-Taking Jesus' yoke means we will be "liberated from the yoke of global capitalism [while] our sisters and brothers in Guatemala, Liberia, Iraq, and Sri Lanka will also be liberated."

As they recap the Biblical narrative, it is clear what Claiborne and Haw believe the church should be associated with. It is also clear that they believe the church's "love affair" with politics and the state has blinded us to the counter-cultural power of Jesus' teachings.

The Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes just don't seem like the best tools with which to lead an empire or a superpower. Jesus' truth is that if you want to save your life, you will lose it. It's a whole new way to view the age-old quest for success in the world. Giving your life away doesn't sound like a good plan for national security. I guess that's why we hear a lot about God's blessing and God expanding our territory, but very little about a cross or love for enemies.

While "expanding our territory" may be so 2001, it could be said that the church's preaching and writing often avoids the sacrificial themes found in much of Christ's teaching. Not only does the Sermon on the Mount not make for a good national security plan, apparently it doesn't make for a good sermon either.

But then maybe Jesus for President overstates the case. Perhaps the authors are reacting to their particular upbringing in the kind of church that neglected much of Jesus' teaching. Perhaps our churches really are committed to discipling citizens of the Kingdom of God rather than encouraging people to simply be good citizens of the state.

In parts two and three of this review I will look at some of the questions the second half of the book raises - particularly for those of us who lead churches of questionable morals enticed by the power of the state. For now, let's consider the big picture of Claiborne and Haw's thesis. Is it true that the church in America has fallen sway to the enticing promise of power and legitimacy from the state? According to the authors, this is not simply a matter of the church's having wandering eyes. It is a case of full-blown promiscuity. Is your congregation in bed with the state?

Reviewed by David Swanson. Come back next week for Part 2 of his review of Jesus for President.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 28, 2008 | Comments (32)

March 27, 2008

We're Going to "Shift"

In two weeks the Willow Creek Association is hosting a different kind of student ministries conference. Shift 2008 will address the cultural changes that are impacting the way we think about reaching the next generation. Out of Ur is excited to be hosting the online component of the conference.

From April 9 - 11, Ur contributors will be reporting live from South Barrington, Illinois, and moderating an online conversation based on what's presented at Shift. The lineup of speakers should give us plenty to talk about. They include: Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne, Mark Yaconelli, Kara Powell, Dan Kimball, and many others.

If you'll be attending Shift, we hope Out of Ur will be a resource to further your learning. And if you not going to be at the conference, then check out this video for an idea of what Ur will be addressing in the weeks ahead.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 27, 2008 | Comments (8)

March 25, 2008

Rejoicing in Rebuke

For the past couple of weeks, Ur-banites have been wrestling with questions about church membership. Below, Ken Sande, president of Peacemaker Ministries, takes one of the big questions head on: how does a church discipline its members?

On January 18, 2008, The Wall Street Journal Online published an article by Alexandra Alter on church discipline entitled Banned from Church. When Alexandra interviewed me before writing the article, I explained the biblical basis for church discipline and acknowledged how churches have sometimes neglected or abused the process. I also described how properly applied accountability can help people break free from sinful and destructive conduct. I even provided examples of churches that had used loving discipline to stop crooks from defrauding elderly people, protect lonely women from being seduced, and move child sexual abusers to confess their crimes ("A Better Way to Handle Abuse").

Despite our conversation, Alexandra chose to paint an entirely negative picture of discipline by using the example of a 71-year-old woman who had been removed from her church for questioning her pastor's leadership. Examples of protecting the elderly, the lonely, and the helpless from abuse apparently did not fit into her preconceived notions of church discipline.

I'm sad, but not surprised, when secular writers present a negative stereotype of church discipline. What troubles me far more is how many Christians share these distorted views.

Like Ms. Alter, most Christians seem to see church discipline either as a harsh, legalistic, and unloving process, which true followers of Christ should never practice, or (also well illustrated in the WSJ article) as a handy tool for getting rid of inquisitive, irritating, or challenging members.

Neither of these views is biblical.

The Bible never presents church discipline as being negative, legalistic or harsh. True discipline originates from God himself and is always presented as a sign of genuine love. Consider these three verses: "The Lord disciplines those he loves" (Heb. 12:6). "Blessed is the man you discipline, O LORD, the man you teach from your law" (Ps. 94:12). "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline" (Rev. 3:19).

God's discipline in the church, like the discipline in a good family, is intended to be primarily positive, instructive, and encouraging. This process, which is sometimes referred to as "formative discipline," involves preaching, teaching, prayer, personal Bible study, small group fellowship, and countless other enjoyable activities that challenge and encourage us to love and serve God more wholeheartedly.

On rare occasions, God's discipline, like the discipline in a family with growing children, also may have a corrective purpose. When we forget or disobey what God has taught us, he corrects us. One way he does this is to call the church to lead us back onto the right track. This process of "corrective" or "restorative" discipline is likened in Scripture to a shepherd seeking after a lost sheep (Matt. 18:12?13).

Thus, neither restorative nor corrective discipline is ever to be done in an unloving, vengeful, or self-righteous manner. It is always to be carried out in humility and love, with the goals of restoring someone to a close walk with Christ (Matt. 18:15; Gal. 6:1), protecting others from harm (1 Cor. 5:6), and showing respect for the honor and glory of God's name (1 Pet. 2:12).

Biblical discipline is similar to the discipline we value in other aspects of life. We admire parents who consistently teach their children how to behave properly and lovingly discipline them when they disobey. We value music teachers who bring out the best in their students by teaching them proper technique and consistently pointing out their errors, so they can play a piece properly. We applaud athletic coaches who diligently teach their players to do what is right and correct them when they fumble, so that the team works well together.

The same principles apply to the family of God. We, too, need to be taught what is right and to be lovingly corrected when we do something contrary to what God teaches us in his Word. When this is done as God commands, it usually leads to repentance, change, and restored relationships (see 2 Cor. 2:5?11). But when people harden their hearts, it is entirely appropriate for a church to take the rare but necessary step of removing them from fellowship, both as a warning about the gravity of their sin and as a means to protect the innocent and weak from harm.

Practically, it is important to consider such things as legal liability issues and how to secure informed consent to a church's disciplinary practices. But the most important questions to ask are: Why has the church bought into the world's view of church discipline? Why are we afraid of carrying out a process that Jesus himself has commanded us to follow in order to protect his church and retrieve his lost sheep? And what can we do to show our people and the world that redemptive church discipline is truly God's gift and blessing to his church?

Ken Sande is the president of Peacemaker Ministries?, a lawyer, and the author of The Peacemaker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict (Baker, 2004).

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 25, 2008 | Comments (13)

March 20, 2008

N. T. Wright on the Resurrection

At the National Pastors Conference in San Diego, our friend at PreachingToday.com, Brian Lowery, got to interview N. T. Wright about his latest book - Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church - and how it relates to preaching. Since we are all in the midst of the Easter journey, his words are timely, challenging, and above all else, hopeful. Here are a few excerpts. Read the full interview here.

Bishop N. T. Wright: [Studying] the Resurrection for an earlier book, Resurrection of the Son of God ? ended up rubbing my nose in the New Testament theology of new creation, and the fact that the new creation has begun with Easter. I discovered that when we do new creation - when we encourage one another in the church to be active in projects of new creation, of healing, of hope for communities - we are standing on the ground that Jesus has won in his resurrection.

?

For me there's no disjunction between preaching about the salvation which is ours in God's new age - the new heavens and new earth - and preaching about what that means for the present. The two go very closely together. If you have an eschatology that is nonmaterial, why bother with this present world? But if God intends to renew the world, then what we do in the present matters. That's 1 Corinthians 15:58!
?

The line I often use - which makes people laugh - is: "Heaven is important, but it's not the end of the world." In other words, resurrection means the new earth continues after people have gone to heaven. I put it this way for my audiences: "there is life after life after death." People are very puzzled by that.
?

So many people think preaching the Resurrection means doing a little bit of apologetics in the pulpit to prove it really is true. Others simply say, "Jesus is raised, therefore there is a life after death." This isn't the point! Those types of sermons may be necessary, but there's more to it than that. To preach the Resurrection is to announce the fact that the world is a different place, and that we have to live in that "different-ness." The Resurrection is not just God doing a wacky miracle at one time. We have to preach it in a way that says this was the turning point in world history.

Read the full interview with N. T. Wright at our sister site, PreachingToday.com.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 20, 2008 | Comments (9)

March 19, 2008

Save the Planet, Save Your Soul

In the early 1970s, conservative Protestants hit the streets to protest the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision to legalize abortion. When they arrived with signs in hand, they discovered that Catholics had beaten them to the picket line. Since then, Catholics and evangelicals have found common cause in protecting the unborn.

Last week, Catholics and evangelicals found another issue on which they may someday join forces: saving the planet.

Representatives of the Southern Baptist Convention, North America's largest Protestant denomination, recently changed their stance on global warming.

In the same week, the Vatican made a significantly bolder move when it added seven new transgressions to its list of deadly sins. The list includes, among other iniquities, polluting the environment.

The church, both Protestant and Catholic, appears a bit late in adopting its concern for the environment. After all, the crusade to save the planet was taken up first by secular scientists, hippies, and liberals (according to the good country people I grew up around). So, is the church's newfound environmental interest another example of our capitulation to culture, or have we genuinely rediscovered an important aspect of our Christian mandate to fill the earth and subdue it? If the interest is legitimate, what does it mean for your church?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 19, 2008 | Comments (26)

March 17, 2008

The Audacity of Rev. Jeremiah Wright

For months presidential hopeful Barack Obama has been trying to dispel rumors that he is a Muslim. The good news for the Illinois Senator is that virtually everyone in the country now knows he's a Christian. The bad news for Obama has been playing on YouTube and the cable news networks all week - video of his pastor condemning white America from the pulpit. The candidate's opponents have used his connection to the controversial pastor to question Obama's central message - that he can unite the country across racial and political lines.

Barack Obama has credited Reverend Jeremiah Wright for bringing him to faith in Christ. Wright has been his spiritual mentor for nearly 20 years, officiated at his wedding, and baptized his daughters. And until Friday, Wright had been serving as an advisor to the Obama presidential campaign. He left the campaign when his fiery statements from the pulpit brought too much heat on the senator. Some have called his remarks racist, un-American, and anti-Semitic. Barack Obama called them "completely unacceptable."

He told ABC News that Reverend Wright is like "an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with." And the candidate said Saturday, "I completely reject" the statements Wright made in those sermons.

Barack Obama's bestselling book, The Audacity of Hope, takes its title from one of Jeremiah Wright's sermons. We were surprised to discover the transcript of that message in our PreachingToday.com archives. We've posted the entire sermon for you to read here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 17, 2008 | Comments (31)

March 12, 2008

They Love the Church but Not the Institution (Part 2)

In the first part of this post, I discussed my suspicion that we have confused the church (the community of God's people) with the church institution (the 501c3 tax-exempt organization). This leads to a myopic understanding of Christian mission and service. We can slip into the idea that the only legitimate use of one's gifts, time, and energy is within the institutional structures of the church organization. In part two I want to explore why we may have fallen into this mindset, and how we can begin to think differently.

Without doubt there are numerous factors behind our exaltation of the church institution above the community of saints that created it, but one critical component may be cultural. In our consumer culture we've come to believe that institutions are the vessels of God's Spirit and power. (The reason for this is a subject I explore in more depth in my book due out next year.) The assumption is that with the right curriculum, the right principles, and the right programs, values, and goals, the Spirit will act to produce the ministry outcomes we envision. This plug-and-play approach to ministry makes God a predictable, mechanical device and it assumes his Spirit resides within organizations and systems rather than people.

You often see this mindset after the death or departure of a godly leader. A man or woman powerfully filled with the Spirit's breath demonstrates amazing ministry for Christ. Others are attracted to the leader and over time a community forms. But once the Spirit-filled leader is gone, those remaining assume his or her ministry can and should be perpetuated. The wind of the Spirit may have shifted, but they want it to keep blowing in the same direction. So, an institution is established based on the departed leader's purpose, vision, and values. If these are rigorously maintained, it is believed, then the same Spirit-empowered results that were evident in the leader's life will continue through the institution. Many ministries and denominations originated in just this way--with success defined not merely by faithfulness but by longevity.

But what we often fail to see is that the Spirit was not unleashed in the leader's life because he or she had the right values or employed the right strategy. The "fire of God," as Dallas Willard calls it, was in their soul because of their intense love of Jesus Christ. Rather than focusing on reproducing a leader's methodology by constructing an institution, we ought to focus on reproducing his or her devotion to God - but that is a far more challenging task. As Willard writes, "One cannot write a recipe for this, for it is a highly personal matter, permitting of much individual variation and freedom. It also is dependent upon grace - that is, upon God acting in our lives to accomplish what we cannot accomplish on our own."

This is what highly institutional consumer Christianity fails to grasp. It reduces ministry to a predictable machine where the right input results in the desired output, and then invites religious consumers to engage the test-engineered institution for their spiritual nourishment. It is also the assumption behind a good number of the ministry books, conferences, and resources we produce every year. But I don't believe the Spirit of God is laying dormant waiting for the institutional church to compose the right BHAG (Big Hairy Audacious Goal) so he can be unleashed the way a pagan god is conjured by an incantation. God is a person, not a force. And his Spirit does not empower programs or inhabit institutions but people who were created in God's image to be the vessels of his glory.

As I stated in part one, this does not mean structures and organizations are evil. It simple means that institutional structures should exist to support the Spirit-filled people so they can advance the mission of God through human relationships. It's not about either people or the institution, but about getting the order right. The institution exists to resource the people. People do not exist to resource the institution.

My Honda Civic serves as a helpful metaphor. Decades ago Honda began using an engineering philosophy referred to as "man-max, machine-min." The idea was to design cars by allocating maximum space for the human occupants and minimal space for the mechanical components. It sounds intuitive, but in the 1970s - the age of gas-guzzling land yachts - it was a radical approach for an automaker. Since then the notion of ergonomics and user-friendly technology has become pervasive.

What if we approached our mission with a similar philosophy: "man-max, institution-min"? This is not an anti-institutional philosophy of ministry any more than Honda is an anti-mechanical car manufacturer. It simply recognizes that people are both the instruments and objects of God's mission in the world. Human beings are the vessels of his Spirit, not organizations or institutions. This would mean asking new questions when the church (the community of believers) seeks to advance the mission of the Gospel:

Not: How do we grow the institution?
But: How do we grow people?

Not: How do we motivate people to serve in the church/institution?
But: How do we equip people and release them to serve outside the church/institution?

Not: How do we convince more people to come?
But: How do we inspire more people to go?

Not: How many programs can the church start?
But: How many programs have other churches started that we can help support?

Not: How many people have a committed relationship with our institution?
But: How many people have a committed relationship with another brother or sister in Christ?

Not: How do we make people dependent on the institution for their growth?
But: How do we equip people to grow independent of the institution?

Not: How much revenue can the institution generate?
But: How much revenue can the institution give away?

Not: How many buildings, pastors, and programs are necessary for the institution to have maximum exposure in the community?
But: How few buildings, pastors, and programs are necessary for God's people to have time and energy to engage the community?

How these questions are answered will vary from place to place and church to church. How the Spirit of God leads one community of believer to engage the mission will look different than another. I'm not attempting to prescribe a single institutional model as normative for all. What I'm trying to do is challenge the assumptions behind the pervasive belief that sees institutions rather than people as the vessels and instruments of God's power in the world. Learning to think "man-max, institution-min" may be the first step toward becoming a truly missional, rather than institutional, community.

Sign up for the free Out of Ur newsletter here.

Posted by Skye Jethani at March 12, 2008 | Comments (26)

March 10, 2008

They Love the Church but Not the Institution

Dan Kimball, a regular contributor to Leadership and Out of Ur, has written a book titled, They Like Jesus but Not the Church: Insights from emerging generations. The book chronicles the attitudes of younger seekers - they feel a strong affection for Jesus but they harbor distrust, even disgust, for the church.

I can relate to that perspective. In college I studied in the comparative religion department of a secular university and was closely involved with a parachurch ministry. During those years my fascination with Christ and my devotion to him was budding. But I carried a lingering resentment toward the church. For a number of legitimate (in my mind) and illegitimate reasons, I had pushed the church to periphery of my life. I saw it as a superfluous appendage to faith; like a sixth finger or third nipple - pretty harmless but best removed or kept hidden to avoid embarrassment.

That sentiment changed in me, however, through prayerfully reading the New Testament. I came to see that is was impossible to love Jesus but not his church. As the "Body of Christ," the community of believers is at the center of God's mission and work in the world. As Saint Augustine says, "You cannot have God as your Father and not have the Church as your mother."

I repented. I prayed for weeks asking God to fill me with a love for his church that I knew was absent from my soul. In time my heart caught up with the biblical truth my mind had already conceded.

Fifteen years later I now find myself struggling with a new dilemma. As a young Christian I loved Jesus but not the church. As a more mature believer, I now describe myself as one who loves the church but not the institution. Let me explain.

I genuinely love the church; the community of God's people who are together striving, and often failing, to pursue Christ and his mission. I love the men, women, and children that I share my life with, worship with, and serve alongside. I have even found myself feeling an unexpected love (although not always) for a critical church member complaining in my office, or the cantankerous person who seems to delight in disagreeing with my perspective on even mundane issues. Admittedly, mine is an imperfect love of the church, but it is real.

What I don't love is the 501c3 tax-exempt institution we incorrectly refer to as "the church." For decades we've heard the old adage, "the church isn't a building, it's the people." We've come to recognize that the brick and mortar structure isn't the church, but somehow we haven't had the same epiphany about the intangible structures of the institution. In many peoples' imaginations the church remains a bundle of programs, committees, policies, teams, ministries, initiatives, budgets, and events. Most people speak of "the church" the same way they refer to "the government" - it's a hierarchy of leaders managing an organization that they engage but remain apart from.

I see this dichotomy most clearly when it comes to volunteer service. As church leaders we often feel compelled to draw more people into the institution's programs to serve. I have, like many of you, scanned the membership roster and marked possible recruits who are not presently "serving the church." Those focused on the financial end of things keep track of who is "giving to the church." Even the use of words like "churched" and "unchurched" testifies to the centrality of the institution in our imagination and mission.

But is it possible for faithful and obedient Christians to be using their spiritual gifts, actively serving others, advancing God's mission, and financially giving their wealth outside the institutional structures we've created? Are we able and willing to celebrate these things, or has our vision become so institutionally bound that we can only champion what occurs under the banner of our ministry's logo?

Sometimes I wonder if we have so confused these two entities - the church and the institution - that our mission becomes the growth and advancement of the later rather than the former. When attendance at a church program is large we say, "the church is growing," and when attendance is poor we say, "the church is failing." But is that really accurate? Is the church growing or failing, or merely the institution? Can we even tell the difference anymore?

I am not anti-institution. I am not one of those rabid fluid-organic-anti-linear-pomo-loosy goosey-anti-establishment church people. I believe structure is necessary. Structure is good and even God-ordained. We see organization and structure from the very foundation of the church in Acts. But these structures always existed to serve God's people in the fulfillment of their mission. Today, it seems like God's people exist to serve the institution in the fulfillment of its mission (which is usually to become a bigger institution). Most of the curricula available to pastors on spiritual gifts and service focus on getting people to serve within their institution. Rarely does a church recruit, equip, and release saints to serve the mission outside its own immediate structure. (Imago Dei Community in Portland, Oregon, is a refreshing exception.)

This is the heart of my dilemma. I sometimes feel the energies and time I pour into the institution doesn't translate into God's people being more equipped for the ministry of loving God and neighbor. Could my spiritual and personal resources bear more fruit if poured into real people (the church), rather than into the institutional trough they feed from on Sundays? I'm haunted by that question.

I know some of you will dismiss me as a cynic that's spent too many evenings away from his young family trapped in church business meetings. Touch?. But the ranks of those who love the church but not the institution is growing. Willow Creek's REVEAL study, which has been the focus of relentless conversation on this blog, testifies to the dissatisfaction more mature believers feel toward the institution. I don't believe they're rejecting the church. The study shows these believers continue to grow spiritually by serving others and through meaningful relationships with other believers. In other words, they are growing by engaging the church. What they've realized they can do without is the institution. George Barna's 2005 book, Revolution, documents a similar trend.

This is my dilemma. I love the church but not the institution. I want to give my life to serving Christ's people and equipping them to accomplish the work of ministry. I want to use my Spirit-given gifts to build up the Body of Christ and edify the holy catholic Church whose faithful members surround us as a great cloud of witnesses. But I don't want to give my life to a temporal institution. For the sake of argument I've constructed this as an either-or dichotomy, which it is not. I can be a part of the church (institution) and still faithfully pour my life into the church (God's people). Discovering exactly how to do that remains the problem.

Continue reading part two of "They Love the Church but Not the Institution."

Sign up for the free Out of Ur newsletter here.

Posted by Skye Jethani at March 10, 2008 | Comments (25)

March 6, 2008

Out of Context: John M. Buchanan

"Preachers need to be very careful before claiming they are God's mouthpiece. I think the preacher needs to be suggestive and not declarative. There are times in history when people (like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King) were called with some authority to say, 'This is wrong.' But we need to be cautious."

-John M. Buchanan pastors Fourth Presbyterian Church in Chicago. He is also editor and publisher of The Christian Century. Taken from "Biblical Authority & Today's Preacher" in the Winter 2008 issue of Leadership journal. To see the quote IN context, you'll need to see the print version of Leadership. To subscribe, click on the cover of Leadership on this page.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 6, 2008 | Comments (10)

March 4, 2008

Let the Work Begin

The pastors who attended last week's National Pastors Convention have now returned to their churches across North America. David Swanson presents his final reflections on the convention and the issues it brought to his attention.

Now that the National Pastors Convention has ended, I'd like to offer my highly unscientific observations about some trends I observed this past week.

The Denominational Dilemma
During the conference, the Pew Forum released its U. S. Religious Landscape Survey, which demonstrates the ease with which people move between denominations. According to the survey, 44 percent of Americans have made a significant shift in their religious affiliation, whether moving between faiths and denominations or detaching completely from any tradition. This week different presenters have noted that this survey presents trends many of us have experienced in our churches.

In many ways, this conference, with its speakers and worship leaders from many denominations and backgrounds, reflected the Pew research. Some there considered this fluidity a positive development because it allows people to experience more of the Christian tradition. Others were wringing their hands, claiming this "pick and choose" mentality keeps believers from being deeply rooted in the Faith. What most agreed must be addressed is number of those reflected in the survey who leave the faith all together.

A Place for a New Generation
On Wednesday I attended a session about how churches can attract and retain the younger generation. I was surprised to find this session absolutely packed: church leaders were standing in the back of the room and sitting on the floor hoping for some insight into this generational dilemma. From my vantage point I watched the room of mostly 40 and 50-year-olds furiously scribbling notes as the two 30-year-old presenters spoke about the traits of their generation.

It was clear from the popularity of this session, and others like it, that pastors and other church leaders have awoken to the disconnect between their church subcultures and those who have grown up in a postmodern environment. But what will this interest lead to? Will churches look for new programs and methods to attract this generation? Or will they be willing to adapt at significant levels, so that a new generation will see the church as a worthy investment of their lives? Time will tell.

The Global Church
Throughout the week, we were we addressed by church leaders from South America, Europe, and Africa. We had the choice to attend seminars with titles like: "Redefining Power: Finding Our Place in a Global Church"; "Hispanic Integration in the USA: We Can be United Under the Cross"; "Two-Way Mission: When Globalization Changes the Way We Think." It appears the American church may be realizing that the influence of the global church has shifted away from the West.

The issues these global leaders presented raise many questions for those of us who have now returned to our churches in America's small towns, suburbs, and cities. How do we lead our congregations in ways that honor Christian family around the world, whose experience of faithful discipleship may be radically different from ours? How do we equip our churches to face the realities of a globalized existence? How might we engage with the vision and leadership of the church in the global South?

I look forward to your comments.

- David Swanson

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 4, 2008 | Comments (13)