June 30, 2008

Cartoon: Church-A-Plex

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 30, 2008 | Comments (16) | TrackBack

June 27, 2008

Tuning Out Christian Radio

It's official: I'm tuning out of Christian radio.

When some of the Christian radio stations in my area shifted their play lists from Southern gospel, country Christian and syndicated preaching, I took notice. I was thrilled to have airwave access to what I considered great Christian music. And I found myself tuning in more often.

But even my favorite stations have started losing me in recent months. What led me to reprogram my car radio and cancel my monthly $10 pledges? Three things.

First, I've noticed a growing level of - how shall I say this? - sappiness. Yeah, that's the word. It's not so much the music that's sappy (some of it is); it's the commentary, news stories, and contests that combine to present Christianity as synonymous with sentimentality. I live in a real world that's not always positive and encouraging, so Christian radio's steady diet of sugary spirituality doesn't promote sustaining faith.

What's more, I've noticed Christian radio becoming, for me, a sort of faith vending machine. Need some encouragement? Just push a button! I suspect that too frequent exposure to otherwise fine music hackneys that music and causes spiritual satisfaction to become one more commodity in my life. This makes real corporate worship feel like an imitation of the canned radio versions of the songs. Plus, it keeps me from developing truly nourishing habits. After all, who needs real corporate worship and challenging formative disciplines when I can just tune my radio dial and get a quick God fix?

Most importantly, I detect Christian radio has succumbed to consumerism. An on-air promo for one station's Friends and Family Music Cruise pushed me over the edge. Here's an excerpt from their website:

This year, besides reserving the entire cruise for [our] listener family, everything's bigger and better - the ship, the exclusive music concerts, the comedy shows, the speakers, and the endless opportunities for having fun! Did someone say swim and spa? That's right, you'll have it all!

Is it just me, or are "bigger," "better," and "having it all" actually not congruent with the One who made Himself nothing and was obedient unto death? Plus, the station boasts that you can finance the cruise on your credit card. I'm a fun loving guy, but encouraging indebtedness for an experience that appeals to and promotes selfishness - under the guise of being a godly experience - is nothing to laugh at.

Buried beneath my growing dissatisfaction for Christian radio, I find four nuggets of caution for those of us responsible for ministry leadership.

First, Christianity is interesting, but it's not amusing. After all, "to amuse" basically means to divert and cause someone to not think. Church does not exist to take our minds off the real world, but to focus our attention on God, His plan for the world, and our place in His plan. It's an interesting plan requiring focus and attention. As a pastor, I often tried too hard to avoid being boring and (gasp!) irrelevant. But in avoiding those dangers, I sometimes fell into the ditch of mere amusement. Christian leaders need to take caution against spinning the gospel as a spectacle that holds our attention but does not hold us accountable.

Second, we must resist presenting immediate fixes for felt needs. After all, salvation and spiritual growth are not commodities that can be produced, marketed, promoted, and perfected for mass satisfaction. Jesus is not a hamburger, a snappy set of sandals, or an iPhone. Discipleship is a committed relationship with Jesus that gradually forms us into the likeness of our Creator. We must take care in how we present the gospel, lest Christ come off as a product we consume instead of the Lord we obey. While more people may buy into a Jesus who makes us happy, we are called to preach a Jesus who makes us holy.

Third, lowest common denominators tend to push us off course. Just because lots of church members (and would-be church members) believe God is for this or that political party, we cannot taint the gospel message with partisan political appeal in order to gain the masses. Likewise, just because obsessive parents demand a children's program that's on par with Disney doesn't mean allocation of tithes and offerings toward such a ministry is wise or warranted. "Give people what they want" makes a poor church motto.

Finally, it's all too easy to generate and get caught up in hype. We Christian leaders can get stoked about the "big" things we're doing and lose focus on our core purpose. Hype is not hope, and it is not a route to Christian hope. So when we build a bigger building, plan a super outreach event, orchestrate an awesome Easter service, or pull together a marvelous missionary experience, let's not get high on the hype that can take on a life of its own.

I'm humbled to realize that for all my critique of Christian radio, I've made many of the same mistakes in my own ministry. So while I may be tuning out of Christian radio for a while, I'm thankful that my departure reminds me how we can inadvertently do bad while aiming for good.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 27, 2008 | Comments (63)

June 26, 2008

Audio Ur: Dan Kimball's Take on Being "Missional"

A few weeks ago Skye Jethani had the opportunity to speak with Alan Hirsch about the definition of "missional." Hirsch expressed concern that the word was being redefined and its true meaning lost. This week Skye sat down with Dan Kimball, pastor of Vintage Faith Church and a regular contributor to Leadership and Out of Ur. Kimball had a slightly different take on the word, and he believes a more traditional, attractional, model of church can also be missional. This podcast jumps right into the conversation between Jethani and Kimball.

To download this episode of Audio Ur, click here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 26, 2008 | Comments (2)

June 25, 2008

Out of Ur Repents?

In October 2007, Out of Ur posted what has now become a much read and much quoted commentary that we titled "Willow Creek Repents?" It was based on comments that Bill Hybels and Greg Hawkins, Willow Creek's executive pastor, presented at The Leadership Summit 2007, announcing the release of Reveal, a book emerging from an extensive study of Willow and other churches.

Earlier this month, Bill Hybels and Jim Mellado, president of the Willow Creek Association, posted a video on YouTube objecting to the "misinformation" published by Out of Ur and our sister publication Christianity Today regarding Reveal.

The week following the release of the video, I went to South Barrington to meet with leaders of Willow Creek to hear their concerns face to face, which was a very helpful experience. They shared with me new approaches to ministry prompted by Reveal that are in process and things they are not ready to have published. I will honor their trust. I certainly affirm the steps Willow is taking to more effectively turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Christ.

I do need to respond publicly to two items that were aired in the YouTube video.

1. What does it mean to "repent"?

In the video, Bill Hybels says of the title "Willow Creek Repents?":

"I wondered, What horrible, immoral thing have I done? I think it was a poor choice of words, actually. . . . I don't think when you make a strategic adjustment, it qualifies under the term repent. I think every evangelical knows that's kind of a loaded-up term, and I think someone wanted to get some action on a blog, and I think it was very unfortunate and quite disingenuous to title the article that way."

Okay. It did get attention on the blog, and the term provided Willow critics in the blogosphere a chance to gloat. But the gloaters were misreading both the blog post and the Reveal study. We have high regard for the ministry at Willow Creek and feel terrible that our wording led to a misrepresentation of what was actually happening. For that we apologize.

At Out of Ur, a blog for pastors engaging today's culture, we assumed our readers would know that repent means (literally) "to turn" or "to change your mind." Our editors have been reading authors in spiritual formation that suggest repentance is not just a dramatic shift "from sin to holiness," but instead repenting is a daily realigning of life to follow Jesus, a shift "from off course to on course." This is the meaning that comes to our minds first.

Yes, a common connotation of "repent" is "to renounce sinful ways." That's NOT what we meant, as the blog post itself bears out. Out of Ur intended the word repent to refer to a mid-course correction to follow Christ, which is the way Greg Hawkins took it in his follow-up post when he wrote, "repenting is not a new experience for us. We've made a number of major course corrections over the years."

We do NOT think Willow Creek needs to "renounce sinful ways" for their pre-Reveal strategies. The real breakthrough of the Reveal initiative is in fact the discovery of a better way to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to reach people far from God and equip them to live Christ-Centered lives. Willow is using this information to get better at that mission.

We thought our readers would understand our use of the word repent. But many took it differently.

2. Is Willow shifting from its seeker orientation?
.
The YouTube video emphasized Willow's 32-year commitment to the same mission statement: "to turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Christ." The video also suggested that Out of Ur's coverage was written "without a proper understanding of what we're actually doing these days."

That's true. Things are different now than when we wrote our October blog post. And we did not present the whole picture. We emphasized the changes that Willow was announcing at the Summit; we did not give sufficient space to the things that were not changing. That's a besetting sin of us journalists, I'm afraid - assuming that change is more newsworthy than continuity.

When Christianity Today wrote recently that "After modeling a seeker-sensitive approach for three decades, Willow Creek Community Church now plans to gear its weekend services toward mature believers," we did not describe the church's approach with enough precision.

In Greg Hawkins' October post, he wrote:

"Is Willow re-thinking its seeker focus? Simple answer ? no ? Willow is not just seeker-focused. We are seeker-obsessed. The power of Reveal's insights for our seeker strategy is the evangelistic strength uncovered in the more mature segments."

In April, Hawkins commented further on the ways Willow is including mature believers in its approach to reach seekers.

Our coverage was based on statements in the Reveal book and on Hawkin's comments in the April post. Turns out we were wrong, however, to interpret those comments to mean that Willow's services were shifting focus from seekers to more mature believers. Now, in hindsight, we see that what's changed is not the focus on seekers, but the assumptions of what a "seeker service" is. For thirty years, the prevailing assumption has been that seekers want anonymity and do not want to participate in worship. Now we understand that Willow is as seeker-focused as ever, but the definition of "seeker service" is changing. Willow is now finding ways for seekers to participate in worship, to be connected and known. And even more innovations are in the works.

The story of Reveal's implications is a work in process. In the future, we will be more precise in our descriptions of what Willow is doing, and we look forward to telling more of the story as it becomes available. We're determined to get it right.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 25, 2008 | Comments (27) | TrackBack

June 23, 2008

Cartoon: The Right Translation

Cartoon by Larry Thomas

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 23, 2008 | Comments (6)

June 20, 2008

Church Pirates Beware (Part 2)

UrL: Some people are taking issue with the idea that a pastor's sheep can be stolen because the sheep really belong to Christ. Where do you think the church member's loyalty should reside - with Christ, the church, the pastor, or all three?

Ed Young Jr.: I agree that church members and attendees don't belong to the pastor. They are God's people, called by him to serve him above all. Pastors are called to shepherd them, not own them.

The issue of pirating, though, isn't about the members' loyalty or about attendees finding another church. We tell people all the time that if Fellowship Church isn't for them, they should leave. And we lovingly direct them to any one of the phenomenal churches in our area.

The issue with pirating is all about what happens in the church leadership - specifically the staff. I've discovered there are several types of people around you: those who are with you, those who are for you, and those who use you. Pirates are the ones you thought were with you, but who end up using you for their own agenda. They are the people you, as a leader, pour your heart into. They're the people you laugh with, cry with, and share your life with, the ones you mold and shape.

Pirating rears its ugly head when those leaders that you cultivate work behind your back (and the church's back) maliciously and intently to gather their own "kingdom" and head out the door. The real issue is betrayal.

I have no problem with leaders being cultivated in the church and then being sent out to start new churches. But the key is that they are sent. When someone on your staff usurps the authority of the church, starts a rogue movement, and does their own thing, then you are dealing with a pirate.

UrL: Employees leaving a corporation to begin their own business often sign a non-competition clause requiring them to operate a predetermined distance away. What do you think is an appropriate geographic distance for a church planter to operate who was nurtured and given their start at Fellowship Church?

EY: This is an interesting question, because it brings up a core issue that many people seem to be missing in this whole thing: ethics.

In the corporate world, it is illegal to work for someone and, at the same time, work to steal their clients. You are getting paid by that person and pulling the rug from underneath them at the same time. You will go to jail for that. And that's why there are non-competition clauses.

I'm not saying that the church should be run like a business. I'm not saying that we should model everything we do after the corporate world. I don't think we need to sign non-competition clauses. I'm simply pointing out that the ethics of this situation are all out of whack.

In the church, our ethics should be so far above the corporate world that competition isn't even an issue ("above reproach" sound familiar?). To use the old adage, there are plenty of fish in the sea. It's not about placing some building in a certain position on a map. It's about ethics and how you go about fulfilling your call.

UrL: Is competition always bad? Lyle Schaller wrote a book titled From Cooperation from Competition in which he calls for more churches to compete in the same area for the same people. This, he says, will cause all the churches to improve their ministries. (It's free-market capitalism meets seeker-driven church.) Should we be upset by the presence of a competitive church down the street, or should we celebrate and welcome it?

EY: Simply put, no, competition isn't bad. I believe it helps us become better at what we do. It's the thing that drives us. Everything we do at Fellowship is about competition. We're in competition against the evil forces in the world to reach lives. That's the same battle we all face. But pirating has nothing to do with competition.

We celebrate every church that is preaching and teaching God's Word and going after those far from God. We're all called to depopulate hell by making it hard for people to go there.

But so many of these comments are about sheep swapping; they are so concerned about the competition down the street that they miss the point of reaching the lost. I'm not worried about competition. Again, there are plenty of people for every church.

We are here to reach the lost. And I think every church leader would agree with that. But when someone in your staff becomes a pirate, the mission is jeopardized. The focus shifts from reaching out to the world for Christ. Instead, we have to deal with issues that Christ never wanted us to face when he prayed in John 17, "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you."

It ultimately comes down to one question: who are you reaching? Because pirates are all about reaching into the church first for their own agenda rather than reaching out to the world to save lives and fulfill Christ's agenda.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 20, 2008 | Comments (35)

June 16, 2008

Taking The Shack to the Shed

A graduate professor of mine liked to say that every attempt to explain the Trinity is heresy - every metaphor overemphasizes either God's one-ness or his three-ness. In his bestselling novel, The Shack, William P. Young tries to explain the Trinity. You can see where this is going.

Now currently at number eleven in book sales at Amazon.com and number nine on the USA Today Top 50 Books list, The Shack began as the self-published debut novel of an unknown writer. It has sold like hotcakes: somewhere around 500,000 copies (depending on who you ask) in less than a year. However you feel about the book, the story of its success is remarkable; all the more so considering that the content is unashamedly Christian.

To summarize, the shape of the novel is this: Mackenzie (Mack) Phillips' youngest daughter, Missy, is abducted and brutally murdered during a family vacation. Following Missy's death, Mack, who has always had a somewhat tenuous relationship with God, falls into what he calls "the Deep Sadness." One wintry day, Mack receives a letter from God (in his mailbox) asking him to meet God in the shack where Missy's bloody dress - the only evidence of her murder - was recovered. The rest of the book is a conversation between Mack and the Trinity.

Young does two things I wouldn't advise fiction writers to do: 1) depict the Trinity in bodily form and 2) put words in the Trinity's mouth. My fear would be that such attempts would result in hokey prose - and, to be honest, that happens from time to time in The Shack.

But several notable Christian thinkers have more serious charges for Young. Chuck Colson is disturbed by "the author's low view of Scripture." Al Mohler is more specific:

This book includes undiluted heresy?It is a deeply troubling book?It is intended, undoubtedly, as a way of trying to bring about some kind of redefinition or new understanding of the Christian faith?The main character says at one point that he now understands that everything he learned at seminary was basically all wrong.

Mark Driscoll, who is concerned that Young's vision of God the Father is an African-American woman called "Papa," says, It's goddess worship. If God the Father is really God the Mother, that changes everything?If God reveals himself to us as father, we are to honor him as father."

Blogger Tim Challies is concerned the fiction format is manipulative:

Throughout the book there is this kind of subversive strain teaching that new and fresh revelation is much more relevant and important than the kind of knowledge we gain in sermons or seminaries or Scripture?At several points I felt as if the author was encouraging the reader to deconstruct what they know of Christian theology and to embrace something new. But the faith Young reconstructs is simply not the faith of the Bible.

As with all such things, there are those who found the book worthwhile, if not exceptional. Eugene Peterson is among these. His now-ubiquitous endorsement reads:

When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of The Shack. This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his. It's that good!

Theologian John Stackhouse thinks that, despite the book's theological challenges, nevertheless:

The Shack brings us pictures of the triune God that seem to me to convey a great deal of Biblical truth. Like any picture, they are partial?Does this communication of God say everything? Of course not: how could it? More to the point, does it say all that might be said on its topics in perfect proportion? Why should it? God is communicating to this audience at this time in order to achieve these purposes. God is not speaking to everyone everywhere. When he did that, he had to put together a very complicated book with a very complicated person, Jesus Christ, at its centre. Furthermore, we appreciate the accommodational limitations of William P. Young's book itself. It, too, can't say everything, nor can it say what it says for the ages and for everyone.

Regardless of how you feel about it, it seems The Shack is destined for fame, if only for a short while. I'm sure your congregations will want to know what you think of it. So we'd like to hear from you. Have you read The Shack? What did you think? Are you recommending it to your people? Are you discouraging them from reading it? Please remember to keep your comments civil and short. We want to hear from as many people as possible, so we won't post comments over 1500 characters.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 16, 2008 | Comments (134) | TrackBack

June 15, 2008

Cartoon: Church Pirate

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 15, 2008 | Comments (10)

June 13, 2008

Ed Young Jr: Church Pirates Beware

When I posted the "church pirate" video on my blog last month, I knew there would be response. I hoped there would be. And based on the amount of response I've received, this topic is one that reaches deep and cuts close for many, many church leaders.

I didn't shoot this video as a personal vendetta. This wasn't based on some fleeting emotion. It wasn't done out of spite. I did this video because pirating is something that I have seen happen to far too many churches.

Too many people have joined the movement of a certain church only to later siphon resources (staff, money, etc.) from that church and begin their own work just down the street. Rather than partnering, they are pillaging. And it has led to the damage and destruction of many good churches and great church leaders.

My hope is that as light is shed on this controversial and often taboo topic we, as church leaders, can have some healthy discussion about the reality of planting versus pirating. And as the dialogue continues, I pray that we can all join together to support those leaders who are truly starting new churches the right way and finally keep the pirates at bay.

-Ed Young Jr. is the founding and senior pastor of Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 13, 2008 | Comments (134)

June 12, 2008

Audio Ur: Multi-Ethnic Church Staff

How multi-ethnic should your church staff be? Should churches have hiring quotas to ensure diversity? In the spring issue of Leadership, Mark DeYmaz, pastor of Mosaic Church in Little Rock, Arkansas, discusses the importance of being intentional about diversity.

In this podcast Skye Jethani , David Swanson , and Matt Tebbe discuss DeYmaz's article and what happened to all of the racial reconciliation rhetoric from the 90's.

To download this episode of Audio Ur, click here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 12, 2008 | Comments (1)

June 10, 2008

Fitch and Driscoll: Round Two

In his first post, David Fitch argued that all converts are not necessarily the same in terms of time and context, and that emerging/emergent, neo-monastic communities, and megachurches each minister in different contexts and, in some cases, with different purposes. In this post, David responds to a few of the many comments his post inspired.

From Leonard: If missional churches don't last for more than three years, then someone needs to rethink how they are planted, who is planting them, and exactly what their mission is. If churches are not making converts in this culture then we need to ask hard questions about boldness, methods, and not being distracted from the truth that brings grace.

DF: Leonard, I think we agree. I think it is the expectations placed upon missional planters from exterior sources that inhibit their success. We need to prepare missional church plant leaders to set entirely different expectations (including being bi-occupational, indeed self supporting). Your second point reverts back to my suggestion that converts take more time in post-Christendom.

From Mike h: 1) One of the beauties of the organic church is not how difficult it is, but how simple. I don't see how developing a complex megachurch is easier than starting an organic missional community. One difficulty may be getting the community large enough to support the "planter." Is that the goal?

2) The author states "The conversion of a post-Christendom "pagan," who has had little to no exposure to the language and story of Christ in Scripture, may require five years of relational immersion before a decision would even make sense." Would it take any less time for a megachurch to reach them than for a missional community?

DF: Mike, again, I think we agree. If church is organic and self-sustaining from the beginning, it should by definition be less difficult. Nevertheless in my experience, most church planters are not prepared for the financial and social pressures they will face doing church missionally. I argue for a sustainable pastorate whose support from the church comes only from necessity, as he/she must be released for more ministry at the call of the community.

Concerning your second question, the dynamic of a church of 2?3000 or more often attracts a person already familiar with the gospel. A pagan, however, who knows nothing about orthodox Christianity would likely not be attracted to a large service and would need a whole new level of immersion in the gospel for a decision to be anything more than a consumerist one. Statistics to this effect have been borne out in places like C. Pritchard's study of seeker services.

From Willy: Everyone seems to have a different definition of what it means to be "missional." To my mind Mars Hill is a "missional" church, in so far as they look at themselves as being missionaries to their locality.

DF: I agree, Willy. All churches that are Christian in anyway would assume they are missional on your terms. I am following the work of Darrell Guder, et al, Alan Roxburgh (Allelon), Alan Hirsch, and Michael Frost in my definition of "missional." These authors emphasize incarnational forms of church over attractional; the church as Missio Dei over mission as program; organic forms of missionary living in neighborhoods over ministry set in a building; and many other notions they perceive as New Testament forms of church as a minority presence in society. When you describe missional in these terms, Mars Hill simply doesn't fit. I'm not accusing of them of being apostate or lacking an ecclesiology. I just assume a church with systems and organization sufficient to funnel 7,000 people through their walls cannot operate in this missional fashion.

From Willy again: Oh, and another thing, when Jesus simply called the disciples with the words "follow me," he didn't seem too worried that they were making a "consumerist decision."

DF: Jesus asked them to "hate their families" and "pick up their cross" and follow him (Luke 14:26-27). Enough said.

From Melody: Jesus' ministry lasted for only three years before he ascended back into heaven, and look at the number of converts in that time. He walked up to total strangers and said, "Come, follow Me," and they did! No building relationships first. All the relationships Jesus had with believers occurred after their conversions. In fact, according to Matthew 4:17, the first word out of Jesus mouth when he began his ministry was, "Repent!" The apostles got right out there and preached the gospel to a culture that had NEVER heard any of it. People were converted on the spot. Wow!

DF: We are not given much information in the Gospels on Jesus' background relationships with the men that became his disciples. Some who became his disciples after the ascension were indeed his very own brothers, James among them. It is very likely he knew all the men to whom he said, "Come, follow me." Even if he didn't know any of them, all of the disciples and the vast majority of converts - even into the Gentile territories - were Jews well schooled in the history of Israel and the coming of the Messiah. They knew the entire story and what they were saying yes to!

From Dan Kimball: I was on staff at a megachurch for over 10 years, and we planted a new church 4 years ago. Whether in a large or small church, when you listen to the stories of how the Spirit moved in the person life, each story is unique. The Spirit does the convicting and drawing and uses all types of things, from music to conversations, altar calls, Scripture etc. That happens in small churches, medium-sized churches, and megachurches.

DF: Dan, I certainly agree that every conversion story is unique and that the Spirit is responsible for each conversion. What I am pointing to here is the difference between someone converted from a previous background in Christianity and someone who has had no knowledge of or language with which to understand what following Jesus as Lord might mean.

When someone has known the whole story of God in Christ as taught, say, in a high-church catechesis but never made a personal decision, they nevertheless have sufficient background to understand who Jesus is. When someone has no knowledge of Christ, however, except maybe from the Oprah show, the challenge to invite him or her into Christ is totally different.

My experience is that the majority of attractional church conversions are of the first kind. Statistics suggest that the majority of megachurches land sons and daughters of high-church traditions who left and went astray. There is nothing wrong with these conversions. The other kind of conversion just takes longer. Statistics and missionary histories that study pioneer missions in people groups who have no exposure to Christ all suggest that post-Christendom conversions are different, requiring more time and relationship investment. In other words, if we send a missionary team into a Muslim country, we should not expect a 6,000-member church in 6 years.

Having said that, all conversions are good and are a glory to God. It is just when we say that emerging/missional churches do not have conversions, we should be able to make some of these finer discernments. Continued Blessings on your ministry at Vintage Faith Church!

Peace to all, and thanks for the great conversation.

David Fitch

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 10, 2008 | Comments (12)

June 6, 2008

Bill Hybels Responds to REVEAL

In a video released on June 5, Bill Hybels discusses the "unfortunate" reporting that has revolved around Willow Creek's REVEAL survey. The video refers to a recent Christianity Today article and Out of Ur posts as examples of "misinformation." You can watch Hybels' full interview with Jim Mellado, the president of the Willow Creek Association, here.

After watching the video you may want to read the articles in question and post your feedback:

Willow Creek Repents?: Why the most influential church in America now says "We made a mistake."

Willow Implements REVEAL
Greg Hawkins tells about the big changes Willow Creek is making.

Willow Creek's 'Huge Shift'
Influential megachurch moves away from seeker-sensitive services.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 6, 2008 | Comments (17)

This is My Low-Carb Body, Broken for You

Imagine the scene. Jesus has gathered with his followers in the upper room. He takes the bread, breaks it, and gives thanks. Then he says, "This is my body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me." Then, in the same way, he takes another loaf and says, "This is my low-carb body which is given for you South Beach dieters." And then he takes another loaf and says, "This is my gluten-free body which is given for you?."

You get the idea.

Over a century ago, many American churches began to abandon the use of fermented wine in communion in favor of grape juice (much to Charles Welch's delight). Today, most evangelicals give little thought to the substitution. It's just the way it is. But last Sunday I was unexpectedly jarred into reconsidering the nature of the communion elements when the bread, and not just the cup, departed from tradition.

I sat down after preaching the sermon and another pastor began to lead the congregation in partaking of the Lord's Supper. He invited people to come forward, receive the cup, and tear a piece of bread from a single large loaf. The use of a single loaf, he explained, was a symbol of our unity in Christ. (This metaphor, by the way, dates back at least to the Didache from the first century.) But then he added something unexpected. Gluten-free crackers would also be available for anyone unable to eat the bread.

The additional comment caught me, and many other congregants, off guard. It just seemed really odd, even out of place, amid the liturgy of the table. The sacredness of the moment was lost as we were all jolted back to contemplating individual needs and preferences rather than our collective unity in Christ. The remark deconstructed the symbolism of unity the pastor was trying to convey with the single loaf.

Now, before you unleash the Gluten Gestapo on me for being insensitive to those with serious allergies, let me explain myself. I happen to be friends with a woman in the church with Coeliac Disease who must avoid gluten in her diet. I recognize that it is a significant medical issue for a growing number of people. And I certainly don't think they should be prevented from participating in the Lord's Table. (I've heard that some churches encourage those with medical restrictions to bring their own bread, pass it to the officiate for blessing, and then partake. That seems both reasonable and less distracting from the symbolism of the traditional communion liturgy.) But at what point should the dietary constraints of a few be imposed upon the many? And when should these needs be addressed and incorporated into the liturgy of the Table?

For example, I've heard that some in the congregation have requested the use of sugar-free juice during communion. Apparently the thimble cup of grape juice contains enough fructose to agitate their insulin levels, or disrupt their strict adherence to Dr. Atkins' low-carb lifestyle. I know another church where people have insisted that only whole-grain bread be used for communion. Heaven forbid constipation-inducing white bread be used.

The issue is not the presence of those with legitimate dietary restrictions at Christ's table, but rather the growing expectation that the church must accommodate every personal need or preference. When the church is expected to supply not only a variety of programs, service times, worship styles, but now even communion bread and cup options - can we finally acknowledge that we have crossed the line into absurdity? Have we elevated personal preference so far above corporate unity that we have little imaginative framework for even understanding the corporate intent of the Lord's Table?

I wonder if our first step down this slippery slope was the move away from a communal chalice to those ubiquitous communion cups - those hygienic disposable vessels that fit comfortably between thumb and forefinger but seem designed to never relinquish the final drop of Christ's blood. The stylish fluted cups reinforce the cultural assumption that communion is really about "me" and not "us." Once communion ceases to be communal, the door is opened for personal preferences to be expressed, accommodated, and even demanded.

I wonder if decades from now when every communion service includes a variety of beverages choices (wine, all-natural grape juice, sugar-free grape juice, fair trade grape juice) and bread choices (whole grain, unleavened, gluten-free, vitamin enriched, low-carb) will we even think twice about it? Or, like the substitution of wine with juice today, will we simply say, that's just the way it is?

[Be sure to answer Url's poll question in the left margin about how your church approaches communion.]

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 6, 2008 | Comments (29)

June 4, 2008

Audio Ur: Alan Hirsch Defines "Missional"

The word "missional" is everywhere. But what does it mean? Is it another way of saying "seeker-focused" or "purpose-driven"? Not according to Alan Hirsch, author of The Forgotten Ways and The Shaping of Things to Come. In this edition of Audio Ur the insightful, yet soft-spoken, man from Down Under talks with Skye Jethani and Marshall Shelley about what it truly means to be a missional church.

To download this episode of Audio Ur, click here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 4, 2008 | Comments (6)

June 3, 2008

Driscoll: Emerging Churches "Don't Have Converts"

Last year at the Convergent Conference at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Mark Driscoll made the following remark:

And all the nonsense of emerging, and Emergent, and new monastic communities, and, you know, all of these various kinds of ridiculous conversations--I'll tell you as one on the inside, they don't have converts. The silly little myth, the naked emperor is this: they will tell you it's all about being in culture to reach lost people, and they're not.

I often hear this in places where I speak. It usually goes something like this: "We love missional theology, but does it work? How many converts have you had in your missional church?" Once again, the modernist drive to measure success raises its ugly head. Yet it does not offend me because these are important questions. I believe if we are not seeing people transformed by the gospel then "missional" in the end means very little.

So here is my response to Driscoll and others who question the evangelistic impact of missional churches:

1. First, I agree with Driscoll. There is a stunning lack of sustainable communities within the Emergent/emerging movement he addresses, and I think this is disturbing. But there is a difference between emerging churches and missional churches.

2. Regarding missional churches, it is incredibly difficult to develop a sustainable missional church (as opposed to your standard Driscollesque megachurch). Missional church ecclesiology is organic and incarnational. It does not fit easily with denominational expectations. This creates economic pressures for missional leaders. In my experience it takes 5 - 10 years to nourish a missional community into a sustainable church. This doesn't fit with established denominational models of church planting (especially evangelical).

Therefore, missional church plants generally start out with a lot of energy but often die by the end of year three. The planters have big dreams but soon burn out when the financial pressures mount and the incubation time takes longer than expected. This is why we need support systems and ways of preparing missional leaders for these extraordinary circumstances. (Al Roxburgh and Mark Bibby are working on this with their organization Allelon.)

3. Regarding emerging churches/Emergent Village, I don't believe they intend to plant churches that would lead to converts. Instead they are promoting conversations. They seek to foster critique and "reform" within Christianity. I am not denying that there are vibrant emerging churches out there in the many different streams (our church has been accused of being an emerging church). But this is not their thrust. My observation has been that Emergent/emerging people don't posses a soteriology and church/culture commitment emphasizing the idea of conversion.

4. Having said all this, I think that the missional communities that do persist probably have a higher conversion rate than the Driscollesque mega churches. Missional churches are much smaller, so 6 conversions from a group of 25 over ten years would match (or exceed) the percentage growth of a typical mega church. I think it would be interesting to measure how many dollars per conversion are spent in missional churches versus mega churches. It makes me smile knowing missional churches are probably more cost effective when it comes to conversions because we resist spending money on buildings, programs, and "the show."

5. We must recognize that "missionary conversions" take longer than megachurch conversions. The conversion of a post-Christendom "pagan," who has had little to no exposure to the language and story of Christ in Scripture, may require five years of relational immersion before a decision would even make sense. If you do not have this immersion/context, any decision that is made is prone to be little more than a consumerist decision - it is made based on the perceived immediate benefit. It lasts as long as this perceived benefit remains important. It does not lead to discipleship.

So a true missionary conversion, which I believe missional churches are after, takes a much longer period of time than the kind of conversions most often generated through a megachurch. The megachurch is largely appealing to people who grew up in old forms of church and know the Story but quit going to church many years ago. These "unchurched people" require the old messages to be made more relevant. They need to be "revived" or called back into a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. There's nothing wrong with that, but we should recognize there are fewer and fewer of these kinds of people left.

If we want to reach the lost souls of post-Christendom, the church in North America must go missional, incarnational, organic. We must become intertwined with those we seek to reach. But this will take time and appear to be highly inefficient in the terms we have become used to in the church growth/megachurch era.

This is why I believe that Mark Driscoll has missed the point. I think he speaks too boldly about the lack of conversions in missional and neo-monastic communities. Maybe Mark should take a survey of his own church and ask how many converts heard about Jesus for the first time through Mars Hill? How many came from other church experiences? How many are ex-Catholics who learned the entire Christian catechism and then walked away only to become Christians at Mars Hill?

I know Seattle is considered post-Christendom territory, but could the majority of converts at Mars Hill be coming from the remains of Christendom like many of the megachurch conversion I described above? This is certainly valid work for the Kingdom. But missional missiology is aimed at those lost in societies of post-Christendom with no understanding of Christ whatsoever. And this kind of mission takes longer. Failure to understand the difference is why Driscoll misses the point.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 3, 2008 | Comments (57)

June 2, 2008

Cartoon: Community Church

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 2, 2008 | Comments (7)