August 29, 2008

The Dark Blight

by Skye Jethani

Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, Batman!

I've been meaning to write a post about The Dark Knight for weeks, but between family vacations and working on the fall issue of Leadership, I've been swamped. I'm a big fan of superhero movies, and this summer I've seen a bunch - Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and the latest installment of Christopher Nolan's fantastic Batman series, The Dark Knight. My companion to most of these comic book movies is a psychiatrist from my church who has a penchant for professional wrestling and shares my follicle failings. (I highly recommend watching fantasy movies with a psychiatrist - it's more fun than applying Freudian dream analysis to nursery rhymes.)

I feel no need to add my accolades for The Dark Knight to those already swirling around the web. (Check out Todd Hertz's review at CTMovies.com.) Instead, I want to discuss an interesting storytelling element of the film that may help explain one of the more mysterious elements of the Bible - emphasis on the word may. (Let's not take a movie too seriously or read overly spiritual themes into it. That only spoils an otherwise good the film and risks diminishing our faith.)

Batman's nemesis in The Dark Knight is the Joker, played by the late great Heath Ledger. Unlike earlier film depictions of the Clown Prince of Crime, Ledger's Joker has no back-story, no origin, no narrative arc. In The Dark Knight, we never discover what would drive a man to dye his hair green, paint his face white, smear a ghastly smile across his cheeks and murder people for the sheer fun of it.

In Tim Burton's 1989 Batman, the Joker, played by Jack Nicholson, is a mob boss who falls into a vat of chemicals that bleaches his skin, gives him a permanent grin, and loosens a few screws in his head. Nicholson's Joker is the product of an accident. This knowledge humanizes the character, and despite his evil behavior the audience retains some degree of pity for the villain.

Not so in The Dark Knight. Director Christopher Nolan says he intentionally avoided giving the Joker any back-story in his movie. "He's got no story arc," says Nolan, "he's just a force of nature tearing through [the film]." Co-writer David Goyer says there is no need for an origin for the Joker because, "He just is. He's more interesting without it."

Nolan says a back-story for the Joker "would reduce the character. It's more frightening because, in a sense, there is no mystery there.... He is exactly what he presents himself to be; which is an anarchist." Nolan describes the Joker as a "mad dog" - a description carried into the film when the Joker describes himself as a dog chasing cars - he wouldn't know what to do if he caught one.

How does this relate to the Bible? Well, Scripture is largely silent regarding the origins of the enemy and evil - the blight of sin that marks our world. We know how humanity rebelled against God and fell into sin through the deception of the serpent in the garden - but where did the serpent come from? If God created a perfect creation and declared all things "good," how and when did evil appear on the scene?

Yes, I know Jesus says he saw Satan fall from heaven (Luke 10:18), but even he offers no real back-story, no explanation. I am also aware of the apocryphal writings that try to explain the evil one's narrative arc and the popularity of such ideas with pop-evangelical fiction. But none of that changes the fact that scripture largely ignores the question - where did evil come from? Instead, the thrust of the Bible is focused on what God has done about it.

I wonder if the lack of a back-story for evil in the Bible is related to Nolan and Goyer's rationale for ignoring the Joker's back-story? Without an explanation or origin, God is emphasizing the utter meaninglessness and anarchy of evil. It cannot be understood; it cannot be rationalized. To do otherwise would be to legitimize its place in his creation or to create sympathy for an enemy that deserves none.

I recall sitting in a theology class in seminary where we debated the origins of evil. How could Adam and Eve even be tempted? After all, they were created in the image of God and completely pure. How did the serpent come to be in the garden? Why would God allow that?

After spending too much time debating these fruitless thoughts (which is the seminarian's specialty), my professor finally interrupted with his wisdom. "Never ask a question the text doesn't want to answer," he said. He was correct, of course. They are brilliant words I try to remember with each sermon I write.

Before The Dark Knight's premiere, comic book movie fanboys were all over the internet criticizing Nolan's decision to not include a back-story for the Joker. They wanted the film to be faithful to the comics. They wanted their questions about Batman's antagonist answered and expounded. Nolan refused because he had a higher goal than answering fanboys' questions - he wanted to tell a great story.

Answers to all of our questions about the origin of evil are not found in the Scriptures, which means that God, the Writer and Director of this cosmic drama, did not deem them necessary for the story he wanted to tell. Are we satisfied with that, or must we continue to contrive answers for ourselves? My guess is that Christians would find themselves in less trouble theologically, culturally, and politically if we stuck with the questions God has chosen to answer, and immersed ourselves in the story he has chosen to tell.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 29, 2008 | Comments (16) | TrackBack

August 26, 2008

The Church & Politics Quiz

Where I grew up in the South, the three big holidays on the church calendar were Christmas, Easter, and Fourth of July Sunday. Now I live near Chicago, where many churches let Independence Day slip by without a word from the pulpit. There are, no doubt, historical and theological reasons why Christians in one part of the country (or in one denomination or another) are more inclined to link the church to the state in its worship. But in my experience, people simply don't give the issue a lot of thought; they just do what they've always done.

That's why I'm excited to introduce the Church and Politics Quiz, a tool designed to help you uncover your assumptions and blind spots regarding the role of the church in politics. How should the church relate to the state - as chaplain or prophet? Is it appropriate to display flags in the sanctuary? In the spirit of the Hermeneutics Quiz from earlier this year, there are no right or wrong answers. Rather, we hope this tool will help you think critically about the church's role and responsibility in this historic election year.

Take the quiz here, and then come back to Out of Ur to post your results and comments.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 26, 2008 | Comments (26) | TrackBack

August 22, 2008

Olympic Shifts

by Dave Gibbons

Shifts happen all the time - shifts in economics, politics, theology, church, and culture. But we usually don't comprehend the full nature of the shift until much later. One subtle shift happened in Beijing last week. You may have missed it amid the pageantry of the Olympic opening ceremonies.

Many consider it an historic event for modern China to host the Olympic Games, and the show proved to be amazing. It was an experiential canvas of creativity few have ever seen before on such a scale: techno-utopian shows, creative and innovative artistry, massive numbers of participants synchronizing poetry through dance and song. The opening ceremony masterfully put the world on notice: a shift has occurred. Here's what I saw communicated:

1. China is increasingly more open to the "barbarians"
In one of the most beautiful sequences in the ceremony, the dancers displayed the Great Wall reflecting one of the most notable metaphors of China. It was a reminder to the world that barbarians weren't welcomed. Things have changed. The dancers transformed the walls of China into a bridge of flowers. Sure, the doors may still be closed in many respects--human rights and religious freedoms are still lagging in China--but there seems to be a growing openness in the culture. This is probably the result of many who have prayed and fueled the movement of the Holy Spirit.

2. Skin color and racial stereotypes are becoming irrelevant
Did you see the group of children representing the 51 different cultures of China! China, like so many other places today, is multi-cultural. A group of young people is emerging that some call Third Culture - a wave of people who will lead the missiological movement because of their ability to adapt to different cultures. Being comfortable moving between cultures all of their lives, these people will be more equipped to become all things to all men.

3. China is not just about copying things
The Chinese have a heritage of being some of the most creative and artistic people on the planet. The opening ceremony showed that China wasn't content to copy what other countries have done in the past. They created an innovative experience unlike any before. New ideas are coming from Asia, and not just the West. Although most Christians see the West as the center of Christian activity and mission in the world, some are now predicting that Korea will soon outpace America when it comes to missiological initiative.

So what does this mean for the church? I believe an ecclesiastical and theological shift is happening too. An expanded and new wave of theological scholarship and creative ministry expressions will take shape and continue to fuel God's global movement, and these will increasingly come from outside Western cultures. The emergence of China and other Asian powers on the world stage parallels what's happening in the church.

How should we respond as Americans? One practical thing to do is experience what God is doing globally by reading a macro perspective of the shifts happening in Asia by authors like Fareed Zakaria. I highly recommend The Post-American World. It's an inexpensive trip to take a journey with your mind.

Secondly, I'd encourage you to take a vision trip overseas - not to serve as much as to learn. There are great partnership groups like World Vision, or you can email me at dave.gibbons@newsong.net and I will put you in touch with great groups I work with in Asia and beyond. There is no better way to experience a great move of God than by being in the middle of one. If you do that, watch out? you may never be the same. I know because it happened to me.

Read about Dave Gibbons' ministry-changing, and life-changing, experience as a pastor in Bangkok, Thailand in the summer issue of Leadership.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 22, 2008 | Comments (10) | TrackBack

August 21, 2008

Out of Context: Shane Claiborne

"If there's anything I've learned from both conservatives and liberals, it's that you can have all the right political answers and still be mean. And nobody wants to listen to you if you're mean. One of the things we can do is learn to disagree well. I think there is a new conversation happening within evangelicalism in post-religious-right America that is much healthier. We can actually learn to disagree well."

-Shane Claiborne is a founding member of The Simple Way, a new monastic community in Philadelphia, and the co-author of Jesus for President. Taken from "Body Politic" in the Summer 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 August 21, 2008 | Comments (17) | TrackBack

August 19, 2008

The Hansen Report: Warren, Obama, and McCain

by Collin Hansen

I'm not Rick Warren's biggest fan. Don't get me wrong; I admire his godly character and zeal to claim this world for Christ. But I could live without the hokey acronyms and, especially, his "felt needs" approach to evangelism.

That said, I was impressed with Warren's hosting skills at the Saddleback Civil Forum on Saturday night. Warren is the only Christian leader in America who could pull off this event. Sen. Barack Obama wants to peel away more of the evangelical vote, and he trusts Warren not to play gotcha with him on the issues where he disagrees with evangelicals. Sen. John McCain needs to bolster his credibility with evangelicals, and he knows Warren harbors no long-standing vendetta against him for sometimes bucking conservative political orthodoxy.

Moreover, Warren gave conservatives what they wanted out of the event. He coaxed both candidates into sharing how they would compose the Supreme Court. He asked questions about personal morality, and both candidates shared their views on same-sex marriage and abortion. Obama certainly didn't impress by dodging Warren's question about when life begins. Granted, we can't expect our presidents to be experts on science or theology. But in formulating their policy positions on such a crucial issue as abortion, politicians necessarily draw on theology and science. They can't pretend to avoid the problem.

At the same time that he addressed standard conservative issues, Warren broached other topics important to evangelicals and nonbelievers alike. He asked about education, taxes, foreign military interventions, and so on. Rarely did the candidates break new ground. And yet this event somehow did.

For example, Warren introduced the forum saying, "We've got to learn to disagree without demonizing each other, and we need to restore civility?in our civil discourse, and that's the goal of the Saddleback Civil Forum." With this standard as his goal, Warren succeeded magnificently. The candidates' personalities emerged clearly as they responded specifically to an impressive array of questions. Anyone who watched the event got a real sense for the candidates' comparative strengths and weaknesses. Though Warren's event lacked the side-to-side comparison of presidential debates, it also avoided the stage theatrics that sidetrack them.

Let's give the pastor credit. Journalists are trained to distrust their interview subjects and try to outwit them into revealing something they didn't want to share. Pastors likewise harbor no illusions about human nature. But they also must navigate the choppy waters of church life where they try and convince clashing personalities to work together for the common good, a task they share with politicians. As a result, Warren shared evident rapport with the candidates, which put them at ease and made for a more substantial discourse. For so long, evangelicals have contributed to America's poisonous political climate. It's about time we became part of the solution.

Let me share one final concern, though. One of Rick Warren's heroes is Billy Graham - a great choice. I hope Warren's relationship with Graham and knowledge of his life will help Warren avoid the pitfalls of intervening in politics. Like Warren, Graham befriended the rich and powerful around the world. His two closest friends in the Oval Office were Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Only Graham could befriend two consecutive presidents who disagreed on so much. That's because Graham had his policy views, but he didn't let them get in the way of personal spiritual counsel.

So far so good, until you consider the outcome. Under Johnson and Nixon's leadership, the United States endured conflict over civil rights, Watergate, and Vietnam. Still today, we live with the fruit - both good and bad - of these painful controversies that split generations and communities. The evangelical track record during this period is spotty at best. Too often evangelicals on both the Right and Left failed to bring their faith to bear on the greatest questions of their generation. For the sake of the country and the church's faithfulness to God, evangelicals cannot afford to make the same mistakes today.

In its recent profile of Warren, Time magazine observed that he "may not aspire to global mogulhood, but he is clearly near giddy over occupying a globetrotting-catalyst status normally reserved for ex-Presidents." That sounds dangerously like the awe of political power that seduced Graham. As much as evangelicals need leaders who can encourage civil discourse, they desperately need leaders who will help them biblically discern where they must resist the prevailing culture. It's a tricky mix.

I will be praying that the God who has given Warren such influence with presidential candidates will help him resist the temptation to seek their approval.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 19, 2008 | Comments (10) | TrackBack

August 15, 2008

The Wright Brothers (in Christ)

Recently I was asked where theology was headed. I assured my reader that I wasn't "in the know" but that I would hazard a guess or two. First I thought we were likely to see a more robust Trinitarian theology, one deeply anchored in the great Cappadocian theologians like Gregory of Nyssa. But in some ways all the main lines of Trinitarian thought have already been sketched by great theologians like Karl Barth, James B. Torrance and others. With this first idea now set aside, I had a second idea of where theology is going: "The Wright Brothers."

No, not those Wright Brothers, but another set of Wrights (who aren't even brothers, except in Christ): Tom and Chris. Even if they don't map where all of theology is headed, these two scholars and devoted churchmen, both Anglican, do set before us two words that have become increasingly fruitful and I think will be the subject of serious theological reflection in the future. The two words are "earth" and "mission." Each scholar discusses both, but I will focus in this post on Tom Wright's focus on "earth" and Chris Wright's focus on "mission."

Increasingly we are seeing more and more Christians own up to the earthly focus of biblical revelation - the claim God makes upon this earth through his Eikons (humans made in his image). We are seeing a deeper reflection on what it means to participate in the historical flow, in government and politics and society and culture, and we are seeing a renewed interest in vocation and work. One of the more striking elements of this new surge is that theologians who are deeply anchored in the Bible also see our eternal destiny having an earthly shape.

And not only are we seeing the increasing presence of "earthly," but we are seeing a reshaping of theology itself so that God's mission in this world becomes central. Everyone knows that the latest buzz word is missional but not enough are thinking carefully about what mission means in the Bible and what it means to speak about "God's mission" (missio Dei). But there is a surge of thinking now about this topic and it will continue to spark interest both for pastors and professional theologians.

Now to the Wright brothers.

Tom Wright, in his book Surprised by Hope, relentlessly critiques the gnostic-like preoccupation so many have with heaven as a place for our spirits and souls - the place where we really belong, and the sooner we get there the better. It is not that Tom Wright denies heaven; no, he affirms it robustly but he argues that the eternal home for the Christian is not that old-fashioned view of heaven but the new heavens and the new earth. And he argues the new heavens and new earth are something brought down from heaven to earth. (Read Revelation 20 - 22.)

I think some have made far too much of this, as if it is a revolutionary insight. What it is, in my judgment, is a strong critique of how dualistic we've become. And it is a welcome call for us to see that what we do now prepares us for what we will do in the new heavens and the new earth. I think Tom Wright's emphasis here is spot-on: we need to grapple more directly with the connection of what God calls us to do now as continuous with what we shall be called to do for eternity. I hope many will see their way to read Tolkien's Leaf by Niggle, for it addresses similar themes.

This emphasis of Tom Wright's actually forms a foundation for Chris Wright's exceptional study The Mission of God. Here we find yet another theme that is reshaping so much of where theology is going: mission. I wish people asked this one simple question: What is the mission of God in this world? Chris Wright, taking his cues from the Old Testament - he's an Old Testament scholar - says the mission of God is to make his glorious Name known throughout the whole world. This mission, found so often in the prophets, shapes how we not only read the Bible but how we live out the Bible in our world.

God makes his Name known through God's people, first Israel and then the Church. Most centrally, God's mission with a Name becomes fully visible in Jesus Christ - in his life, death, resurrection, and the gift of the Spirit. This Story, this grand narrative of God's mission, is reshaping how theology is being done.

There is a converging hook here: Chris Wright ends his book on the theme of God's mission involving the earth - the whole earth. Tom Wright ends his book about earth on mission - the mission of God in this world. I think they are both right.

I can't see into the future, but I can see down the road a bit, and what I see is an increasing emphasis on earth and mission. Those two themes are likely to take us into the next two decades.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 15, 2008 | Comments (22) | TrackBack

August 12, 2008

Great is Thy Effectiveness?

Something's wrong. We pastors are the stewards, the spokespeople, the advocates of a message of hope, life, and peace. And yet so few of us seem to be experiencing these qualities in our own lives. Something's wrong. In a world saturated with fear, insecurity, and stress, we are to show a different way. And yet those at the center of the church are burning out and leaving ministry at a rate of 1,500 per month. If that's what's occurring at the heart of the church, why would anyone on the fringe want to move in closer?

I've just read an article by two Christian counselors about the soul-killing impact of church ministry on leaders. (The statistic above comes from them.) They note that the pressure to grow the church is a significant factor leading to pastoral burn out. And some pastors "admitted they promoted growth models that were incongruent with their values because of a desperate need to validate their pastoral leadership." It seems too many of us have our identities wrapped up in the measurable outcomes of our work rather than in the life-giving love of the Christ we proclaim. Something's wrong.

I spent last week in western Iowa and met many wonderful pastors and church leaders. These men and women don't lead megachurches. They're not in chic urban or suburban communities where new cultural trends are born. In other words, they're not the people you're likely to see on the platform at a ministry conference. More than one church leader approached me during the week holding back tears. Each confessed he was on the verge of mental/spiritual/emotional collapse. The cause sited by all: the pressure to perform.

Some might say these leaders have failed to nurture their souls sufficiently. We usually want to blame leaders for their own burn out, but when I see the pervasiveness of this problem I wonder if there isn't also a systemic factor. Could contemporary church ministry itself be the problem?

When I peruse ministry books, websites, magazines, and attend conferences I'm bombarded with one overwhelming message: great ministry results are the product of great ministry leadership. If a church is growing, if lives are changing, if budgets are burgeoning - it must be because the leader is doing something right. Conversely, if the church is shrinking, if lives are struggling, if budgets are busting - it must be because the leader is inept. As a result, a pastor's success and self-worth is inexorably linked to his/her measurable performance. Stewing in this toxic brew is it any wonder why pastors' souls are shriveling. Something's wrong.

Consider a chapter titled "Bigger is Better" from a popular ministry book. The authors write, "A church should always be bigger than it was. It should be constantly growing." Talk about pressure. The problem is this standard doesn't hold water when applied to Jesus himself. John 6 describes the scene where "many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him." After teaching some weird stuff about drinking his blood and eating his flesh, the crowds who were drawn by Jesus' miracles decided they had had enough. Did Jesus' shrinking ministry mean he was an ineffective leader? Why do we hold ourselves to a standard that Jesus' doesn't apply to himself?

Or consider one of my favorite stories from the Old Testament. In Numbers 20, Moses performs a miracle by drawing water from a rock to nourish the Israelites. By any human measure Moses' ministry was a success. It was God-empowered (he performed a miracle), and it was relevant (the people were thirsty). If Moses lived today, we'd all be reading his ministry book titled, "How to Draw Water from Rocks: Effective Strategies to Refresh Arid Churches." There was just one problem - Moses' effective ministry was rejected by God. Moses had disobeyed the Lord's command by striking the rock rather than speaking to it. For this sin he was forbidden from entering the Promised Land. It turns out God performed a miracle in spite of Moses, not because of him.

Might God be doing the same thing today? Is God allowing some powerful, effective, and relevant ministries to grow in spite of leaders rather than because of them? If Scripture shows that faithful and godly leaders can have shrinking ministries (Jesus in John 6), and sinful leaders can have successful ministries (Moses in Numbers 20), then why do we persist in measuring our success simply on the measurable outcomes of our work?

Brothers and sisters, you are more than the measurable outcomes of your work. I've come back from my time in Iowa with a renewed commitment to help us all understand the mysterious calling we have in Christ. I want to be at least one voice countering the soul-killing noise surrounding church leaders today - noise that tries to convince us to ground our identities in effectiveness rather than faithfulness. Yes, we need to work diligently and serve Christ with our very best - this is our worship to God. But how we define success should look very different in the economy of God's kingdom from the tangible stats the world celebrates.

I hope this is what distinguishes Leadership as a resource for you. Leadership is about skill, but it's also about the soul. Some of us are called to plant, some of us are called to water. At Leadership we want to help pastors become better planters and better irrigators; but in the end, we also want to help you release the outcomes to God who causes the growth. Unlike contemporary business, ministry involves the baffling interplay of the human and the divine, the spiritual and the material. There is a mystery to what we are called to do. Embracing this mystery and releasing the outcomes of our work to God is what we must do if our lives, and not just our ministries, are to be filled with his grace.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 12, 2008 | Comments (46) | TrackBack

August 11, 2008

Cartoon: Addressing Real Needs

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 11, 2008 | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 8, 2008

"God, Rock The Summit"

This year's roster at Willow Creek's Leadership Summit conference includes an impressive lineup of leaders from both the ministry and secular business realms. Pastors John Burke and Efrem Smith, and Bill George (current Harvard Business prof and former CEO of Medtronic Inc.) spoke yesterday, as (of course) did Bill Hybels. Today we heard from Craig Groeschel and Chuck Colson, and later from Brad Anderson, vice-chairman and CEO of Best Buy. But for my money, the two most challenging and inspiring presenters were relative unknowns--two women who lead small but incalculably influential organizations.

The first was Wendy Kopp, founder and CEO of Teach for America. When she was a senior at Princeton, Wendy was confronted with the reality of educational inequity in the United States. That is, she realized that where a person was born largely determines his or her educational prospects, which determines, to a great extent, that person's career prospects. She became aware that 13 million kids in the U.S. live below the poverty level. Only half of them will graduate high school. The other half will perform at an eighth grade education level.

So Wendy founded Teach for America, an organization that scours college campuses for the most promising graduating future leaders. She asks those students to invest two years of their lives in teaching children in under-resourced urban and rural schools.

The second was Catherine Rohr, founder and CEO of Prisoner Entrepreneurship Program. A couple years into a lucrative career in New York City, Catherine was invited to visit a prison in Texas. Her experience there change her; she realized her talents were best spent training these men, many of them gang leaders and drug dealers, whom she calls "natural entrepreneurs," to be positive and legitimate business leaders after their release.

The result was Prison Entrepreneurship Program, a four-month diploma program for inmates nearing the end of their sentence. Participants learn business practices, develop character, network, and create a business plan. The program boasts a 98 percent employment rate and a single-digit recidivism rate (compared to the national average of 50 percent).

Wendy and Catherine were both motivated by the deep conviction that the seemingly insurmountable obstacle they faced could indeed be overcome. And, in Wendy's words, "if it's solvable, we have a moral responsibility to solve it." Not only do they believe these desperate situations can be changed, they both are firmly convinced that people will rise to a challenge. For example, while many people blame the poor performance of poor children on the children's laziness or the family's lack of involvement, Wendy blames the low expectations of educators. "When given opportunities," she explains, "kids excel."

Catherine, too, expects the best of the men she works with. "I treat the men like gentlemen," she says, "and I expect them to act like gentlemen. And in the course of the program, I watch them become gentlemen."

These two women are also convinced that their lives are richer for the sacrifices they've made for their ministries. Catherine put it this way: "I can't imagine what I'd be missing out on if I were not following in obedience." It sounds a little like Jesus' words: whoever would find their life must lose it.

The leadership principles that drive Wendy and Catherine are simple: (1) Believe in what you're doing, (2) Do it.

I was struck, in the midst of such a resource-rich environment, by how much can be done without a budget, a building, or exorbitant overhead by a few faithful people who do what God has called them to do. I hope the 100,000 pastors attending the Summit worldwide will learn what I learned from these two women: Believe in what you're doing. Do it. Trust God for the harvest.

Posted by Brandon J. O'Brien at August 8, 2008 | Comments (22) | TrackBack

August 7, 2008

Out of Context: Rick Muchow

"The fact is that secular music speaks to people--seekers, unchurched, and churched alike ... because many secular songs articulate universal human needs. The reason so many songs are written about love is because it's a universal desire, and one that the Bible affirms when it tells us that God's very nature is love. A secular song in church is so attractive, then, because every attendee is likely to be familiar with it and comfortable listening to its truth ... Most people expect a teacher to use non-biblical stories to illustrate a biblical truth ... At Saddleback [we use] secular songs as illustrations pointing people to biblical truth."

-Rick Muchow is worship pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. Taken from "Making the Secular Sacred" in the Summer 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 August 7, 2008 | Comments (21) | TrackBack

August 6, 2008

Audio Ur: Brandon O'Brien on the Masculinity Movement

Back in April, Leadership assistant editor Brandon O'Brien wrote an article in Christianity Today about the recent trend toward manly Christianity in some evangelical churches. The article generated quite a buzz on the website and in the blogosphere. Brandon was recently interviewed on the subject for an article in USA Today. Last week, Skye Jethani, Leadership managing editor, talked with Brandon about the articles and asked him a few hard questions. What really keeps men out of church? Where do our gender stereotypes come from? What's really at stake here?

To download this episode of Audio Ur, click here.

P.S. For those wondering when Audio Ur will be on iTunes...we're working on it.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 6, 2008 | Comments (3) | TrackBack

August 5, 2008

Multi-site the Low-tech Way

by Bob Hyatt

Evergreen, our small church here in Portland, Oregon, has just gone multi-site. But not video venue.

We started in a pub in southwest Portland, outgrew that space, and moved to another pub across town. Outgrowing that one, we moved up to yet another pub in northwest Portland. Yes, we are the church on a pub crawl. When things got crowded there, we knew we had some decisions to make.

Our goal has always been multi-faceted. First and foremost, we want to see people come to and come back to Jesus. That implies growth. Second, our worship gatherings are highly interactive. We never want to lose the dialogical vibe in our teaching. Third, knowing that, according to statistics, people are reached best by newer (under 10 years old) and smaller congregations (as they grow from 100 to 200), our ultimate goal has been planting.

For various reasons, we're not quite ready to plant another separate community. So what to do? Consistent with the greatest number of our values, we invited some Evergreeners to start another worship gathering in one of our previous pub spaces. We're now one church in two locations. One or two more gatherings like that, and I think we'll have reached a size at which we'll have the people and resources to start planting churches around Portland.

So why didn't we do what many growing, multi-site communities are doing and pipe my teaching all around town and beyond? Here are a few reasons:

1. We believe good things happen when worship is kept small and interactive. We want people to be able to talk to one another and to the one who is teaching them. We also want things kept at a size where people can know one another and be known by those teaching them.

Some say that video venues are no different from a large service where parishioner number 3254 has to sit in the 50th row and watch the whole thing on the big screen anyway. It's not like she can raise her hand and ask a question. It's not like the one teaching knows who she is anyway... Exactly. To me, video venues simply magnify what's already a problem of megachurches.

2. Many advocates of video venues say there simply aren't enough church planters and talented teachers to go around. And my response is that in a video venue world, there never will be. Pursued as a large scale strategy, video venues will inevitably lead to fewer and fewer gifted and experienced lay and vocational preachers. The gift of preaching - already suffering from over-professionalization - will become ever more the work of the celebrity.

At Evergreen, our seven elders rotate teaching responsibilities at both sites, though there's a primary teaching elder at each. As a result, the church isn't driven by a single personality, and several people are developing preaching experience at once.

3. Though many video venue churches also do traditional church planting, I worry for congregants who may see a campus pastor but are lead in large part by elders who live miles, and sometimes even towns, away.

Ultimately, I believe what's best is not to come up with new and creative ways to put space between the people teaching and those being taught. What's best is to shrink that space as much as is humanly possible. If the problem is a lack of qualified teachers, do whatever you can to find, call, equip, and send teachers. Don't install a screen and beam teaching from 200 miles away. If you must install that video venue, call it what it is - a necessary and temporary compromise until your prayers for more workers are answered.

Some churches grow faster than they can find, train, and send church planters who have the same teaching talent as the "main guy." But what if instead of asking "Can he preach as well as me?" you ask, "Can he or she, with a team of others, lead a Christ-centered community that starts small and grows, reproducing itself before becoming unmanageable and outgrowing the gifting of its leadership?" You might find more gifted/qualified people than you dreamed.

I know, a lot of people love your preaching and want to hear it. Let them get saved and discipled at your community, or spend a season there, and then point them to your pod/vodcast, sending them as missionaries to reach their local communities. But don't say, "Well, people just want to hear me, so we must make a way for everyone to either sit in one room and watch me or my video representation." That simply makes no sense when we're talking about maturing Christ followers who will live self-sacrificially in communities centered on Jesus, not a preaching personality.

One of the main justifications for video venues is that upwards of 70 percent of church plants fail. Giving people a "brand name," proven communicator makes more sense. But do church plants fail because of the planter? Or is it because of unreasonable expectations, unsustainable "big launch" methods in which thousands of dollars are pumped into new churches in an effort to make them big, fast... because of the consumer mindset of many who look at the big churches down the street with not a small amount of envy?

Ultimately, video venues strike me as a poor compromise. They may be necessary at times, but are certainly not a strategy to be pursued, even alongside traditional church plants. They focus entirely too much on the preaching gifts of one person, a trend even we small "emerging" types need to counter.

The celebrity church must die. And doing anything - like video venues - that prolongs its life, even in the name of the lost, runs counter to the best interests of the Church in all its expressions, big and small, and its mandate to see more people not only reached, but gifted, trained, and sent.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 5, 2008 | Comments (31) | TrackBack

August 4, 2008

The Next Caption Contest

What are your captions for this cartoon by Tim Walburg?

Winning entries will be published in the Fall 2008 edition of Leadership. Please include your name, your church’s name, city, and state.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 4, 2008 | Comments (29) | TrackBack