August 31, 2009

There is NO Virtual Church (Part 2)

by Bob Hyatt

(Read part 1)

Calvin’s definition of “church” is where the Word is preached, the sacraments are received, and church discipline practiced. That’s a good summary of the defining characteristics of the New Testament ecclesia and a good summary of the main problems with internet church.

Is the word preached “at” an internet campus? Absolutely. In fact, the Word preached becomes the centerpiece. Church is boiled down to singing a few songs and hearing a message.

And while internet campuses provide a great sermon delivery vehicle, and even allow you to virtually raise your hand in response, what they don’t do is allow you to be known and missed. You can’t stand at the end of the gathering and ask for help moving. You can’t help tear things down and clean up afterwards. You can’t look after someone’s kids while they pray with someone else. You can’t take a visitor out to lunch. How can our community be a sign and foretaste of the kingdom when our method of gathering keeps us from ever physically serving, loving, or being present to one another? I know how participating in a congregation begins to make me more like Jesus. I’m unsure how that happens with an internet campus.

I know that “virtual” baptisms are practiced online. I know too that every week thousands in virtual communities practice virtual communion, if not together, then at least simultaneously. And I have to wonder, Why can’t they see that’s not enough? That simultaneous is not the same as together, and that taking communion in this way completely misses the whole point?

As for discipline and accountability, some say that online churches encourage more transparency in the chat rooms and virtual lobbies of internet campuses. But how is the pastoral care of prayer and recommending a good book, accountability, in-depth counseling, and church discipline practiced? Short answer: it can’t be. Because of the nature of internet relationships, only what people choose to reveal will ever be known. Internet churches are no help for the wife whose husband really needs someone to open a can of Driscoll on him—unless, of course, you can get him to wander into the virtual lobby.

As for equipping: How does one become a leader in an internet church? Is it being made a moderator of the chat room? What does it mean to “desire to be an elder”? How am I confirmed in my gifts in an internet church? How do I exercise them?

The internet may present a wonderful way for me to connect with the larger Church, but it can’t—and shouldn’t—replace connection with a local church community. My fear is that like the drive-in church, internet campuses have that potential to make half-formed Christians who believe one of the highest values is convenience, not service—what I can get, not what I can give.

In a world struggling to retain its humanity while being drowned in technology, and in a culture fighting to remain deeply connected to a few while filtering through thousands of Facebook “friends,” the Church can and should be a counter-culture. We should use technology, but we must not let it shape (or misshape) us.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 31, 2009 | Comments (24) | TrackBack

August 28, 2009

Scot McKnight: Self in a Castle

by Scot McKnight

Leszek Kolakowski, a Polish philosopher who weakened Marxism’s grip on Eastern Europe, recently died. Few, I suspect, knew who he was. I consider myself fortunate to have read some of Kolakowski, one book being his scintillating sketch of the history of ideas by probing the central idea of twenty-three thinkers. That book is called Why is there Something Rather than Nothing? My own reading of it impressed me again with the connection of philosophers with their world. From Socrates to Kierkegaard, philosophers are products of their day.

So are we. Which raises the profound problem of blinders when it comes to perceiving what is influencing us, and which raises the other profound problem of needing to understand our cultural blinders in order to break through them with the light of the gospel. Kolakowski’s chapters are short, and everything short when it comes to the history of ideas risks simplicities that mask nuance. I risk the same in what I am about to suggest: the current generation emerges out of a toxic combination of modernity and postmodernity.

In another context (the summer issue of Leadership Journal) I called the toxicity of the current generation a “self in a castle.” Modernity’s singular contribution to the history of ideas is individualism. David Bentley Hart gets this exactly right in his new rant against the flimsy ideas in new atheism when he writes:

“We live in an age whose chief value has been determined, by overwhelming consensus, to be the inviolable liberty of personal volition, the right to decide for ourselves what we shall believe, want, need, own, or serve” (Atheist Delusions, 21-22).

That is, “it is choice itself, and not what we choose, that is the first good.” Personal freedom, which both Kolakowski and Hart understand far more profoundly than most, has become getting to do whatever I want, when I want, and how I want – and government’s job is to make sure it happens now. That’s, of course, an exaggeration, but it’s the exaggeration that is causing our problem in gospel work today.

Perhaps the most important words in Hart’s lines above are “by overwhelming consensus.” The consensus is so overwhelming that the emerging generation – each of us – believes we can form our own religion. A religion of our own making, however, never leads to transcendence or worship of God or anything like the ancient Hebrews’ “fear of God.” Instead, we tinker on the edge of holiness with the notion of experiencing The Beyond.

How feeble of a god is that? When “The Beyond” evokes mystery or suggests to our minds that we are on the edge of something important, then we need to look into abyss of where we are headed.

If modernity gave our culture a sense of individualism that has been ratcheted up beyond what either Bible or philosophers would ever recognize, postmodernity tells us that individual choice itself is relative. I don’t believe we should dismiss postmodernity with the derisive, and far too often unthinking, label of “moral relativism,” but there is within postmodernity’s deepest impulses the belief that universal truth and all-encompassing metanarratives can’t be had. We are too finite and when folks believe they’ve found the magical metanarrative for all, they abuse power and turn violent.

Well, yes, there’s some truth to that, but that’s the whole problem with postmodernity. Genuine insights become, paradoxically enough, all-encompassing metanarratives against all metanarratives. This tendency is one of postmodernity’s addictions.

So, here we are. Staring at a unique cultural product: humans turned inward investing sanctity in the Self. We have constructed a postmodern castle wall around that Self believing it is so sacred that no one may violate your choice – you determine what to believe and what is right and wrong. The Self is protected by the Wall of Individual Relative Choice.

The tragedy of the “self in a castle” is that we are blind to it – blind to see it in ourselves every time we choose to think we are the most progressive and wisest of all generations, every time we fool ourselves into thinking we have achieved levels of love that we call tolerance, which is a vapid imitation of what genuine love is, and every time we think our moral struggles rival the profound struggles of an Athanasius or an Augustine, a Luther or a Calvin, a Bonhoeffer or a Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Self is so large because our walls are so high, blinding us from seeing the Morning Light. That Light is the Light of All Light.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 28, 2009 | Comments (6) | TrackBack

August 27, 2009

Join Us at Catalyst in Atlanta

This year's Catalyst Conference (October 7-9) will include a lab track hosted by Skye Jethani, Leadership's managing editor, featuring Nancy Ortberg, Mark Batterson, Reggie McNeal, and Scott Belsky. He will also host the evening “unplugged” lab session with Matt Chandler on Wednesday night.

Some of Out of Ur's other favorite voices will be there as well:

Margaret Feinberg
Dave Gibbons
Shane Hipps
Anne Jackson
Ed Stetzer
Alan Hirsch
and many more...

Learn more at CatalystConference.com, and sign-up soon. Today is the deadline for early registration and your last chance to get the best rates.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 27, 2009 | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 26, 2009

There Is NO Virtual Church (Part 1)

by Bob Hyatt

In the early 1950s when Robert Schuller and others across the nation combined a growing car culture with “Church,” they believed they were reaching a segment of the population traditional church wouldn’t or couldn’t. “Drive-In Church” allowed parishioners to hear a sermon, sing some songs, even receive communion and give—all without the fuss and muss of face-to-face interaction. Except for a through-the-window handshake from the pastor as they rolled away.

And while they may have been able to point to a number of folks who “attended” that otherwise might not have, the question of what was being formed in these car congregations through limited interaction, a completely passive experience, and a consumer-oriented “Come as you want/Have it your way” message, meant that (thankfully) after a brief period of vogue, “Drive-In Church” has remained a niche curiosity.

The problem with the drive-in church model isn’t that it isn’t church—it’s that it is just “church” enough to be dangerous. What this almost-church does is park people in a cul-de-sac where they have access to the easiest and most instantly satisfying parts of church while exempting them from the harder and more demanding parts of community.

And while I’m glad such an absurdity has remained on the fringe, as I watch the discussion about “internet campuses” I can’t shake a certain feeling of deja vu.

Following close on the heels of the video venue push is that of the internet campus: real-time streaming of a church service, but with the added features of “live interactive features like lobby chat room, message notes, communication card, raise a hand, say a prayer, and even online giving.” At least 35 churches in America are doing internet campuses, with more jumping on board all the time (http://digital.leadnet.org/2007/10/churches-with-a.html). By one estimate, 10 percent of Americans will rely solely on the internet for their “religious experience” as early as 2010.”(http://www.denverpost.com/technology/ci_7228105)

Is this a problem? Something we should be concerned about or resist? Absolutely. Because it’s malforming for those involved (whether they know it or not) and because it’s sub-biblical.

The problem, in my mind, with virtual community and internet campuses isn’t that it’s not church... it’s that it is just church enough to be dangerous. Because it has all the easiest and most instantly gratifying parts of community without the harder parts, it ends up misshaping us.

In an internet campus, for example, I never need to listen to so-and-so tell me about their hard week (again). I see no needs around me and so feel zero compulsion to move to meet them. And that’s the problem. The lack of all of that forms me in a good way.

Stay tuned for part 2 of Bob Hyatt's post.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 26, 2009 | Comments (26) | TrackBack

August 24, 2009

The X Factor

by Collin Hansen

This article is from the Summer 2009 issue of Leadership Journal. You can read the entire article at Leadership's website.

When the willows sway in South Barrington, the evangelical world notices. So Willow Creek Community Church provoked headlines in 2006 when leaders said they would end Axis as everyone knew it. As recently as 2001, about 2,000 young adults had gathered on Saturday nights for alternative music and relevant teaching. But before temporarily closing in 2006, Axis attracted fewer than 400 twenty-somethings. How could a trend-setting ministry decline so severely in just five years?

Due in no small part to Willow's example, ministry leaders across the country once viewed separate, age-targeted services as the key to reaching a generation largely absent from the churches built by their Boomer parents. Little more than 10 years after Willow launched Axis in 1996, many of these once-prosperous twenty-something ministries have folded, spun off, or morphed. Leaders from these ministries have learned differing lessons from the experiment. Some are now advocating new messages for reaching the emerging generation. Others have changed their ministry's structure. Still more want better biblical preaching and radical discipleship. All have been provoked to think deeply about the nature and implications of the gospel and have seen their ministries leave lasting effects on the larger church.

Costly conformity

Only one thing surprised Dan Kimball about the Axis reorganization: it took 10 years. Kimball, who teaches and oversees the Sunday gatherings for Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, has tracked many young adult ministries over the years. He estimates that 90 percent of worship services targeting a younger generation run into serious trouble after three years. One factor is the way these age-specific ministries isolate young people from the rest of the church.

He talked to Axis leaders, including Nancy Ortberg, for his 2004 book Emerging Worship. Ortberg told him that the Axis staff interacted little with other Willow Creek leaders. As Axis participants aged, few connected with other Willow Creek ministries. Trouble was brewing. Kimball questioned whether a ministry based on generational preferences could long survive.

"If we are talking about a mindset, then to make someone switch to another approach to spiritual formation and worship when they reach a certain age is a difficult undertaking," Kimball wrote in Emerging Worship. "It would be like birthing a Korean worship service that uses Korean language, Korean music, and a Korean mindset in all their communications, and then—when they reach a certain age—telling them they can't worship as Koreans anymore."

Kimball learned this lesson the hard way. In the mid-1990s he served as the young adults pastor at Santa Cruz Bible Church where he began experimenting with a new worship gathering. He darkened the room, arranged the chairs, lit candles, and served coffee. While these moves seem cliché today, they were radical for the time. Within a few years, Kimball's experiment had become the church's largest worship gathering. Then the questions started. When will the twenty-somethings start coming to "normal" church?

"So what began as a very exciting missional adventure slowly turned into a tension-filled dilemma. It felt like two churches in the same church," Kimball said.

Church leaders opted to introduce commonality across generations. The two groups shared a small group structure, music ministry, and even sermons. The strategy didn't work. Though he started with candles and coffee, Kimball had begun to realize that his generation thought about community, evangelism, leadership, and communication very differently than the older leaders. The relationship had to change, so he decided to end the next generation ministry at Santa Cruz Bible and plant a new church. For the first year, Vintage Faith Church rented space from Santa Cruz Bible Church. Later it merged with another aging congregation. They had facilities; Vintage Faith had people. Those from the older church who persevered through the merger have become grandparent-like figures to the twenty-somethings at Vintage Faith.

"I feel that if we can see church as the people, and not just define church by the worship gathering, a lot would be solved in bridging generations," Kimball said. "We could focus more on the older mentoring the younger, the older opening their homes and being sages and guides to the younger. Instead we focus so much on getting the twenty-somethings into the main worship gathering. But just sitting in a room for an hour and half looking at the backs of everyone's heads does not make something intergenerational."

Conspicuously absent

Not even Kimball knows the exact origin of twenty-something ministries. As more young adults delayed marriage and parenthood, there developed a need for adult ministries that were not family-based. The simplest solution was to follow the model of high school and college ministries. The result was age-specific programs that functioned like youth groups for young adults.

This approach appeared to be working until "Gen X" became a catchphrase in the 1990s and Boomer church leaders noticed their conspicuous absence.

Continue reading "The X Factor" at LeadershipJournal.net.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 24, 2009 | Comments (15) | TrackBack

August 20, 2009

Ur Video: Ministry Pornography

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 20, 2009 | Comments (12) | TrackBack

August 19, 2009

Skye Jethani: Generation of Sarcasm

by Skye Jethani

A poll conducted by Time has revealed that The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart is the most trusted news anchor in America. He beat Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, and Katie Couric. Walter Cronkite, having just entered his grave, must already be turning over in it. Stewart won with 44 percent of the vote. Brian Williams came in a distant second with 29 percent. See the results here.

Like many others of my generation, I enjoy The Daily Show. I find Jon Stewart to be intelligent and his irreverence is often refreshing, if occasionally too snarky or foul for my palate. Still, I wonder what it says about my generation when we vote someone like Stewart to be the most trusted voice in American news—especially when The Daily Show makes no claim of being a reputable journalistic enterprise.

When Stewart appeared on CNN’s Crossfire in 2004, an argument ensued with Tucker Carlson about The Daily Show’s lack of journalistic rigor. Stewart responded, “I didn’t realize that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their queues on integrity…. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls. What is wrong with you?”

Indeed—what is wrong with us?

The popularity of The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and The Onion reveals a core value of my generation. We thrive on sarcasm. It is our native tongue. Listen to a group of under 40s engaging in casual conversation. It’s nearly impossible for 30 seconds to elapse without a quip, a dig, or a dose of eye-rolling hyperbole. We especially like to cut down authorities—as Jon Stewart has perfected with his witty jabs at the mainstream news media and government leaders.

Sarcasm and irreverence are so popular that government officials clamor to get on The Daily Show to be mocked. They think they’ll be perceived as “good sports” for playing along, and somehow win the elusive support of sarcasm-soaked 18-35 year olds. (Silly politicians, has Rudy Giuliani’s SNL appearance in drag taught you nothing?) But they’re not alone. I have no quantifiable evidence, but my perception has been that more sarcasm is creeping into the church. I experience it more often at ministry conferences, in conversations with other church leaders, and without question on blogs. (Uh hum, are you listening, Url?)

My concern is not political integrity, the erosion of journalism in favor of amusement, or even ministry. My question is spiritual. Where does this deep reservoir of sarcasm come from? Why does it mark my generation the way a strong work ethic once marked the Greatest Generation or the way free-thinking branded the Boomers?

Phil Vischer, the creator of VeggieTales, gave a speech at Yale back in 2005 in which he unpacked the media values of our generation—the slow descent from our parents’ “dry, cocktail party wit of Johnny Carson,” to the “sarcasm and twisted humor” of David Letterman, and the emergence of the bottom-feeder humor that is “Beavis & Butthead” and “South Park.” In these shows, Vischer says, “we had found our voice. We were safe from the world, as long as everything was treated as a joke.” He continues:

Some folks believe Vietnam was the source of America’s modern cynicism. Others point to Watergate. But for me and for many others in my generation, the real root, I think, is much closer to home and much more personal. When we were very young, our parents broke their promises. Their promises to each other, and their promises to us. And millions of American kids in a very short period of time learned that the world isn’t a safe place; that there isn’t anyone who won’t let you down; that their hearts were much too fragile to leave exposed. And sarcasm, as CS Lewis put it, “builds up around a man the finest armor-plating… that I know.”

I agree with Vischer. I think the sarcasm of my generation is rooted in anger and fear. It is a socially acceptable defense mechanism; a way to vent the mountain of anger and fear we feel in a dangerous world where even the structures God has ordained for our safety (family, church, government) have failed to keep their promises.

We are the first generation born after the passage of no-fault-divorce. We are the product of broken homes.

We are the first generation born after Vietnam and Watergate. We are the product of a broken government.

We are the first generation born in the age of Consumer Christianity. We are the product of broken churches.

With no where to turn for safety, our fears ferment under the surface into anger. But this toxic brew cannot stay there. It must find a release. Some of us find very destructive ways to alleviate that pressure. The rest of us let it out by mocking things previous generations took seriously—government, work, family, relationships, leaders, and the future. We are a generation that believes nothing is sacred. And if nothing is sacred, everything becomes profane.

I’ve been much more aware of my own sarcasm lately. I’ve tried to keep it under control—especially in my preaching. (Have you noticed the way sarcasm laces even the sermons of our generation?) And I’m trying to be more reflective about where it’s coming from. Is it merely casual banter, or is there an angry truth, a hidden fear, behind that one-liner?

I don’t want to be a killjoy. I don’t believe all sarcasm is bad, and we even see biblical prophets and apostles using the rhetorical device from time to time. But given the latent anger and fear in our culture, is more sarcasm really helpful in the church? Or should we be doing more to unearth the fears and angers of our generation so that sarcasm might be pulled from our souls roots and all?

A few months ago I had the opportunity to interview Matt Chandler for a piece in the current issue of Leadership. He said something about spiritual growth that I won’t soon forget:

“We want our people to think beyond simply what’s right and wrong. We want them to fill their lives with the things that stir affections for Jesus Christ and, as best as they can, to walk away from things that rob those affections—even when they’re not immoral.”

A heavy diet of sarcasm, whether on television, the web, or even in church, may be what this generation is clamoring for, and it's not immoral, but it may also be robbing our affections for Christ. Rather then emulating the popularity of Jon Stewart, as leaders of the church let’s take up our spiritual calling to guide souls toward love rather than just levity.

As preachers of the Word, let’s put aside our impulse to be entertainers and heed our calling to nurture minds that dwell on “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, and whatever is commendable.”

As shepherds of God’s flock, let’s lead the effort to drain the stagnant reservoir of fear and anger that is polluting our generation by starting with the swamp in our own souls. And let’s pray for Living Waters to flow in the church once again.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 19, 2009 | Comments (26) | TrackBack

August 17, 2009

Internet Campuses: A Blessing or Bogus?

Earlier this month Frank Viola confronted the growing trend of “post-church Christianity,” with a biblically-rooted argument that a gathering of two or three close friends is not “church” and therefore cannot be a substitute. We’re eager to continue the debate about what constitutes a legitimate church, and we found a worthy follow-up in the new book, A Multi-Site Road Trip by Geoff Surratt, Greg Ligon, and Warren Bird.

In a chapter titled, "Internet Campuses—Virtual or Real Reality?," the authors profile the web congregation started by Troy Gramling of Flamingo Road Church in Cooper City, Florida. The follow excerpt is intended to answer the critics of internet churches. It also includes an extended rebuttal by Mark Driscoll who does not believe in the legitimacy of web-based church. (On a side note, Driscoll’s church issued a press release today announcing the release of a Mars Hill iPhone app which allows users to listen to sermons, watch sermon videos, receive church news updates, and even give donations toward the church’s mission.)

In a bricks-and-mortar church, leaders can limit distractions and use a variety of tools to create experiences to connect people emotionally to the music and message. With an online church, that is much harder to do. The people attending your church online might be doing a million different things in the background while the service is in progress. Or they might be in an environment filled with distractions. The growth edge for internet campuses is their need to move their attenders to full engagement. Perhaps the most challenging part of the internet campus idea is the reality that when people aren’t physically in the room, as they are in a church sanctuary, you can’t control the environment.

Some of you may still be skep¬tical (as I was before I experienced church online). The question asked most often is, “How do you know that disciples of Jesus Christ are actually being made?” When I asked Troy, he brought me back to his definition of church as a process of taking one step after another along the faith journey. As a church, Flamingo Road measures growth and discipleship through steps taken. Baptism is a discipleship step. Financial giving is a discipleship step. Serving is a discipleship step. Inviting friends to church and talking to them about Christ are also discipleship steps. Many of these discipleship steps are no different than the steps used to gauge growth at a church with a physical campus. In some cases they are even measured or tracked in the same way.

Troy sees the use of internet campuses as an outpouring of his pastoral heart. He views them as a tool to reach and disciple people all over the world. “Now it’s hard for me to say I don’t care about what happens in Oklahoma or Idaho or England or Peru,” he says, “when I have the technology in my hands that can help me reach people in those neighborhoods.”

Not everyone is quite as comfortable with the online approach to church. Mark Driscoll is the pastor of Mars Hill Church, which went multi-site in 1996 and currently has seven campuses in the Greater Seattle area. He objects to the idea of internet campuses, based on the definition of a local church found in Acts 2:42 – 47. Mark sees eight characteristics of a local church:

(1) regenerated church membership,

(2) qualified leadership,

(3) preaching and worship,

(4) rightly administered sacraments,

(5) unity through the Holy Spirit,

(6) holiness,

(7) the Great Commandment to love, and

(8) the Great Commission to evangelize and make disciples.

“I believe technology is in no way a substitute for life-on-life, face-to-face, actual Christian community where the eight characteristics of the church are present,” he says.
Even though he opposes the idea of the virtual church, Mark is certainly not opposed to the use of technology for ministry purposes. In 2007 Mars Hill Church was named the second most innovative church in America by Outreach magazine. In fact, Mark is very committed to the use of technology in ways that enhance and support actual, face-to-face community.

“At best, we might call an internet campus a ministry of a church, but to call it a church is without theological merit,” he concludes. He acknowledges that there are certainly some people who cannot participate in regular church gatherings for valid health reasons, such those who are hospitalized or the elderly. But he emphasizes as the norm Hebrews 10:24 – 25, which says, “Let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another.” Mark is concerned that the American consumer mentality will lead people who are otherwise able to attend in-person church services to justify exempting themselves from the full experience of what God intends church life and church discipline to be.

Mark has also gone on record against the practice of counting online audiences as part of a church’s regular attendance. He adds humorously, “That’s as disingenuous as me counting the roughly ten million downloads of my sermons via the internet every year as my church and declaring myself the pastor of the largest church in the history of the world!”

Taken from A Multi-Site Church Roadtrip by Geoff Surratt, Greg Ligon, and Warren Bird. Copyright © 2009 by Geoff Surratt, Greg Ligon, and Warren Bird. Used by permission of Zondervan.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 17, 2009 | Comments (24) | TrackBack

August 14, 2009

Out of Context: Kara Powell

From "Is the Era of Age Segregation Over?" an interview with Kara Powell in the current issue of Leadership.

"[The church] realized in the 1940s that we were not offering teens enough focused attention. So what did we do? We started offering them too much. All of a sudden churches had adult pastors and youth pastors, adult worship teams and youth worship teams, adult mission trips and youth mission trips. And there's a place for that. But we've ended up segregating--and I use that word intentionally--our kids from the rest of the church. Now we tend to think that we can outsource the care of our kids to designated experts, the youth and children's workers.... I think the future of youth ministry is intergenerational."

Kara Powell is the executive director of the Fuller Youth Institute at Fuller Theological Seminary and a former youth pastor. To read the rest of her interview in context, pick up the Summer 09 issue of Leadership journal or subscribe by clicking on the cover in the left column.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 14, 2009 | Comments (13) | TrackBack

August 12, 2009

The Pastor's Front Row Seat

By Bob Hyatt

"Don't just pretend to love others. Really love them … Be happy with those who are happy, and weep with those who weep." Romans 12

There was a point in my life when I hated weddings. I'd do anything I could to get out of going. I'd leave early. But now, when I think about all the celebrating I missed …

I think the main problem was that I wasn't married myself—and I hated just about any and every reminder of that fact.

Ditto things like dealing with hard issues in people's lives, confrontation, or even other people's sickness. Nothing in my life had ever exposed me to—much less equipped me for—much of that at all. So, of course, it was good to go into a vocation like ministry where I would deal with all of those things on a regular basis.

While I always hated going to weddings, I've found doing weddings another thing entirely. As I drove home from a wedding the other day, I realized just how much I enjoy this role I get to play in people's lives.

In fact, I think I've always enjoyed doing weddings—well, except maybe that first one. The "pressure to enjoyment" ratio was way out of whack on that one. Good thing it only lasted about 10 minutes. On this last one, I think I finally crossed the 90 percent ratio in terms of pressure to enjoyment. Now it's almost pure pleasure. I know what I'm doing. I feel like I have something to offer. And most of all, I can relax and enjoy my front row seat.

As a pastor, I get to see things that most people don't. I regularly stand two feet from men and women as they pledge their lives and their love to one another, tears streaming down their faces. I stand there at one of the most significant moments of their lives, helping to create it. And I'm literally the only person in the room who can see the faces of the bride and the groom and all their family and friends at once. It's amazing. The supreme pressure I used to feel to mess things up (after all, who wants to be that pastor who calls the bride by the wrong name or accidently skips the vows) has now given way to just feeling honored at being invited so close to something so intimate.

That's how I've come to feel about dealing with some of the harder stuff, too. I still don't relish the hard issues—the confrontations or the hospital visits and the sickness. And I can't imagine anything I'm looking forward to less than the first Evergreen funeral.

But I know that if I fight involvement in those things internally, I will "mess it up." I'll be less present than I need to be. I'll look for easy ways out. I'll do my "job" and move on—and that, frankly, is a very poor way to approach something as sacred as the entre' into the hardest parts of people's lives.

Better to lean in, to feel honored to sit with someone in their sickness, their moment of grief. To feel the weight of being trusted by God to be present at the birth of the piece of someone's character that is forged in grief or confrontation and (hopefully) resolution. To feel privileged to have a front row seat in the marriages, the arguments, and the strife as well as the forgiveness, the growth, and the healing that God works in those situations.

At least at this point in my life, I can't imagine doing anything else. But the challenge is to root this role not in my position as pastor, but rather in my love for others as a Christ follower. And in doing so, I realize the front row has plenty of seats in it. Whether or not you are in "ministry," you can have a front row seat to what God is doing in others people's lives, if you will simply choose to be present. If you will just be the kind of person who grieves with the grieving and celebrates with the joyful, who shows up for other people with alarming regularity, who checks in, hangs out, lifts up.

Sounds like hard work. It is. It's also a big part of what it means to "love one another."

Bob Hyatt is pastor of the Evergreen Community in Portland, Oregon, and a regular contributor to Out of Ur.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 12, 2009 | Comments (3) | TrackBack

August 11, 2009

Ur Video: Chris Seay on Consumerism

Chris Seay is one of the featured speakers at the Story conference in October. Learn more and register for the event at www.storychicago.com.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 11, 2009 | Comments (3) | TrackBack

August 10, 2009

What is Consumer Christianity?

Skye Jethani's new book The Divine Commodity explores how consumerism has impacted our understanding of church, worship, mission, community, and God. He also offers insights into how we can overcome the influence of "Consumer Christianity" and awaken our imaginations through practicing private and corporate spiritual disciplines.

In keeping with that theme, Out of Ur is sponsoring a contest to see whether Urbanites can spot Consumer Christianity when they see it. Here's how it works:

1. Write a working definition of "Consumer Christianity" in 100 words or less AND/OR send a photograph that captures the essence of Consumer Christianity. (Extra points will be awarded for entries Url Scaramanga finds original, funny, or so insightful it makes him stop and say, "Hmmm".)

2. Email your definition/photo to Url at: Url@christianitytoday.com.

3. Include your name and mailing address.

4. The best entries will be posted on Out of Ur and Url will select 50 winners to receive free copies of The Divine Commodity.

Here are examples of what we mean:

DEFINITION
Consumer Christianity: A divergent form of the Christian faith followed by many in Western culture easily identified by large quantities of Jesus-branded merchandise but lacking Jesus' character, self-sacrifice, or prophetic voice.

PHOTO

Learn more about The Divine Commodity here, or read a preview below.

The Divine Commodity Sample

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 10, 2009 | Comments (16) | TrackBack

August 7, 2009

Bill Hybels on "Leading in the New Reality"

by Kevin Miller

Opening illustration: Ship captains will sail if waves are 3 feet, 6 feet, or even 9 feet high; but what they fear are rogue waves--the unexpected high wave.

All of us in organizational leadership this past 8 months have been hit by economic turmoil and difficulty and ferocious conditions. Yet for seasoned leaders, such conditions are perfect for leadership to emerge. They force new levels of courage and creativity. The Holy Spirit whispers, "This is why I gave you a leadership gift. You were born for this." These times create great memories and strongest bonds with our team members. A "rogue wave" draws something out of us.

1. Philosophical Lessons. In one week last fall, the stock market lost almost 20% of its value--the single biggest drop in one week since the Great Depression. Many church members at Willow Creek lost their jobs. Calls began coming to the church, asking for help with groceries. A business guy called, who normally gives $200,000 to $300,000 to the church each year. He said, "Bill, I'm not going to be able to give anything. I not only lost my job and my investments, I think I'm going to lose my house."

I put our teaching series on hold and chose to speak into this crisis and tell our people what we would do as a church. We decided we must be an Acts 2 church, where people sold possessions to help those in need. I asked people in difficult financial circumstances to allow others to humble themselves and help them--and we expanded our efforts in our ministries providing financial assistance. I asked those who were not in financial difficulty to step up their serving, praying, and giving. One man came to me the next week and gave a check with many zeroes in it. There is nothing like the local church, when the local church is working right.

We've sensed that people coming into services are coming in with abnormal levels of anxiety. So we modified our weekend services: (a) we're starting 5-7 minutes before the beginning, creatively preparing people's minds and hearts before the service; (b) we're blurring the ending of the services, and invite people to stay and listen to the vocal team "sing over them" for up to 30 minutes, or come for prayer with leaders; (c) and having "serious church" in the middle, insisting that every element of the service be focused and anointed. People tell us these changes are helping them grow closer to Christ.

2. Financial Lessons. During a downturn, we're forced to walk more by faith than by sight. In the downturn, revenues go down and the needs for revenue go up. Financial planning becomes more like guesswork.

In times like this, cash gives you time to make adjustments. Yet many churches and NGOs have no cash reserves and no philosophy for long-term reserves. (At Willow, we try to have 25% of our annual giving in long-term reserves.)

When we set priorities, we ask, "If our revenue were to drop 50%--we plan for a worst-case scenario--which ministries would we stop doing first?" We put those in Bucket C. For a 75% drop, we put those in Bucket B. Then we ask, "What would we never stop doing?" And those go in Bucket A. How clarifying that is.

The Golden Rules of staff reductions: give months of notice, clearly explain the causes, and be generous with severances and services.

Finally, this is an ideal time to explain kingdom principles of giving. People will give generously to a kingdom vision. For example, we challenged people to restock the food pantry for the entire year, and they exceeded that goal. We challenged our congregation to go on a subsistence diet for 5 days and give the money saved to alleviate global poverty and AIDS, and people gave 300% of what we expected.

3. Relational Lessons. I want to see God do great works in our day--to heal marriages, to put an end to violence, war, sex trafficking, and more. How has God gotten great things done throughout history? He usually works through people who are totally surrendered to Him. Are we attracting and hiring people like that, and are we mentoring and developing them? And are we having honest conversations with people on our staff who are not fully yielded?

We read Jim Collins's latest book, How the Mighty Have Fallen, and we discussed 4 questions from it: How many key seats are in your organization? And how many of those seats are filled with the right people--fully devoted ones (we estimated 85% in our case)? What is our plan for filling those seats with the right people? Are we developing backup people for each of the key seats, in case someone leaves?

4. Personal Lessons. A few months ago, at a board meeting, I asked a business person "How was your day?" He said, "I'm still doing my normal 50-hour-per-week job, but because of the recession, I'm in many extra meetings every day. It's like having another full-time job. I don't see this letting up any time soon." I felt prompted by the Spirit to say, "I'm a little worried for you." He said, "I'm a little worried for me, too." After the meeting, the Spirit whispered to me, "Bill, I'm a little worried about you." I had been doing much the same as this other leader. I realized my life is unsustainable. I began to journal about it and talk with other leaders.

One night, my 2 children said they were worried about me. Twenty years ago, I was so depleted, I almost left ministry altogether; I didn't then have an adequate replenishment strategy in place, and I wrote then, "The pace at which I'm doing the work of God is destroying God's work in me." I had done okay since then, but now I was falling back into a depleted condition.

I started playing with a picture in my mind: a big "replenishment" bucket. Romans 8:6 says that being in sync with the Holy Spirit leads to life and peace. That fills my bucket. When my replenishment bucket is depleted, people around me suffer.

The economic difficulties have caused many leaders to become depleted. We have to do self-leadership and re-invent adequate replenishment strategies for the new reality. I have a "planned negligence" strategy: I must say no more, extract myself more. I have to decide afresh whom to be with more, because they fill me. I spend more time with my grandson.

I've changed how I start my day. I have almost always been in at 6 or 6:15 in the morning. But in my office, I was almost powerless not to do the work that was waiting for me. Now I stay at home longer in the morning and pray and read God's Word and do sermon preparation.

When you're in "rogue wave" situations, the best thing you bring to the table every single day is a filled-up bucket and a heart that's right with God and a heart that's filled with optimism. Then everyone around you benefits. They sense in you a rock-solid confidence in God.

For a complete rundown of yesterday's events, visit our sister site BuildingChurchLeaders.com.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 7, 2009 | Comments (8) | TrackBack

August 3, 2009

Frank Viola on Postchurch: Part 2

by Frank Viola

In my first post, I argued that the primary text used to support the postchurch viewpoint is not about the nature of the church at all. Instead, it's about the process of excommunication. Now I have more evidence against the postchurch viewpoint. In my mind, it fails to pass six important tests.

The Original Language Test
New Testament scholarship agrees that the word ekklesia (translated "church") meant a local community of people who assemble together regularly. The word was used for the Greek assembly whereby those in a city were "called forth" from their homes to meet (assemble) in the town forum to make decisions for the city. The Christian ekklesia is a community of people who gather together and possess a shared life in Christ.

As such, the ekklesia as used in New Testament literature is visible, touchable, locatable, and tangible. You can visit it. You can observe it. And you can live in it. Biblically speaking, you could not call anything an ekklesia unless it assembled regularly together.

The Epistle Test
Most of the New Testament's twenty-one epistles were written to local churches--ekklesias--in various cities. The apostle Paul wrote a letter to the church in Corinth, for instance. There was an actual, physical, locatable, visit-able body of believers that met together in the home of Gaius. He did the same for the church in Thessalonica, Colosae, Philippi, Laodicea, etc. (Col. 4:16).

Those who belong to a postchurch "church" should ask themselves, Can a person write a letter to my church? Can it be received by the church and read together by all of its members at the same time?

The Visitation Test
If you were living in the first century, you could literally visit any of the churches.

You could visit the church in Jerusalem in A.D. 35 and meet Peter, James, John and Mary, the mother of Jesus. You could visit the church in Corinth and sit in a living room in Gaius' home and talk with Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus. The house of Chloe could visit the church in Corinth and attend its meetings (1 Cor. 1:11). And on and on.

Question: If someone comes to your town, can they locate and visit your church? Can they meet the members and stay in their home for a week?

The Consistency Test
Three common critiques that postchurch advocates level against the institutional form of church are:

1) It breeds low commitment.
2) It feeds the consumerist, individualistic Christianity that plagues the Western church today.
3) It produces little transformation in the lives of the people who are part of it.

Ironically, these same three critiques can be appropriately leveled at the postchurch "church."
The postchurch breeds low commitment because there are no regular gatherings, nor any consistent community life. Talking to Christians on the Internent is virtual.

The postchurch view also reflects the consumerist, individualism that reflects our culture. There's no devotion or commitment to a regular community of believers. It's church on your own terms. Whenever you feel like it. The truth is, the postchurch "church" is actually more convenient and easier on the flesh than virtually every other form of church.

The "One Another" Test
Throughout the New Testament epistles, there are nearly sixty "one another" exhortations given to churches. All of them imply close-knit community. Here are a few:

live in harmony with one another (Rom. 12:16; 1 Peter 3:8)
care for one another (1 Cor. 12:25)
serve one another (Gal. 5:13)
bear one another's burdens (Gal. 6:2)
speak to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19)
submit to one another (Eph. 5:21)
forgive one another (Col. 3:13)
teach one another (Col. 3:16)

These "one another" imperatives assume ever-deepening relationships and community.

The Purpose of God Test
The New Testament makes abundantly clear that the eternal purpose of God is intensely corporate. God isn't after a group of individual living stones; He wants those stones to be "built together" to form a house for His full-dwelling and expression.

You are not the church. And neither am I. The church is the corporate expression of Christ that is expressed visibly in a locality, where human beings can see, touch, hear, and know one another and live a shared life together in the Lord.

Consider the analogy of a father who has seven children. One Christmas day, he gives each one a different instrument, which they eagerly learn to play. The years pass, and each loves playing their individual instruments. It's a joy to them.

Years pass by and one day the father sits down with all of his children and says, "I am so happy you have mastered your instruments. Each instrument was given to you as a free gift. But I didn't give you these instruments to enjoy by yourselves. I'm creating an orchestra that will produce music that this world has never heard. And I've invited you to be part of it. That is why I gave you these gifts."

So it is with our Lord. The gift of eternal life is not for ourselves. God wants an orchestra in every city. He wants a spiritual building, not a collection of individual living stones. He wants a corporate expression through which to reveal His glorious Son. And this requires the loss of our individualism and independence.

Conclusion
In my personal judgment, the postchurch view fails all six tests. The postchurch paradigm is rooted in the attempt to practice Christianity without belonging to an identifiable community that regularly meets for worship, prayer, fellowship, mutual edification, and mutual care.

Again, there's nothing wrong with fellowshipping with Christians on the Internet, over the phone, or meeting with friends at Starbucks. I personally love doing these things. But calling these activities "church" or substituting them for ekklesia is misguided.

So it seems to me anyway.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 3, 2009 | Comments (29) | TrackBack

Frank Viola on the Postchurch Perspective

by Frank Viola

There is a growing phenomenon in the body of Christ today. Alongside of the missional church movement, the emerging church movement, and the house church movement, there is a mode of thinking that I call "postchurch Christianity."

The postchurch brand of Christianity is built on the premise that institutional forms of church are ineffective, unbiblical, unworkable, and in some cases, dangerous. Institutionalization is not compatible with ekklesia. So say postchurch advocates.

But the postchurch view goes further saying, "any semblance of organization whatsoever . . . any semblance of leadership...is wrong and oppressive. Church is simply when two or three believers gather together in any format. Whenever this happens, church occurs."

Here are some examples of what you might hear a postchurch advocate say:

"Sally and I had coffee at Starbucks last week. That was church."

"I get together with two other men once a month at Sonny's BBQ. That's church for us."

"I travel a great deal and whenever I visit Christians in other cities, we're having church together."

"I live in Dallas, TX. Last week, I talked to my friend on the phone for an hour. He lives in Miami, FL. The week before I talked with a friend who lives in Portland, OR. We were having church on the phone. I belong to the same church that they do."

"I don't attend any Christian meetings. I have church on the Internet. I belong to several Christian discussion groups and social networks, and that's church for me."

"I don't understand how people can talk about church planting? How can a church be planted when we are already the church? I'm the church. You're the church. So just be the church."

To my mind, all of the above reflects a redefinition of ekklesia as it is found, used, and understood in the New Testament. No first-century Christian would have used "church" in this way. While there's certainly nothing wrong with fellowshipping with Christians at Starbucks, on the phone, or through the Internet, the biblical meaning of ekklesia is something quite different.

The biblical text that postchurch advocates hang a great deal of their doctrine on is Matthew 18: 20:"For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

But it's important to read this verse in context:

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." (Matthew 18:15-20)

Here, Jesus is speaking of a local ekklesia, a community of Christ-followers who live in the same locale. The people in this ekklesia know one another. And what this passage has in view is an excommunication meeting. Therefore, it's a horrifying text--a text that no Christian should ever want to use. It has to do with a person who is acting in a wayward manner and refuses to stop.

When this happens, the injured person must go to the offending person in private. If the offending person refuses to reconcile, two or three others from the local ekklesia must talk to him. If the offending person still refuses to stop his wayward conduct, he must be dis-fellowshipped from the ekklesia.

Note that Jesus says that the two or three should "tell it to the church" if the offending person doesn't repent. Now think: If the two or three people are the church, then this text becomes incoherent. Consequently, the two or three cannot be the church. They are simply a part of it. The implication is that the two or three who went to the unrepentant person should be praying for him. And the Lord will be with them in a special way as they do. He will stand with them.

This context indicates that the ekklesia is an organic entity where a group of committed believers in a locality "bind and loose," using the keys of the kingdom that Jesus has given to them. Consequently, Matthew 18 is not a text in which Jesus is trying to define the church for us. Rather it's a text describing the awful process of excommunication.

Because this is the primary passage the postchurch viewpoint is founded on, I'm of the opinion that the position cannot stand up against the light of the New Testament. I'll say more on that in my second post.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 3, 2009 | Comments (42) | TrackBack