How do you define success? It goes without saying that those committed to Jesus Christ and his purposes in the world ought to define success differently than other people. After all, Jesus himself refused his culture’s narrow view of success; in fact he regularly clashed with his own disciples about it. While they were excited by growing crowds and political power, Jesus reminded them that “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work” (John 4:34). Faithfulness to the Father led Jesus to defy the crowds and accept the cross.

A lot has been said about the danger of putting church growth and effectiveness ahead of all else. Gordon MacDonald calls this temptation missionalism and powerfully explains how younger pastors are drawn into it’s grip. But I’ve started to notice another lure emerging even among those of us who have rejected church growth and the “bigger is better” mantra. It is the danger of defining success by perpetuity.

Many in ministry have come to believe that if something lasts, if it continues even after we have stepped away, then it can be considered a success. A church plant that grows, finds a property, builds a facility, hires a staff, and still exists 20 years later is deemed a success. The same might be said of a network of "organic" churches. If it's still going years later then we've built something successful. In each case the ministry is not assessed by how faithful God’s people were or even by the fruit exhibited, but by its ability to continue.

But linking success to perpetuity bring two problems. First, it can make us deaf to God’s calling. We tend to assume that just because God has used a ministry or method in the past that he must desire for it to continue indefinitely. But this assumption means we may miss a new work that he has in store. Was this not exactly why the Pharisees could not embrace Jesus or his ministry as divine? He did not fit with their expectation. Their minds were so mired in the past that they could not imagine God doing something new.

In the last few weeks our conversation has focused on gender and relationship issues in the church. Bob Hyatt has talked about his church's journey toward opening leadership roles for women. And Mark Almlie wrote about the bias he sees against single pastors. (BTW, his blog post was picked up by the NY Times, talked about by the women on The View, Mark has spoken on the radio with the BBC, and now Mark is booked on the Joy Behar show.)

Now it's Mark Driscoll's turn. In this video with his wife, he lays out why he believes it is wrong for a husband to stay home with the kids while his wife brings in the paycheck. It may even be grounds for church discipline. Watch the video and then share your thoughts.

I described in a previous post how our church community shifted from a complementarian view of women in ministry to…well…something different. Of course we had to deal with 1 Timothy 2:11–12, which seems to bar women from leadership in the church altogether. Let me tell you how we understand that passage at Evergreen.

It’s necessary to place the passage within the larger context of 1 Timothy 2. It seems that the end of chapter 2 which states that “women will be saved through childbearing” was correcting a heresy in the early church. As it is translated in English—and without a cultural understanding of the times in which it was written—it sounds as if women are saved by means of having children. But Paul was, in fact, correcting some proto-Gnostic heretics that claimed women were the cause of humanity’s fall and that God was very, very displeased with them. To be saved, then, women needed to give up their sexuality and become more like what really pleases God, namely men. For example, the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (which is full of the very ideas Paul wanted to correct) says: 

Simon Peter said, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” (114).

These heretics were teaching that only by giving up intercourse and other “worldy” pleasures could women be saved. And if a woman had a child? Well, how evil to take part in sex and bring another person into this wicked world! (Clearly, this group didn’t last very long.)

Imagine what would happen if a massive popular movement of ordinary Americans decided to voice their concern about military spending – by withholding $10.40 from their 1040 tax forms this year? A simple, small, symbolic, but concrete gesture of protest to the $200,000 dollars a minute being spent on militarism while programs that support life go bankrupt.

A few months ago I gathered in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, with hundreds and hundreds of church leaders to ponder such a thing, and to launch a little project called 1040 For Peace. Many of the folks in attendance were from the Anabaptist “peace church” tradition of Christianity. Mennonites and Brethren, like the Amish, come from the Anabaptist movement, tracing back to the radical reformation of the 16th century. They, along with the Quakers, are known for their commitment to peace, a simple way of life, and for their suspicion of power. They also have a history of war-tax resistance.

Money has power. And so withholding money has power too, especially when a bunch of people do it together. If one percent of U.S. taxpayers held back $10.40 as an act of respectful protest, that’s nearly 1.5 million folks. Movements are like snowballs, they start small but get big pretty fast (as we can see by recent events in Wisconsin and Egypt). And movements grow even faster in an age of Facebook. That's why even the Mennonites are using the internet these days, albeit with a fair amount of caution.
As Christians, we have a particularly subversive example when it comes to economic imagination: Jesus himself.

Friend of Ur, Carlos Whittaker (@loswhit), has sparked a helpful conversation on his blog Raggamuffin Soul. Should worship leaders talk between songs, contribute to the teaching within the gathering, and tell stories to draw the congregation toward God? Or, should they stay out of the way and simply sing? Whittaker, a worship leader himself, has some thoughtful remarks on the question. Read his post here.

The comments have been particularly interesting with folks on both sides.
Andrew says:

More than happy for the Worship leader to talk between songs as long as its connected to the songs/service/message/theme of the service. Everything that’s said should point people towards God and not distract them from entering into His presence.

On the other side, Katie Ristow says:

So there’s gotta be some speaking instruction, but I’ll you my biggest pet peeve: when a worship leader talks before and after each song. Worship isn’t about the leader and what he or she is feeling, but about the worshiper and Jesus. When the worship leader talks too much, it can feel like they’re interrupting the conversation I’m having with Jesus.

Tonight I listened to Rob Bell’s interview with Lisa Miller of Newsweek discuss his new book Love Wins. Miller’s questions were pointed and focused, much like those which were asked by the crowd and online viewers, but Bell’s responses were rarely direct. Instead, he offered a series of philosophical reflections blended with stories that left thick ambiguity hanging in the air.

Some will defend the thick ambiguity as the style of Jesus, who often answered questions with questions, but most of the people I know watching tonight were aching for a solid answer and explanation of what Rob really believes and why he believes it—which is a fair desire considering that, at the end of the day, this is still a book promotion.

Do I agree or disagree with Rob? The answer is neither. I found the responses so vague and nebulous I’m not sure what Rob believes.

So without a pre-release copy, I can’t comment on the book, and find myself wishing a whole lot of other people would hold their tongue and keyboards, too. I’ve been embarrassed by the number of online snipers taking shots at Rob in the name of Christianity who haven’t even read the book yet. Where are wisdom, discretion, and self-control?

As I reflect on what I watched tonight the image I have in mind is one of a boy playing in a mud puddle in the middle of a storm. He’s got a wide smile and glimmer in his eye. He’s joyful and delightful. To be honest, watching him puts a smile on my face. And I wince at the mudballs that are being thrown in his face by kids passing by. I’ve felt the sting and nursed the welts myself and wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

Not everyone is throwing mudballs though. Others are diving in and building their own mud castles on the shores of the puddle. Still others and gathering and watching the events unfold.

Yet when I look up to the sky, I’m reminded that we’re in the middle of a storm.Lightning flashes. Thunder cracks. Flood waters rise. People are leaving the church and walking away from faith in droves. Maybe it’s not the best time to be stirring up the mud in puddles. Maybe it’s not the best time for ambiguity and murkiness.

I find myself wondering who will really win from Love Wins?

The images and stories emerging from Japan are terrible, and with the threat of nuclear meltdown still looming there may be more to come. But amid the rubble and mud, the church is offering a perspective of hope.

Message from two mission leaders reached us over the weekend. First these remarks from Dr. Michael Oh, president and founder of Christ Bible Seminary in Nagoya, Japan.

Over the years I've often described our mission in Japan as praying and preparing toward the day of opportunity in Japan. In the back of my mind I've often thought of the possibility of great suffering being a part of the opening of the heart of the great nation of Japan. A massive earthquake or a nuclear missile from North Korea topped the list of possible devastating ways the Lord might awaken that nation that I love. This, perhaps, could be one of the ways the Lord pierces the darkness of Japan with His light. Would you join us in praying toward that end for the largest unreached nation of the world?

I was raised and educated in church communities and traditions that held a complementarian view of women in ministry. So when I helped plant Evergreen, our community here in Portland, I did so with complementarian values. My original vision for our community included a male “elder” board that handled the “shepherding” and a co-ed “leadership team” that handled the details of administration and ministry.
But a funny thing happened: I changed. I went back to Scripture, prayerfully re-examined what it said and what that meant against the backdrop of the culture at the time, and I came to different conclusions.

My process started when I heard someone describe the thesis of William Webb’s book, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals. Webb argues that when we compare Scripture against the cultures in which it was written, it is always progressive on the issues of slavery and women—Scripture consistently challenges culture to raise the status of women and slaves. But more than that, there is movement even within Scripture, a progression from what Moses taught about women, for example, to what the New Testament teaches. This progression is pointed toward an ultimate ethic of freedom and equality (see Gal. 3:28). (By the way, Webb doesn’t see this progression on the issue of homosexuality.)

Webb’s thesis planted some real seeds of dissonance in me. I was having a harder and harder time arguing that many of those whom God had gifted to lead (i.e. women) should or could lead only certain kinds of people. Fast forward to 2004 when we planted Evergreen. I was still complementarian, but we were planting a church community designed to make sense to and be a home for the unchurched and the formerly churched. I soon discovered that the role of women in ministry is a huge issue not only for the people we had built our community for, but even for those we had built it with.

The new film The Rite is based on the experience of real life exorcist Father Gary Thomas, a Roman Catholic Priest. In this CNN report, a journalist sits down with Thomas to talk about the facts and fiction of exorcism. It includes research that indicates more Americans believe in angels and demons, and increasing numbers are attributing events to the devil. What does it all mean? Share your thoughts after watching the video.

The latest issue of our free digital magazine is now available. The March/April Catalyst Leadership focuses on "Conflict: When to to take charge, and when to take cover."

You'll hear from Ken Sande from Peacemakers about how to prepare your church before a conflict arises. Once in a conflict, find out how different leadership styles will manage the tensions in an article by Charles Stone. We've included the full interview with Matt Chandler about how brain cancer has changed his views on church leadership. And we've got videos from Andy Stanley, Mark Driscoll, and Malcolm Gladwell.

Check out the issue here.

Do you dare?

Lent begins on Ash Wednesday, March 9th. The purpose of lent is for prayer, penitence, almsgiving and self-denial. It could be a grueling 46 days. People ask me about the options for observing this season of the church calendar. Well, here’s a list that is a bit different. It’s a top ten hardcore ideas for Lent 2011.

1. Don't Lock Your Doors. Do we hide behind gated walls and doors too much? Do we need that much security? Maybe keeping open doors reminds us it’s not healthy to live alone. Be radically welcoming! Throw more parties with people you don’t know. (Btw, that’s what hospitality really means in the Holy Book- welcoming strangers.)

2. Don't Wear Makeup. This was inspired by someone close to me who loves her glow. This individual mentioned to me that not wearing makeup it helped her to focus on other aspects of beauty. Btw, if you’re wondering I do like make up. . . on other people.

We seem to be on a doctrine binge these days. First a run of discussions on the role of women in ministry, and now a conversation fueled by Rob Bell's new book about hell and universalism. Talking about damnation has certainly gotten folks stirred up. Some have been saying that by some standards, even C.S. Lewis could be branded a heretic because of his "locked from the inside" take on Hades. Does a view like Lewis', annihilationism, or an Eastern Orthodox take on hell automatically push someone outside of the evangelical fold? Is "heretic" a justifiable label for such teachers?

Just to keep the conversation going, here's an interesting video recently featured on The Huffington Post on how to refute popular Christian arguments based on John 14:6.